College Republican Federation of Virginia

Pingback from Tibet » Free Tibet? Campus Liberals are Ignoring China’s Abuses
Time: April 19, 2008, 10:33 pm

[…] College Republican Federation of Virginia wrote an interesting post today on Free Tibet? Campus Liberals are Ignoring China’s AbusesHere’s a quick excerptI recently put a free Tibet bumper sticker on my car…. […]

Comment from theowl
Time: April 20, 2008, 2:36 am

When human right is concerned, many questions have to be answered by many nations.
1)In the early days, so many red indians were killed or annihilated in the US. The slaves were liberated by Abraham Lincoln.
2) So had most of the Australian aborigines in Australia. Its prime minister had just tendered his apology.
3) The US manufactured and exported the most fire arm to all parts of the world. What were these weapons used? How many lives had lost resulting from using such fire arm, in US and the world? If there is peace throughout the world for a decade, will the loss of the huge revenue for arms sale cripple the US economy. Is this upholding human right?
4) How many lives were lost in the Vietnam war and the Iraq war? Who is responsible.
5) Which are the nations they had sent troops overseas to conquer and colonize others’ countries? Why they did so? Are these acts not against human rights?
6) So many people in the world are living on an annual income of below US dollar one thousand a year, while the rich nations have a per capital income of not less than US dollar 30 thousand a year. How much the rich nations have helped the poor? Is helping so many poor people less important than pouring money to support the free Tibet movement?

Is there any difference between democracy and hypocrisy?

Are the civilized nations respect human rights? The biggest problem is mankind are not given two more eyes that can help them look at themselves.

Stop the hypocrisy!!

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 20, 2008, 11:46 am

Theowl, your argument is just a red herring.

Your simplifications themselves are flawed, but instead of spending time responding to them as they do not pertain to the post, I will reiterate the real issue.

Regardless of whatever anyone else has done, China is a brutal dictatorship who denies their citizens basic human rights. Should the U.S. sit idly by when we can make easy steps to condemn them?

OR, if you’re more in depth into the issue: should we take a QUIET or a LOUD approach to diplomacy?

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 20, 2008, 1:23 pm

Quiet, definitely quiet. Loud diplomacy makes for great political theater and can help hardline leaders at home, but it rarely results in behavioral changes. China is no different, loud diplomacy won’t change the regime or its preferences. It may force them to stop abusing the Tibetans this time, but they will still continue to be a tyrannical, authoritarian state that prefers violence and repression. What is more likely is that the Chinese will view the Tibetans as an even greater threat b/c of their international support and increase their crackdown. It may seem paradoxical, but quietly pressing the Chinese is far better for Tibet than boycotts and public pressure. Human rights is an international norm, and if China is to accept international norms, it must view doing so as a positive rather than a negative thing. If the Chinese are ridiculed and attacked (rhetorically) every time they cross the line, they will simply withdraw from the international community rather than become a more involved member because they will see that community as hostile to their interests.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 20, 2008, 1:39 pm

I admitt that in china there is some problems of human right, of democracy, of freedom and so on, according to western philosophy. But even according to your criterian, there are no less problems in most western countries, most of all in america, less than the bloodest and brutalest western history.
But anyone who goes in China and read some impartial articles about China, can see that China has go much further in 30 years while the western countries have reached this in 300 years.
When talking about Tibet, I suggest you can read a little history of Tibet and go to Tibet to have a look. Tibet was united in China as one of her 56 nations in 14 century in Yuan dynasty and never seperated from then on even forced by british army in 19 century, who has invaded Tibet two times and killed many innocent tibeteans to occupy it. When the Republic of China regained control of Tibet, Dalai Lama has signed the contract with central government and accepted to be part of China. But the age of Dalai is the darkest age according to any human rights and democracy, because 95% tibeteans were slaves under theocracy of Dalai Lama. When Dalai and the so called nobles were forced to take reformation to free the slaves and give their land to them, they rebelled. This is a little story for you.
As for the tibet now, anyone who goes to Tibet, will feel that Tibet is already a modern new Tibet, and the tibeteans can elect their own leader to govern themselves, and they can also elect their represents to take part in the central government as very important leaders of whole China. As for religion, you can see there are more temples and more religious people than ever. As for education, any tibeteans have the right to accept education in tibetean language which they could never imagin in age of Dalai. In the age of Dalai, the population is about 120 million, now is 250 million. In the age of Dalai, a tibetean lived up 35 years, now 67.5. In the age of Dalai, a tibetean could be sold, killed, cut off legs, heads, put into prison according to the nobles and Dalai. Dalai himself had a great part of land in Lahasa, and more than 6000 slaves.
So if you want a free, democratic tibet which observe human rights, the tibet now is already such a country. But if you believe what your media say without reading any chinese or tibetean documents or going to tibet to visit her, surelly you will be cheated.
By the way, in China live 56 nations who are all chinese, not only Hanese. Even the name of Dalai Lama is not tibetean language, but Mongolian in Yuan dynasty.
Think about it, and don’t be cheated, and listen to your conscience.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 20, 2008, 1:54 pm

Another thing, you all said that the chinese government used army and violence to the tibeteans, and call it repression. I want to talk about two things:
1, You must hear it from your media without watching the original videos and documents. But if you would like, i suggest you have a look at it, for further information, you can go to http://www.dalai-liar.com/, or http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/index.php, where you can find the lies made by western media. But i can tell you that, there was no army but police in Lahasa, the the police had no guns in hand, and many innocent people were killed, burned, beated by the rioters supported by dalai Goverment in exile. Dalai gave the dead number is 140, but without evidence. He later gave a dead list, but the persons he named or doesn’t exisit, or are alive, or without any clue for the police to track.
2, If such a violence appeared, Paris, Los angles had taken much harder repression and used even tanks to repress the rioters, killed a lot of people and arrested thousands. But the way chinese government treated the so called “peaceful protesters” with knife, gasline killing, beating, burning, was too much moderate and civilized.
If you want a real China and tibet, welcome in 2008.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 20, 2008, 1:56 pm

Chinese, thanks for the history. Whether it is biased or not I am unsure, but I do know this:

1) when Tibetans rioted the Chinese government shot them

2) China outlawed an independent religious entity in Tibet, forcing those who want to worship underground

3) Chinese elections are about as free as Zimbabwe . . . whose dictator you are currently trying to keep in power by shipping him new arms

4) you need to take a 50,000 foot view of your own country and assess if you would prefer to have more freedom or the amount you currently possess

Archimedes, I have just one question. When the foreign press arrives in China should they or shouldn’t they report on China’s human rights abuses?

Pingback from College Republican Federation of Virginia
Time: April 20, 2008, 3:21 pm

[…] Federation of Virginia » News and Notes on Virginia’s CPAC on April 26thGrozet on Free Tibet? Campus Liberals are Ignoring China’s Abuseschinese on Free Tibet? Campus Liberals are Ignoring China’s Abuseschinese on Free Tibet? […]

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 20, 2008, 7:36 pm

Oh the press should report if they can. I was talking about what the US and other states should do. And I have a suspicion that we’ve attracted an official chinese response. We’re movin on up.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 21, 2008, 12:58 am

Archimedes, well you nailed it when you said, “the press should report if they can”.

In today’s WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002044.html?hpid=topnews) they recount that, “recently foreign journalists have been detained while reporting sensitive stories and escorted by police out”.

Thus, it will be difficult for the press to report on anything unless protests occur directly at one of the Olympic games (fingers crossed).

The article hits the major point of my argument. When the Olympic Committee awarded China the Olympics they did so under the condition that China would “be open in every aspect” . . . the IOC chair even commented in 2002 that this promise was the reason they awarded the Olympics to China.

This has obviously failed. Why did it fail?

T. Kumar of Amnesty International says this: “The IOC silence all these years is one of the reasons China felt no need to improve human rights in a meaningful way”.

So my argument rests on the idea that an NGO like the Olympic Committee needed to be forceful in making China accountable. They didn’t and in this case, the avenue of last resort, the media, has been unable to do their job.

If the United States government, the beacon of liberty in the world, does not take a public stand on the human rights situation in China, then the press will be unable to do their job when the Olympics start.

A QUIET stand is important, but a LOUD stand will be A) more persuasive and B) will give the press both a sense of protection and motivation to report on human rights issues.

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 21, 2008, 10:15 am

First off, Amnesty International and other such groups are delusional if they think the IOC was ever going to be able to coerce the Chines into anything other than a cursory charade on human rights. China is still a communist state in most ways and its leadership has a fundamentally different view of what human rights are than the extremists at Amnesty International. So of course the IOC is going to precondition their decision on China’s human rights stance, even when they know that it is going to be a complete charade.

Second, this charade is necessary, even if it is unpleasant. China is a rising world power, whether we like it or not, and the question is whether they are going to to respect international rules or reject them. An all-or-nothing approach doesn’t work because it sets the standard too high for states like China, who are still unconvinced that acting within international norms is in their interests. This means that we are going to have to pretend that their tentative steps are great leaps; that we are going to have to ignore their shortcomings and overemphasize their modest accomplishments. It is much like giving trophies to kids in Little League, you don’t do it because they won something worthwhile, but rather to encourage them to keep playing the game because ultimately, it’s good for them.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 21, 2008, 10:34 am

I should have expected your outburst over mentioning Amnesty International . . . but really, human rights is not a subjective term ever since the U.N. defined it.

I reject your first claim completely. China promised, IOC claimed it was an overriding factor in giving them the Olympics, IOC let China decide what to do with no oversight, China of course failed . . . you cannot guess the future if the IOC had pressed the issue (instead you heard on Drudge Report that athletes that talked about Tibet would be sent home [later rescinded]).

Your second point is just as frivolous. It rests on so many assumptions I am jumping between them to decide which is the most important to highlight here.

And the winner is: WHY do we need to coddle China to convince them to become a member of the international community? . . . and further why do we want them as part of this group [or stated alternatively, wouldn’t it be better if they just became another second rate country]?

The resounding question I ask you next is: when the USSR fell apart which countries had better success? The countries like Poland that tried Shock Therapy or the countries like Romania that attempted a gradualist approach?

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 21, 2008, 2:09 pm

1. I would offer that the IOC isn’t stupid and that they knew enough about the Chinese government to know what they would and wouldn’t do regarding human rights. If they actually believed the Chinese were going to reform themselves, they’re delusional.

2. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding. In reality it is a lovely little statement that states can follow if they want to but aren’t required to follow. It is a political tool Western states use to bash other countries when we don’t like their actions. Also, can a claim of universal rights hold when it is not universally accepted? I don’t see how it can, especially for political rights. Secondly, how legitimate is said claim when it has not been affirmed through popular consent? Many of the signatories to the UN Declaration are repressive autocracies whose people have no say in government. How can their decision to sign legitimize the Declaration?

3. The reason we need to “coddle” China is b/c we have no choice over whether they become part of the “group,” they are going to become a world power whether we like it or not. What we can affect is what type of world power they become. The US is the undisputed leader of the international system and as such we have the ability to set the tone of international interaction between global powers of all sizes. If we adopt a confrontational posture toward China, we communicate to them that we view them as an adversary rather than as a potential partner. The Chinese know they are a rising power and aren’t going to cower at our feet but rather will assume an equally aggressive posture in return.

It is classic power-balancing and they are already doing it. Chinese arms have been used by Hezbollah, Sudan, Venezuela, and other states and China been buying or stealing every bit of military technology it can get its hands on. It has bought aircraft carriers from Russia and last year tested an anti-satellite weapon designed specifically to counter US military and intelligence capabilities. Some of this is unavoidable as their power grows, things like acquiring power-projection capabilities etc., but some is absolutely avoidable, like the anti-satellite weaponry. The key is to be firm in defense of our interests and flexible with the interests of other states.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 21, 2008, 8:18 pm

1) oh c’mon. You are talking about the Olympics here. I have no doubt the IOC believes the Games can make a significant impact on a nation. Thus, they should have been pressing the issue. Instead they acted like cowards.

2) sheesh, you don’t get the point at all. The UN Declaration of Human Rights stands as a definition, making your earlier claim that human rights is a relative term mute.

3) . . . you make my own counter point for me. “Chinese arms have been used by Hezbollah, Sudan, Venezuela, and other states and China been buying or stealing every bit of military technology it can get its hands on”.

They are not our friends, thus we must take an aggressive stance. We must be forceful and public about how we feel about the status of human rights in their country.

Comment from Mr. Churchill
Time: April 21, 2008, 8:54 pm

I’d like to get back to something Grozet said earlier, because I believe Archimedes missed a golden opportunity.

“The resounding question I ask you next is: when the USSR fell apart which countries had better success? The countries like Poland that tried Shock Therapy or the countries like Romania that attempted a gradualist approach?”

1.) Shock therapy, in reference to Poland and other former Soviet satellite states, is mostly an economic term. Your analogy has nothing to do with the moral and philosophical question of human rights.

2.) China is in decidedly better shape than post-Soviet Poland or Romania. The analogy again fails, because Poland and Romania could do nothing, whereas China is in complete control. The point I am making here is that Poland and Russia needed to be led with a political shock therapy, whereas China needs to be politically reformed. Archimedes knows, as you should, that the U.S. cannot enact regime change in China (like your attempted analogy’s states); thus, we must take a lighter tack in guiding the Chinese toward more moral governance.

Lastly, I fail to see how friendship (or ally status) has anything to do with guiding a foreign nation’s stance on human rights. Aggressive action is not always required to lead, Grozet. Leadership is leadership the world over; but there are different methods for different situations. Aggression and coercive leadership would be counterproductive in this instance. Instead, we must use a congenial, friendly hand to achieve our goal.

You would not flog a child with a cat o’ nine tails; neither should we be overly punitive toward China.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 21, 2008, 10:22 pm

Churchill,

The analogy may break down, but not because of any reason you stated. Shock therapy refers to an economic term. I extrapolate it to discuss the idea that fixing things quickly is better.

However, I would actually like to withdraw my statement that shock therapy works. After a little more research I have found that shock therapy has often led to unintended consequences because it tries to large changes rather than small changes (Poland is a care case of success).

This point removed, I would like to clear up something Churchill said. Never did I say coercion was the modus operandi I am after. Aggressive leadership is.

The U.S. must publicly condemn China. The best and easiest way is to skip the opening ceremonies. This gives a clear message to the press that we expect you to report on China’s human rights abuses.

Ball is in your court. Do we skip or do we go?

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 21, 2008, 10:54 pm

1. The argument about the IOC is contradictory. If they really thought the Games would be able to change China’s behavior, then it stands that they would have pressured China. However, if they thought the Games really wouldn’t have an effect, it stands that they wouldn’t. In other words, why wouldn’t they pressure China if they thought doing so would change the Chinese?

2. The UN Declaration is a definition, it is certainly not the definition of human rights. It cannot be the definition of human rights, in my view, without some manner of global popular consent. Since this is absent, the UN Declaration can make no universal human claim. It may well be that the definition offered in the UN Declaration is preferable to any other, but it cannot claim to be the only definition.

3. It isn’t a question of friends or enemies. It is a question of confrontation or cooperation. Thinking we’re going to change the Chinese is naieve, we’re not. What we can do is affect how we interact with them in the future. Their hostility is a natural reaction for a rising power bumping up against a current power. If we continue to act aggressively toward them, they will continue to act aggressively toward us. This is not in our interest, for obvious reasons. China is a growing economic power, a nuclear state, and a rising military power in the region and around the world. However, if we act cooperatively toward them, engaging them quietly when we have differences, they will have little reason to act aggressively toward us.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 21, 2008, 11:43 pm

1) your dichotomy is far from mutually exclusive . . . the people in charge turned out to be idiots

2) I am a realist in terms of universals. I don’t use this as my claim towards a definition of human rights because metaphysical arguments only work with a highly educated body, but when a global body has created an acclaimed definition, then I believe this definition is solid and can be used as a reference tool.

This argument over the definition of human rights is quite pathetic. The world generally accepts the U.N. definition. Just because a few goons don’t doesn’t mean this disagreement is some massive encumbrance.

3) this assumes a great deal. And the next poll I put up will be on this question, but before I put up the poll I want to get both our arguments up in the form of a post [considering I doubt many will be reading this debate].

Our agreement here is that we want China to embrace human rights. I agree with you that quiet diplomacy can create change; however, this change is very slow and may be so slow that it could lead to imperceptible graduations of impact.

This argument is itself rather week since it assumes I can know the rate of impact, but I think we can both agree quiet diplomacy does not create rapid impact.

My claim is that a public show will empower the U.S. public to look on the issue with more seriousness, it will cause other powers to take the issue seriously, and it will spark the media to report on the issue.

We can both agree that skipping the opening ceremonies would accomplish all three of the goals I just mentioned.

Our disagreement then is on what are the consequences, and do those consequence outweigh the benefits.

I say China is dependent on the U.S. for its growth this political disagreement would pale in importance over our strong economic ties.

To ante up the argument, I add that the U.S. has a vested interest in pushing China towards stability because currently they own a trillion dollars of our bonds. China is not a stable country right now. Their people are not as unified they would like us to perceive. Instability is the norm in their country and we would like them to continue to stabilize.

Otherwise, in their instability they could begin to cash in the bonds. This would collapse both our economies, but harm them less due to the initial windfall. This threat must be addressed by changing the status quo, and quiet diplomacy will not make enough of an impact in this case.

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 22, 2008, 9:20 am

“…quiet diplomacy does not create rapid impact.” No. See Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy in 1972, Shanghai Communique 1973, Camp David Accords 1978, SALT I & II, and START I & II for starters. In fact, I can’t think of one international agreement or treaty which was the result of trash-talking and theatrics rather than quiet, patient negotiations.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 22, 2008, 10:33 am

Libya removed their weapons program after we invaded Iraq . . .

Don’t play some, I can’t think of a single example on me. That is essentially an emotional appeal that fails to take because it is quite simply wrong.

The premise you attacked does not undermine my argument in my last post. If anything, after you mentioned Carter’s Camp David Accords, I should pack it up and go home because I just won!

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 22, 2008, 11:22 am

Yes Libya agreed to to disarm after we invaded Iraq, however, that is not the same as saying they disarmed because we invaded Iraq. Funny you should mention Carter, since confronting states based on their human rights record, as opposed to their strategic value, was the defining characteristic of Carter’s foreign policy. Oh, and the Camp David Accords is the only peace treaty between Israel and one of its Arab neighbors that has ever held. Also, the long history of success stemming from strategic diplomacy certainly undermines any case for raucous protests and boycotts.

Comment from Archimedes
Time: April 22, 2008, 8:20 pm

Yes, our disagreement is precisely over the consequences of publicly embarassing China over the situation in Tibet. I couldn’t care less about China’s human rights record, quite frankly, regardless of what one calls human rights. More pointedly, this seems to be over what our action should be regarding this Tibet crisis in general.

1. A public show will certainly provide international leadership for those states already publicly opposed to China’s actions, states like Britain and France. It would also put China’s actions squarely in the US media’s attention, although probably not for long without continued public condemnations from Bush Admin officials. Whether it would strengthen a cynical, independent media is certainly debateable.

2. The US certainly has an interest in China’s stability. It also has an interest in China’s willingness to buy US bonds despite a slumping US economy as well as China’s continued support of our disarmament talks with North Korea. However, China is not unstable. It’s economy is outpacing any economy in the world, with no signs of slowing down. It’s tyrannical actions haven’t deterred investment at all and the Chinese Communist Party’s control over the military and police forces is as strong as ever. The internal unrest of the Tibetans and Uighurs is minor and not threathening to the Communists’ control over the state, especially given Hu Jintao’s strong hold on the PLA. Add to this the fact that China’s economic zones are on the opposite end of the country from the restive Tibet and Xinjiang regions and China’s stability is not in doubt.

3. Economic dependence is not a one-way street, especially between the US and China. China is certainly dependent on US investment for its recent growth, however, this investment is not from the US government, but from US corporations. The Chinese know the difference and won’t hurt themselves by damaging their business interests. They will push back against the US government in other ways, by strengthening ties with Iran and giving cover to the North Koreans on nuclear disarmament. They have already demonstrated such behavior in the Sudan by arming the al-Bashir regime in response to loud international pressure over Darfur. They have demonstrated their willingnes to cooperate when they didn’t oppose Bush’s efforts to invade Iraq in return for our putting the Uighurs on our terrorist list. This tacit support was accomplished by quietly engaging the Chinese prior to the Iraq War, rather than publicly pressuring them.

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 22, 2008, 11:59 pm

Archimedes and I will attempt to condense our two arguments presented here and put together two posts on Pro and Con on the issue on whether Bush should attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics.

We will follow this with a poll next week asking your opinion.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 23, 2008, 2:02 pm

Here I am. I’m very glad that there is argument here, because it means that there is someone who argues with reason. And I can see that you two get the point through argument even perhaps there will never be an universal agreement between all of us.
But I do know that, China is united perhaps more than any other countries in this world including U.S., even the riots in Lahasa, anyone can easily see that they are mainly very few monks in contrast with the great number of monks in Tibet. And Even in this critical moment, there are very few tibetans who support the seperationism of Dalai. Because they know that with China they live more freely and more rich than ever and they will get a much better future along with all the other nations in China, and it is the most terrible without support from their brother nations. And we all know that the union of all nations in China can lead to prosperity, but seperation will lead only to disaster, so we will never be cheated by some western politicians. In the frigilest age of China when all the western countries occupied China, we were not seperated, will it happen when we are going on the way of prosperity?
And we believe that we are rising, whether you like it or not, whether you think we observe your idea of human right or not (even you yourself can not tell what is the true definitioni of human right, less than the highest wellfare of the world). We have our idea of democracy, of human right, of liberty, and most of all, the prosperity of China and of all the world. If the western countries can treat the other developing countries in the way we do to Tibet, the world must be much more better than ever; even if they can do like we do to the other developing countries, to respect their civilization, their culture, their own internal affairs, and really help them without only criticizing and sanctioning them, the world will be much more peaceful and happier, but I think the americans don’t want this, because without war and conflict, where can they make money? And who need them to keep peace?
It a shame that someone thinks that I am an official or I am ignorant or brainwashed, I am only a simple chinese, and it happend that I knew some european languages including Latin, Italian, English, and I know what you talk about and what we chinese talk about. Be a little wiser, please, it is time that you should open you eyes, and we are already very open to you. When you learn some chinese, read some chinese philosophy, as I do to your western philosophies, politics, economics, languages, cultures, and many other things, we will be on the same level to talk about China.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 23, 2008, 2:15 pm

Whether western leaders attend to the opening ceremonies or no does not interest us much. We are glad that you come, but no regret when you don’t. It doesn’t matter that this Olympic will be the greatest than ever, and you can see that all the countries, and most people are very glad to go to Beijing, this is enough that they can see China, understand China, and we can make more and more friends from all of the world. When they come to China and Tibet, they will know the truth. Bush government is wise enough to know that all the boycotting actions are only one-moment play, but it will damage the relatioin between two countries and the world economics. It is very normal that Some politicians are against China, but perhaps you will be very sad that all the governments in the world will support this Olympic, and all the governments accept Tibet as a part of China, because there isn’t any document that supports independence, and it is not supported by international law, and it is supported by world economics, and at last, by human right, democracy, and liberty of chinese including tibetans.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 23, 2008, 2:36 pm

And I can tell you another thing that, when you are so arrogant to talk about human right, democracy and libery, we feel that you are so funny. There are many western people who thinks that they are superior to all the other nations in the world. When they talk about force, I admitt that the americans are the best, even they couldn’t defeat the chinese when they were so poor. But it is so funny when they talk about human right as if they have the final truth in hand. They have forgotten what they had made to chinese and most of the nations in the world, specially centuries of colonization and occupation, two world wars, and now, Afughanstein, Iraqi, even Darfur, where without diplomacy and help from China, western countries could not have done anything, because they are too arrogant to negotiate with anyone. But now, it could not be funnier than that western politicians put their mistake on the chinese. How do the western countries do to their minorities? Some arrogant theories can solve their problems? But Chinese have done very well since antique times, we have effectuated the policy of autonomy from then on instead of wars and occupations. If some western people don’t want to appear so funny, please read a little history and get into the facts, and read some chinese philosophy about Confuciunism and some works of Mao Zetong, where you can also find how we treat minorities. At last, you can see all the 55 minorities in China, how do they live, have they got the good that the whole country has reached, specially tibetans. If some one thinks that I am an official, ok, I can say nothing else, come to China and Tibet:)

Pingback from College Republican Federation of Virginia » Quote of the Day
Time: April 23, 2008, 10:53 pm

[…] ~A Chinese commentator who has been debating with Archimedes and I about the human rights in China.  Read the debate here. […]

Comment from Grozet
Time: April 23, 2008, 11:12 pm

Chinese,

I study philosophy as well as politics here in the U.S. I have respect for anyone who can argue well and seeks to gain knowledge as well as perspective that is broader than the current situation one resides in.

That is about the last positive thing I will say. I want to present a few problems I have with your comments.

1) China has decided to ban reporters from entering Tibet when the Olympics occur. Are they banning reporters because the situation is just so terrific?

2) You mention Darfur. Currently your government is providing Sudan with support and arms.

3) You mention colonization. Might I suggest a book; William Easterly’s “The White Man’s Burden”. I think this book will help clear up your idea of what the West, especially the U.S., is going for the world’s poor (all $2.3 TRILLION worth). Not only that, it will help you to stop leaning on the crutch of the ‘poor trap’.

4) You say Tibet does not have a right to independence because no documents prove they should be. You miss the point that it is up to the individuals who live there to decide if they want to be a part of China.

5) You say I cannot provide a clear definition of human rights. I disagree and can provide one if you’d like. But not only that, just because I cannot provide an absolutely clear definition of a general word does not mean I cannot spot when common properties of what is assumed to be human rights are being violated.

I agree China has taken some great steps forward (perhaps even leaps) but you still jail political dissidents, forgo trails in order to clean up Beijing, and crush uprisings with violent force.

6) The thing you said that discredited you the most is your statement that we should read Mao in order to learn how you treat minorities. I admit . . . I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Mao killed millions and is a totalitarian of the worst degree.

Nobody can take you seriously if you really believe Mao was a great philosopher. Your statement is equivalent to praising Hitler because he was a vegetarian. Fine he was a vegetarian, but he was a mass murdering dictator of a vegetarian.

As an individual (and I stress this term, it is philosophically important) you must strive to move your mind beyond the bounds of your physical situation. White elephants abound in your country and indoctrination appears to be rampant. Check out some J.S. Mill.

I will end on a positive note. I want China to do well. I want them to be rich as hell and I think Tibet is probably better off under Chinese rule. But China needs to continue to slowly embrace political freedom. For this to successfully occur, educated people like you need to work for bottom-up solutions that enhance political freedom.

Comment from chinese
Time: April 24, 2008, 1:37 pm

I adgree with you that we should all get political freedom, first freedom from foreign pressure like western countries from nineteenth century, and second from any political system of tyrant to establish a democratic republic, and third, from dictatorship of only class with property to establish a real popular republic, and in time of Mao, we have done it, and this is the first in history of China. If you don’t agree that Mao has changed the world specially in China like many other great western politicians, I am not surprised, because even many western people have already had profond research about him, but can never arrive at a universal answer. But it will not cut off his greatness. Another thing, you think Mao is like Hitler, I can only laugh at this comparison, because you haven’t hit any point except that you said that he killed a lot of people like starlin. But even this point, you hit wrong. He didn’t kill, that was a mistake of theory and of his idealism, because of this, people can accuse anyone else and struggle with anyone else and are encouraged to do this, in this way, the society was a total anarchy, instead of dictatorship, and in reality, Mao and his government could not control anymore the society. You can say that he made a big mistake, but he never invade any other country, never made racism, like Hitler and any other country like U.S. After you fell our of chair, I suggest you can read some research book about Mao, but not only one book, one kind, because I know that there are many different positions writing the books.
Now we talk about your other arguments.
1, Yes, I admitt that it was not good to ban reporters from entering Tibet even the violence of Dalai supporters could make personal damage to them, because even they don’t want to report the truth, but China should give them the right to look at the truth with their own eyes. When government gave them videos and tapes to prove the truth, it was already late. I think Chinese government will be customed to the way the americans do in media reporting, and make it used to your way. But reporters can go to Tibet freely the next month after the security is garanteed. And if there will be no such a violence, I think chinese government will be glad to let reporters to enter any part of China freely and talk to anyone freely.
2, About the crisis of Darfur, as I know, it arised out of religious and racial conflictions between negros and arabs who lived in Darfur, a west area of Sudan, and the negros believe that the government act in favor of the arabs, so they rised against the government. Although they did arrive at an agreement, but it was not well kept. But this problem has its roots in two points: the first, the long-term colonizatioin and arbitray seperation made by western countries, and the second, arising partly from the first, very bad development and life conditions. So there are two kinds of way to resolve the problems: the first, supported by U.S. and U.K., to overthrow the government and institution of Sudan or to sanction the Country to make them change. The second, supported by China and Russia, help them to develop economics and negotiate and intercede without intervening their own national and civil right. It was China to persuade the government to accept the peacekeeping force from UN. And China has helped them to develop their economics. If you don’t agree the way chinese do, it’s your freedom, and you can continue to protest.
3, Yes, I have alreay noticed that the western countries are trying to help the poor countries after centuries of colonization from themselves, it’s good, I admitt, — I am very happy that we chinese don’t need this necessity, because we have drived them out and develop in our own way, and we don’t give white people any burden but help them get out of economic crisis — but, western countries did so little (or did something worse) contrasting with their profitt from the poor country and in some bad way for example to invade another poor country and did so little good, on this point i agree with William Easterly. We have sufferred from the western way, so please don’t tell me some western morality.
4. At least you are agree that they haven’t right to independence — it means that all the other nations in china will declare independence to Tibet — in international law. As for individuals, of course they have the natural right to declare and fight for his independence in some way, but the country has the right to punish him for his violence of national institution, I think it’s the same in U.S. and any other country. According to absolute individualism, any individual of course has the right to do anything in the jungle, because this is the law of jungle, not a law of civilization. When talking about Tibet, almost all of the individuals of Tibet are enjoying their right to elect their own leaders and their freedom from theocracy and slavery under Dalai, and they are very happy that the time of Dalai is already past, and will never get back. Some western tibetans of course can declare freely that they want independence of Tibet and be the governors ot tibetan people, but it depends on all the individuals who live in the earth of Tibet, and on this, I am very glad that we are on the same position.
5. So you are reasonable with the problem of human right. No one can give the very definition of human right, because everyone is struggling for his human right, and in this way, any individual has his own idea of human right. Although there is absolutely no one universal definition of human right, but for any country, there does exist some kinds of human right, or some real problems to resolve. For example, since the republic of china, we abandoned monarchy; since the popular republic of china, we resolved the problems of colonization from western country, the class pressure of feudalism and capitalism, and became an independent country. Since 1959, we resolved the problems of theocray and slavery of Tibet, and since then on, all the China lives in her way of democracy, liberty, and most of development. And you have noticed that we have had great leaps, so I will not talk too much. But you came back to the point of Tibet, I admitt there did exist violence in Tibet, and many people died and hurt. But you miss the key point: who had made violence? Who had killed and even burnt innocent people for their impossible mission? Who will damage the human right because of their own politic ideas? So come to fact and judge it with you conscience. If you want facts, there are already enough. If you still think that it’s the so stupid government that killed peaceful monks in this critical moment, I think only those who are too innocent or with special intention can think in this stupid way. So I know that you can have conscience to judge who had violated human right, I don’t take off your right to judge, but please judge it according to fact, and think a little to avoid falling down to some ‘misery trap’.
About Mao, I have already said. We don’t abandon him because he had made great mistake, neither we raise him too high because he has done so much to change our world. It doesn’t matter you laugh or not, the history he made is there for anyone to read and judge in his own way. We chinese think in our profitt and in our way, and you can think in your profitt and in your way, for example Nixon admired him, but you can hate him, and we chinese memorize him as creator of modern china, and criticise him because he has made ‘cultural revolutionary’, which caused what you said many people died and were tortured in that darkest time in modern history of China.
And as an individual, the same as you, I suggest with this, mens sana in corpore sano, and never make your mind get mad when you body is left in cold. Another I suggest you with confuciunism, a real scholar or politician should first cultivate his morality, then manage his family, then manage the state affairs, in order to get peace and harmony under the sun. When the western countries were in wild, China has already been the greatest civilization in the world for more than two thousands years. You are right to think that education is very important, but if you mean another thing, please check out the world history and read about present and think about the future. Don’t make funny mistake.
I agree with you in your positive end. We will do well, and we will be rich, and Tibet will be more and more better as our brother, and we will continue to embrace more and more political freedom, but cum sapientia et prudentia in mente sana et corpore sano, so I am glad to read this: we need work for both bottom-up and up-bottom solutions that enhance political freedom, but without causing disaster or great damage for the whole country. So thank you for your suggestion.