Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:laugh4: Let me just derail this thread with a derailment. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Personally I enjoy tossing puppies over cliffs. (Oh my, did he just say that?!) :yes:
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:laugh4: Let me just derail this thread with a derailment. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Personally I enjoy tossing puppies over cliffs. (Oh my, did he just say that?!) :yes:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...hreadGoing.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
:laugh4:
Only de facto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Nations have a right to self-determination as well as a right to secede from tyranny. Quite a few states, including the U.S., were founded on these principles. To deny them to Tibet would be nonsense.
Their practical implementation of course is a different issue.
What is not debatable is the legitimacy of the methods and measures which China applies in Tibet. They are unacceptable by all standards, even official Chinese standards as laid down in its Constitution.
There is no realistic way Tibet is going to secede. That much is fact. The best we can do is to get better treatment for them. So how do we go about doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
My argument is that these protests are counterproductive, even worse than sitting back and doing nothing, as they harden the Chinese determination not to listen to the outside world, and even to get their own back at Tibet when the Olympics are over. AFAIK this is by far the majority opinion within China, so there is no chance of substantial protests within China in support of Tibet.
My other argument is that more can be done by laying the arguments about human rights and so on aside, but to emphasise instead the material gains an integrated Tibet under competent governance can bring. I linked to a new article where the Beijing and Taipei governments reached agreements to promote trade and travel links between the mainland and Taiwan. This is significant, for the problem there is even more intractable than that of Tibet - Taiwan claims to be the lawful successor to Qing China, as does the PRC, thus the existence of each invalidates the other. Despite this, and despite not having moved in any way towards settling this fundamental contradiction, they've nonetheless reached a peaceful accommodation in the areas that really matter - the material wellbeing of their citizens.
Thus my challenge, to look back in 12 months time, and see which approach got the better results. While the protests may allow the protestors to take the moral high ground and stand up for human rights and democracy, they do diddly squat towards actually realising them.
Oh, but there is. Inner turmoil or a political collapse are never far away in China, despite appearances to the contrary. Entire provinces of that country are already semi-autonomous these days, so is the army as an institution as well as an economic powerhouse, and even the Party is corrupt and split over regional issues and interest, to the point of being apolitical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
During the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91 we have seen how easily and speedily matters of nationality and independence might be settled. Same could happen to Tibet. Of course, as in the case of the Soviet Union, there will always be fatalists and pseudo-realists who refuse to even think about the possibility of Tibetan independence - until the moment arrives.
I am not sure that Tibetan independence is the way to go, although it is obviously not my call whether it happens. It might be better to stay in China with semi-autonomous status, provided that Beijing undergoes some very major political changes and Tibet can let its voice be heard there.
The reason it fell apart so quickly was that Gorbachev refused to take action to hold it together. This is what pissed the KGB off so much that they attempted a coup. Mismanagement and CONSIDERABLE outside influence (Regan, Thatcher, and a Pope) are what lead to the collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It's not my impression that China is anywhere near as fragmented as you describe. Autonomy has been given (Shenzhen), and even encouraged (Hong Kong), where Beijing deems the locals can sensibly govern themselves. The army is being downsized with political and strategic direction. The population generally agrees with the 2 main priorities of the government - economic growth and a bigger footprint on the world stage in accordance with China's image of itself. There is much disgust with the details of government, but there is little chance of the majority risking turmoil for political gain - their main concern is making money, and that requires stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Beijing has more urgent concerns than political reform, or at least at government level. That they are obsessed with maintaining a high rate of economic growth is well known, but the effects of this is rarely discussed in anti-Chinese polemics. China is moving away from a predominantly agrarian society towards a more modern, industrialised society. The rural areas, of which Tibet is one, are being transformed, by force if necessary, into a modernised society worthy of the China Beijing aspires to be. Taiwan underwent this process in the 1970s IIRC, and there was quite some ado back then about the abuse of human rights. What this will eventually result in is the creation of a substantial middle class, spread across the country, that will be able to take up government for themselves. In Taiwan, there was a 15-20 year gap between modernisation and democracy. I expect the timeline to be longer in the far bigger China, but we're currently seeing the start of that process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I do. I just believe methods like this are inappropriate when they do happen. Apparently it happened more than once in Paris.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I think the importance of Tibet is being exaggerated, as it is not the only issue. In any case, it is true that Tibet has historically been a part of the Chinese Empire and legally China did have the right to dispute Tibet's declaration of independence when it had the means to do so, i.e. in the '50s. However, the Tibetan people should be allowed to exercise the universal right of self-determination. Then again, how an independent Tibet would fare when the only probable ressource it has is catering for hippy tourists is another matter.
Notwithstanding the Tibetan issue, there are many other other problems for which the Chinese government should be chastised, whether it is their involvement in Dafur and their repeated vetoing of any U.N action (not that it would probably be very effective) in the Sudan, their execrable human rights record (and this is from someone who is usually extremely sceptical when claims of human rights abuse are bandied about) and repression of minorities, not to mention their appalling neglect of environmental issues and other matters.
Will a huge boycott of the Olympic Games bring the communist regime to its knees, make it don the sackcloth and ashes and say that they are so very sorry for all the suffering they have caused and that they will all be very good boys in future? No. Will it have any tangible effect whatsoever? Probably not. Will it deny one of the world's most repressive governments a chance to boost its prestige immensely and show the world that they rule a happy and smiling people and that everything is absolutely hunkydory in China? Yes.
People say that the Olympics and sport should not be mixed, however they were embroiled the moment the IOC decided that China should host the Olympics, an action which could only serve to lend the government prestige and legitimacy.
However, to return to the original point: Yes, the lady in question had every right to declare her opinion in any place or at any time. Yes, the organisers of the run also had the right to withdraw her from the proceedings (to do so would be to condone the action, which is not what they wish to do). No, Chinese officials, paramilitaries and security guards had absolutely no right to intervene in the matter or give any orders whatsoever to members of the constabulary. China does not own the world
Just yet.
When I was a wee little lad, it was the Japanese that were going to own me and force me into indentured servitude. Didn't quite work out that way. Something about inadequate banking systems and a 2 decade recession.
Then I remember the "Asian Tigers", and how if I wanted to have any chance of putting my degree to use when I graduated from University, I ought to start looking to move to ROK, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong.
Then, when I graduated from school, and I had gotten my first job, there was another Far Eastern menace that was taking over the economic world. This time it was Malaysia and Indonesia.
And through it all, amazingly, the USA is still here.
I'm not making light of the situation. Our students ARE lazy. Not enough of them enter science and engineering cirriculum, and of those that do, the majority under apply themselves. As a result, the average graduating class of engineering students, at least the ones I come across, decline year over year.
This is not a universal phenomenon. There are bright, hardworking kids that you come across. You hire these guys, by the way.
But the whole "the scale is tipping too far" paranoia model... it ignores two things.
1) China can try all they want to artifically restrain inflation. Sooner or later, the pressure will become too great and they'll have to let the Yuan go, and the longer they wait, the worse it will be for them in the end. Can you really expect a factory worker to earn $8.00/day, when his residential costs rise to $300/month?
2) As wages rise, demands for a better standard of living rise. Do people really think that the average Londoner in 1888 wasn't saying the same things about the USA that we currently say about China? Did the UK go belly up when the USA grew past it?
Trust me, speaking as somebody who has been to China, worked there, talked to the people... the average Chinese doesn't care one whit about reclaiming lands lost to Russia, and they don't fantasize about invading the USA. (In fact, the commonly accepted Chinese term for the USA is Mei Guang, which means 'the beautiful land'. For a people we fought a war with 50 years ago, they're incredibly friendly and open).
What I predict? A much, much larger segment of the world will join the 'global middle class'. As they do, their wages will rise and some other new place will be the "IT" labor market, possibly Vietnam or Laos. Meanwhile, Chinese society will take its place in the global market as a mature market force, both in terms of demand (its middle class will want I-pods too) and supply (Huawei is gaining on Motorola every day).
And this is a good thing. It's how the world grows up. Yes, there will be competitive pressure on us from China. This is good for them, as they win some accounts, and its good for us too, as our own labor pool and entrepreneurs responds to the competion and steps it up a notch or two. And as a consumer, it's always better for you to have more and more choices.
As for the whole Tibet issue, it is entirely too complex an issue for me to enter an opinion. I'd like to see more openness to democratric reform in the Chinese government, but there are scant few nations in the world where I wouldn't say that.
So stop fearing the Chinese. Understand that they're enjoying a cycle of their history through which we passed, others have passed, and others will pass. And pass me an egg roll. :2thumbsup:
P.S. (India is a slighty different situation, but much of what I have said applies there as well).
Outside influence. Hear hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Everything else is spot on. The bit about the engineering graduates being more and more lazy I've been hearing from my dad since I was knee high to a grasshopper .. and my cousins-in-law in Taiwan have said the same thing...so I think it might be a rose tinted glasses thing coming from Engineers/Scientists ... same idea of walking to school 15 miles through snow uphill both ways.
However I do think China was on the same side as us 50 years ago. All the permanent members of the UN security council where on the winning side 50 years ago and they all have fairly robust economies now. And even during the cold war more of the wrath was directed at the Soviets. Only real wars have been using proxies (Korea and Vietnam)... and even then both sides were real careful in naming observers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone