astralis

tronic,

i think at this time you guys are just talking way past each other. in that post you've gone beyond criticizing the CCP to china itself. for example, the point of contention about china's desire for greater power and territory- is that really new, or shocking, in int'l politics?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Tronic

Astralis, No its not. It was the Nazis and the Japanese who tried it first, then the Soviets, and now the Chinese. Just going to show why so many people dislike China. They have imperialistic goals, which automatically puts them in contention with rest of the free world.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Xiaohaha

Sir, you're think of TAIWAN.

Image:ROC Administrative and Claims.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, we're "bloody kidding you".

How much do you know about China, Tronic? Have you ever been there? Spoken with their people? Where are your conclusions coming from?

Ray

The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper

Paramilitary Olympics: Beijing: at least 94,000 security staff – but only 10,500 athletes


After the protests that greeted the torch relay, China is getting ready to put on the greatest show of security the world has ever seen. Clifford Coonan and Richard Osley report

Sunday, 13 April 2008


What used to be called the Olympics are likely this summer to become the Paramilitary Games. China is planning to deploy more than 94,000 security personnel at the Beijing celebration in August, which means that uniformed and plain-clothes operatives will outnumber the 10,500 athletes by nearly nine to one.


Leading what will be the biggest security effort the world has ever seen is the People's Armed Police, a 660,000-strong militia force, which has been involved in the crackdown on Tibetan demonstrators in Lhasa. The PAP is also believed to have provided the squads of blue and white tracksuited paramilitaries who formed the controversial phalanx of guards for the Olympic torch as it made its chaotic way across London, Paris and San Francisco last week. On Thursday, the People's Armed Police News reported that the PAP force was told to prevent any security threats that could upset the Games. The paper issued a "political mobilisation order" to PAP troops telling them to prepare for an arduous time ensuring order and control before and during the Games.

Beijing is worried that activists from abroad, who have disrupted the journey of the Olympic torch relay, will also stage protests inside China over Tibet, Darfur, human rights and other issues before and during the Games. As a result, security experts forecast that the PAP's ranks will swell further. There has already been high-profile shows of strength by the militia in Beijing, public display exercises to show its carefully honed organisation.

The willingness of the torch's minders over the past week to weigh in and protect the flame – even on foreign soil where the guards have no jurisdiction – introduced the force's strict approach to a wider, worldwide audience for the first time and reflects the way security forces in China can pretty much do what they like on their own territory. About 20 government agencies – from the world's largest standing army, the two-million strong People's Liberation Army, to the fire service – will be involved in the security operation for the Olympics, supported by thousands of volunteers recruited from military and police academies. Organisers in Beijing insist they have spent less on security than the Athens Games in 2004, glossing over the argument that the last Olympics were considered a special case because they were the first to be held after the 11 September attacks on the United States. Even then, security personnel in Greece numbered between 50,000 and 70,000 operatives, far fewer than will be ready for action in Beijing.

The worldwide relay passed through Buenos Aires on Friday night with a comparatively smooth ride. Disruption had been expected but a tossed water balloon was the stiffest challenge faced by the heavy police guard. But the path ahead remains rocky. India has severely cut back the route and warned Chinese officials that it will not attempt to stop peaceful protests when the torch arrives. A similar stance has been taken in Indonesia. Japan has also mapped out a strategy, banning the PAP force from running beside its own police officers when it passes through Nagano. And all of that precedes the most controversial passage ofall: an ascent of Mount Everest in May followed by a tour of the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, the scene of rioting in March.

The focus on Chinese state television for the past week has been on the larger crowds of well-wishers who lined the route of the torch relay and showed nothing of the protests, although commentators did mention "vile" disruptive elements. After disturbances in Paris, the communist newspaper The People's Daily led with stirring reports of a disabled athlete who fought to keep the "sacred flame" alight against the threat of Tibetan "splittists". In China, where all areas of media activity are tightly controlled by the government, where dissent is forbidden and can result in a jail sentence, the Olympic torch relay has been portrayed as an outstanding success so far. The coverage on the official news agency, Xinhua, has shown mostly smiling athletes and civic leaders passing the torch. The news reports quote leaders and passers-by wishing Beijing well.

Ever since Beijing was granted the Games in 2001, there has been an automatic assumption that security would be no problem for the Chinese authorities, who have a lengthy track record of keeping the streets safe and a lid on dissent. Public demonstrations of protest in China are illegal and China is ruthlessly efficient at dealing with protest within its borders, as was seen in Tibet last month and in Tiananmen Square in June 1989.

China is freer now than it has ever been. It has the biggest number of internet users in the world, and its citizens enjoy more liberty than they ever did under the emperors or under the Communist Party before or during the Cultural Revolution. They have money in their pockets and they can express their views relatively openly on the streets. That said, the Chinese government is deadly serious when it comes to containing public displays of dissent at the Olympics.

Last summer, dozens of security guards with metal pipes beat up a group of construction workers at the National Stadium, centrepiece of the Olympic Games, who were having a cigarette break in breach of a strict no smoking rule. More recently, Beijing claimed to have uncovered a plot by Muslim separatists in Xinjiang to sabotage the celebrations with suicide bombings and kidnappings.

Asked on US television on Friday whether he wanted the world to boycott the Beijing Games, the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, said no before sending the message to China: "We are not against you – and I'm not seeking separation." Chinese President Hu Jintao said he was ready to meet the Dalai Lama but accused him of trying to "ruin the Beijing Olympics". He said talks could open only if he desisted from trying to "split the motherland" and "incite violence". President Hu said: "Our conflict with the Dalai clique is not an ethnic problem, not a religious problem, nor a human rights problem. It is a problem of either preserving national unity or splitting the motherland."

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge, who visited Beijing this week for planning meetings, was pressed on whether he could help to bring the two sides together, but ruled out an intervention. He said: "This is the line we do not have to cross. This is a political matter in which the IOC cannot enter. This is a sovereign matter for China to decide."

Focus has also centred on world leaders who may or may not be at August's opening ceremony. Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be there – even if both are insisting this does not amount to a boycott. US President George Bush has been left with a dilemma. John McCain, the Republican senator has already said he would not go unless China cleaned up its act on human rights, while Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have called on Bush to swerve the opening ceremony.

Bush, who needs Chinese help to confront Burma's military junta and North Korea's nuclear programme, has indicated he will go and that it will allow him to put concerns directly to President Hu. His former Asia adviser Michael Green said: "The problem with a boycott is you end up taking 1.3 billion Chinese – who have different views of democracy, of the United States, of human rights, but all want the Olympics to be successful – and you turn them all against the United States."

The Chinese government also has a balancing act on security. If it reacts in too severe a fashion, China risks the ire of the international community. Appear too soft on the terrorist threat, and it risks being labelled incompetent and unstable. More than half a million foreign visitors are expected for the Olympics, and two million Chinese, so if the skirmishes around the torch relay prove to be a prelude to bigger protests, the scope for an international incident is there

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

astralis

tronic,

i highly doubt the quest for greater power or territory, by military means or otherwise, came in the 20th century with the nazis and the japanese. this is something nation-states have been dealing with since the beginning of history.

i believe you're conflating two issues here, the first being china's vision of itself and the second being china's political structure. obviously territorial desires over (for lack of a better term) "non-core area" is not restricted to something only non-free states do. you, of all people, should know this- was it not liberal england that turned india (not that indians considered themselves indians at the time) into a colony? for that matter, if the US weren't there, the south koreans and japanese would quite willingly resort to force to settle their territorial issues, as well.

so now comes the question: if china were a democracy and had these same territorial demands, would your criticisms of china remain the same?

Ray

With 94,000 security staff – but only 10,500 athletes, there would hardly be anyone abusing the Chinese.

They have themselves abused the fact that life is free!

Police State in all its Glory!!

And the best part it is a civil event!!

I listen to the Chinese.

It makes my heart weep!

Tronic

1.) Even CCP has had problems with Mongolia, laying claims to their land.

2.) Since when is Taiwan not China? They are both the same, everytime the CCP has gone to war with its neighbours in greed of more land, Taiwan has always supported them.


I need not go there and speak to the people there; most of whom atleast with my interactions here are towing the same one line. "We come in peace" or "We are victims of western propaganda". I don't know if they just play stupid or they have seriously been brainwashed to the core.

Tronic

You are right; but those nation states have evolved and have left behind imperialism. China has not.

They are both connected, no? Chinese political structure is bad, yes. But it becomes a convenience for a lot of these Chinese folks who are in full support of their government's imperialistic actions.

No, it was not liberal England. It was Imperial England. And yes, Indians considered themselves as Indians, just called themselves Hindustanis. India may have had different kingdoms by the time the British arrived, but the entire subcontinent did always see themselves as the one and same; and did often unite to expel 'foreigners'. Be they Greeks, Afghans, Turks or the British.

Sure, territorial disputes are there even between Canada and the US. But these points of contentions are much smaller then the vast amount of land claimed by China, using just plain stupid historical claims. Going by the Chinese logic, India should start laying territorial claims all the way from Indonesia to Afghanistan.

Would the need be there? If they were a democracy, they would rather be holding referendums; then forcefully shoving down Chinese nationalism down someone else's throat.

Tronic

Response from the other thread:

And again, In those countries which you listed, if the demand of those groups was in majority, they would be independent now; the aboriginals in the US (which by the way have their own territorial reserves et all) or the Irish in the UK which you listed have a far greater voice; or I should say have a voice at all, then the people China rules over. You need not go far, even India has Kashmir. But same problem there; Kashmiris get political parties, they have their seperatist leaders running in elections and voicing their demands in parliament. They have even got the right to preserve their language, religion and culture. And heck, i'm not even allowed to move into Kashmir from the fear of flooding Kashmir with non-Kashmiris. A sharp contrast with Tibet where the Chinese government has flooded Tibet with the Han Chinese population, to create a counter balance in favour of China in Tibet. That is Imperialism at its best. There is no comparison.

ying

Believe or not, a democratic China will be led by Chinese nationalists. You don’t know China.

astralis

tronic,

look at the big picture. is china actively trying to grab these pieces of land back? is it willing to overturn the current system for these pieces of land? from your examples, nazi germany and imperial japan and soviet russia were. china, OTOH, is reliant upon and desperate to continue integrating within the global system, their bombastic propaganda notwithstanding.

in that case, democracy won't make a big difference. to be honest, i believe this has to do more with the lack of a national ideology, with reflexive nationalism being a substitute for communism.

but most people will consider imperial england to be an example of liberalism; its constitution, civil/political rights, were all far in advance of other countries at the time. but if that example doesn't suit you, how about the US in the 1920s? it held what in effect were colonial possessions in the phillipines and latin america. at the risk of repeating myself, i don't think democracy is necessarily a block towards imperialism- it is only when the people's opinions about imperialism begin to change that democracy starts plaing a role.

sorry, doesn't cut it. how did the british get into india and hold onto an entire subcontinent with less than 30,000 troops? the british played a devilish game of divide and conquer, and it was ONLY when the indians developed nationalism that this no longer could work.

i think it's important to realize how malleable these claims are. chiang kai-shek, for example, "ceded" outer mongolia and parts of northwest china to the soviets, and there it remains. the important thing is not so much the claims, the important thing is how seriously the chinese take it. unfortunately for the tibetans, the chinese believe tibet is non-negotiable. fortunately for the indians, the chinese obviously do believe the contested area around the chinese-indian border to be.

i doubt that very much- the US in 1860 wasn't going to allow a large chunk of the nation to pass away without a fight, referendums or no. in any case, even were elections to be held, as you say, the flood of han chinese would make tibetan independence highly unlikely.

kyriosfreak

i just dont get it while you are relating olympics and abuse in such a way.
it's just the issue linkage that matters to certain groups of pipol.
when they did harsh things in tibet, that's just away from the sun.
nevertheless, chinese govt were overreacted to it......

ying

Ironically, Taiwan is a democratic society. When you guys support the independence of Taiwan, you say "If Taiwanese doesn’t want to be identified as Chinese, it is the choice made by Taiwan people democratically and so Mainland shall respect the choice". When Taiwan people support Mainland's claim on territory, like Tibet and Diao Yu Island, you guys turn to call Taiwan people "Chinese nationalists".

Tronic

astralis, I agree with your point. But the fact is that China is not willing to resolve these issues. It wants to keep them alive to deal with them in the future. Infact, the 1987 Sino-Indian confrontation may just have been proof of that; reminding India that it is just as serious with its claims to Indian held territory in Tawang as it is with holding Aksai Chin. The 1987 debacle almost led to a second war.

Right, but I'm looking it in the context as Tibetans and other ethnicities also having a say in this democracy.

The British Empire with its colonies, was far from being democratic. The United States gained most of their colonies with the war against the Spanish; but again, democracy was not practiced there! And Astralis, again, my point being, that all those nations have evolved out of that era. China has not!


It all depends. If they plan to apply democracy, then that goes applying democracy everywhere, including Tibet.

Agreed mate. Think we just misunderstood each other. My point was raised in regards to "Indianism". The concept has always been there but it was more of a cultural thing then a territorial or a national thing. Nationalism is a recent phenomena, not only for India, but for the world aswell.


Astralis, I simply don't know. China has refused to settle the dispute; again Chola incident and the Sumdorong Chu incident are examples of such!

Astralis.. that was the 1800s..!!! This is the 21st Century. If half of those events that happened back then were to happen today, the world would be up in arms. Thinking and morals have changed from back then! Especially when it involves the sovereignty of multiple independent nations.

Firstly when did I make any of those remarks, smartass? Secondly, Despite the fact, I haven't made any of those comments, I still agree with them! If Taiwan as a democratic society votes not to join China, then they should also quit acting like hypocrites and do the same for the rest. It is not us who are at fault for Taipei's hypocrisy.

bolo121

Tronic i must disagree, there was no such thing as Indianness. At best we could say that the rulers and upper elites agreed on all being inhabitants of Hindustan.
But core identity was based then as it is now on a mix of Religion, caste and regional ethnic identity. Most of us hated each others guts much much more than we ever hated the English. The grievances were deeper and more long standing than our dislike of Imperial Britain.
Nationalism is a thin coat that struggles even now to bind our peoples together.