Home > Foreign Relations > Foreign Affairs Vice Minister Fu Ying on China

Foreign Affairs Vice Minister Fu Ying on China

Following is an interview of Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fu Ying, conducted by SPIEGEL. Many of you might know she was the former China ambassador to the U.K.. Her English is really good and articulates the Chinese perspective really well for the Western audience. For those of you who frequent this blog, you will immediately recognize many of her views are shared here as well.

08/22/2011
Interview with China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
‘The West Has Become Very Conceited’

SPIEGEL: Madame Fu Ying, few countries are more interesting to the West right now than China — and few others alarm the West to the same degree, now that you have launched your first aircraft carrier. Why does China need to arm itself to this extent?

Fu Ying: The first aircraft carrier going to sea is a very exciting event in China. It’s something the Chinese people longed for. People think it’s a natural step in the growth of the Chinese military — although this so-called aircraft carrier was really just a framework of a second-hand aircraft carrier that we refitted and will only be used for scientific research and training purposes. It’s far, far from being a full-fledged aircraft carrier. In that sense, China is well behind other countries, let alone the United States which has had a mature and highly developed fleet of aircraft carriers for a long time now.
SPIEGEL: Are there not more pressing areas where that money could go rather than towards increasing the military budget?

Fu Ying: A number of areas are given greater priority than the development of our defenses. The greatest emphasis is on economic development, the well-being of the people and the sharing of the wealth. My daughter’s generation is the first that never experienced hunger in this country. That is unbelievable progress. Your concern about the Chinese military appears to me to be clouded by stereotypes about China based in the Cold War thinking of the division between us ideologically. You feel comfortable with aircraft carrier ownership by your allies, like the United States and France, but you are more concerned if China also has one.

SPIEGEL: How far will China go in terms of defending its interests? In the dispute over the sovereignty of the South China Sea, the tone can at times be quite sharp.

Fu Ying: We, too, are wondering why there is such strong rhetoric, since the countries involved are already engaged in dialogues on the basis of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002. But this is a dispute of words, and what matters is that the shipping traffic in the South China Sea remains peaceful and there is no war or conflict going on.

SPIEGEL: The Americans clearly have doubts about your intentions. Pakistan is believed to have provided China with access to the wreckage of the high-tech US helicopter that crashed during the operation against Osama bin Laden. Are you in a position to confirm whether this is true?

Fu Ying: Both China and Pakistan have denied this rumor. I think the most important thing is the question of whether China and the US are enemies. Are we going to be in a war? Are we preparing for a war against each other? We certainly don’t see it that way. It is not very friendly that the US maintains a weapons embargo against China. We have no intention to threaten the US, and we don’t see the US as a threat to us. The West tends to place China in the framework of the Cold War. This puzzles China a lot.

SPIEGEL: Many Germans, while respecting China’s development, see your country more as a rival than a partner. Is that something that you can understand?

Fu Ying: I’m grateful you raised that point because it is something that has been on my mind for a long time. If you fundamentally accept that China’s growth has lifted countless people in the country out of poverty, then you also have to agree that China has done things right. One must also accept that there can be a different political system. The countries in the West think they have the only system that works and they have narrowed down “democracy” to a multi-party election system, which works well for some countries, most of the time, but as we are now seeing with the latest financial crisis, they sometimes experience difficulties too. The West has become very conceited. At the end of the day, democracy alone cannot put food on the table. That’s the reality.

SPIEGEL: China’s decision-making process appears to be shielded with black box secrecy, and even long-time observers are puzzled over how political decisions are taken. Does it really come as a surprise to you that many are wary of China’s intentions?

Fu Ying : China’s political system is a product of China’s history. It is based on the country’s own culture and is subject to a constant reform process, which includes the building up of democratic decision-making processes in China. In order to make the right decisions, you have to listen to the people and their criticism. No government can survive if it loses touch with the people and reality. And we have a very critical view of ourselves.

SPIEGEL: The West perceives a lack of transparency and rule of law in the Chinese model.

Fu Ying: I think at the moment it is the Western governments that are having problems. We are observing what is going on in the West. We try to understand why so many governments made so many mistakes. Why do political parties make commitments they cannot fulfill? Why do they spend so much more than they have? Has the West been stagnating since the end of the Cold War? Or has it just become conceited?
SPIEGEL: Democracies are very complicated, and compared to tightly ruled systems, they are at a disadvantage. Do you feel superior?

Fu Ying: Superiority is the not the word we use. The Chinese are very modest. We respect your success and we learn from you. You are in the post-industrialized era. Many of the problems you encounter might occur in China later. So we want to see how you address those problems, and if we can learn from you.

Part 2: ‘The Door to Dialogue’ with the Dalai Lama ‘Is Always Open’

SPIEGEL: The case of recently arrested artist Ai Weiwei, who is well-connected in Berlin, was seen in Germany as a provocation. Was it intentional that he was arrested shortly after German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle attended the opening of an exhibition in Beijing with Chinese officials?

Fu Ying: That’s why I say you are conceited. You really take yourself very seriously. Why would a country like China decide on domestic matters and try to make them coincide with a visit by a foreign minister from a European country? I don’t see the linkage. The case you are discussing is a legal matter. I am not really interested in this case.

SPIEGEL: If it is a legal case, then why wasn’t Ai Weiwei publicly charged? Instead he disappeared for 81 days. The allegations of tax evasion don’t appear to be very convincing.

Fu Ying: If you have such great interest in this case and believe there has been a breach of law or rules in his case, you may very well raise it. We can pass it on to the authorities. But how many more Chinese artists, writers, singers and movie stars do Germans know? Your view of China is very narrow and negative, and that’s why we don’t feel comfortable discussing human rights with you. Our understanding of human rights is based on the UN Charter, which guarantees political rights, the right to life and the right to development. But in your view, human rights seem to concern only some individuals who are subverting the state or are breaching laws.

SPIEGEL: Some of these people symbolically represent hundreds of others.

Fu Ying: But please try to put things into perspective. We have 1.3 billion people living in China. Since day one of our relationship with the West, human rights have been a subject for discussion. Many issues were discussed and solved and the content keeps changing. But today the Western understanding of human rights is used as an instrument against China, regardless of the fact that China has improved very much in this area, and no matter how intensively we are working on the issue.

SPIEGEL: Can you say anything more concrete about the Ai Weiwei case?

Fu Ying: He is being investigated and he has been released after paying bail. I don’t have any further comment on him.

SPIEGEL: As one dictator after another was chased out in the Arab world this year, critical journalists, attorneys and human rights activists in China have been experiencing a wave of repression, with some even speaking of a “Chinese Winter”. Does China fear a handful of activists?

Fu Ying: What was happening in the Middle East is an event that attracted attention all over the world. We, too, are trying to understand what led to these revolutions. As for China, I don’t see any direct linkage. Again, it’s the habit of some Western analysts to connect everything bad with China. If you think your society is strong enough to avoid infection by the Arab revolution, what makes you think that the Chinese society is so weak that it has to be infected? Eighty-seven percent of Chinese surveyed in a poll by the Pew Research Center in 2010 said the government is on the right track. In the US, however, recent polls show that a lot of people think the country is not on the right path.

SPIEGEL: China always shows pretty strong reactions when Western leaders meet with the Dalai Lama. You recommend that other countries should solve their disputes through dialogue. Why hasn’t China succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Tibetan spiritual leader?

Fu Ying: Our difficulty with the Dalai Lama is his political views and demands for Tibet independence. If you read his website, you will see what he wants. In essence, he wants an independent Tibet.

SPIEGEL: He has explicitly rejected that, saying he doesn’t want separation, but instead greater autonomy.

Fu Ying: Tibet is part of China. But, of course, the door to dialogue is always open. Dialogue is always welcome. I am glad more and more people are visiting Tibet, and more and more people understand life in Tibet better now.

SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, journalists are not allowed to access Tibet.

Fu: There is a bit of concern about the intentions and motives of Western journalists. Sometimes it’s as if some of them come to a wedding and only want to inspect the contents of a dark corner. They want to show the world there is no smiling bride, there is no groom and no happy friends — just darkness. They write about it extensively. They may be facts, but they are very selective facts.

SPIEGEL: The Dalai Lama has officially retired from his offices. Is this not a good point in time to seek a peaceful solution?

Fu Ying: The fact that he is withdrawing from his political offices shows that he does regard himself as the king and god in one and is thus the owner of Tibet. But those days are over. Tibet is finally undergoing development, and the region truly is doing better and better. So we will see whether the Dalai Lama can relinquish himself of his political demands.

SPIEGEL: It’s not only Tibet which is developing at a fast pace. Lately, the West has been up to its neck in debts, but China has experienced fantastic growth. Has communism ultimately defeated capitalism?

Fu Ying: We are not the Soviet Union. During the entire Cold War, the West and the Soviet Union were at each other’s throats. You each wanted to see the other side’s demise; that was your strategic objective. But China was not part of your fight and we have always supported Germany’s reunification.

Part 3: ‘China Has No Intention to Rule the World’

SPIEGEL: As of the end of June, China held US bonds with a total value of $1.165 trillion and European bonds worth $700 billion. Economically, China is already a superpower today. What does that mean for the political balance of power?

Fu Ying: Many say that power is shifting from the West to the East, but we believe that it is a process of diffusion. It used to be within the Western world, but now it is also diffusing to a wider world. There is a need to reform the current world structure, which was built after World War II to the benefit of around 1 billion people of the developed world. China is only one of the newly emerging countries. Brazil is growing. India is growing, as are parts of Africa. In the future, 3 to 4 billion people will be coming into this process of wider industrialization. But that reform needs to be an incremental process that is achieved not through war and not through conflict, but through dialogue.

SPIEGEL: Will the West wind up on the losing side?

Fu Ying: You are currently experiencing difficulties, but you have gone through so many difficulties in the past — Europe and the US — and you always bounce back. We are also interdependent, and your loss is not necessarily our gain. We’re in one boat. And we indeed worry when Western economies are experiencing difficulties. That’s why it is good that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are taking the lead. Very recently, my colleagues and I discussed the future of the European Union. The prevalent view was that if you work together to address the current difficulties, then the EU will go forward to become more integrated. If you do not, the euro zone might collapse.

SPIEGEL: What would it mean for China if the financial crisis in the West extends to other regions?

Fu Ying: Everyone would suffer.

SPIEGEL: Many observers believe that the legitimacy of the Chinese government hinges on its economic success. In the event of an economic crisis, would you need to be worried about your country’s stability?

Fu Ying: Do Western governments change their multi-party system during an economic crisis? I don’t think so. Why should we be worried? Having said that, our reform is an ongoing process and we will continue to move forward.

SPIEGEL: For a long time, the West believed that the developments in China were a win-win situation for everyone involved. Now, however, the impression is solidifying — even within international institutions like the World Trade Organization — that the Chinese want to shift the balance of the global economy to their advantage. The long-term policy of keeping the Renminbi artificially undervalued is just one example of this that is often cited.

Fu Ying: China has no intention to rule the world. But if you continue to see yourself as the center of the world, if you see yourself as the monopoly of all truths, all the right beliefs and all the right values, then you will always find it uncomfortable when you realize that the world is diversified. There are different values and cultures. And if you believe you have won the Cold War, then the Cold War is finished, over, done. We are living in a new world. Get down off your high horse of being on top of the world. Come down to be equals and join us on a level playing field instead of creating a new rival in the style of the Cold War.

SPIEGEL: You maintain very close relations with leaders like Kim Jong Il in North Korea, whose people are starving because he refuses to open up his country, or North Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, who is being sought for crimes against humanity. What is your philosophy regarding this?

Fu Ying: Our own sufferings in history have taught us that we should never try to impose on other countries or support others to impose. We have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council; we have hundreds of Chinese UN peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan. If every time you don’t like the leader of a country and then move in and intervene, that would lead to chaos. Think of your own experience in intervention, which is not always successful.

SPIEGEL: You’re referring to the military deployment in your neighbor country, Afghanistan.

Fu Ying: You need to reflect on your own experience.

SPIEGEL: China weakens institutions like the United Nations, in particular, because you frequently water down joint resolutions against Iran, North Korea or Syria, whose President Bashar Assad allows the army to fire against his own people, to the point of ineffectiveness. Where are the limits to China’s tolerance of human rights violations?

Fu Ying: The case of Iran is part of the whole security situation. That’s why we have the five-plus-one discussions on Iran. In the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we have the six-party talks. I believe patient diplomacy will pay off in the end.

SPIEGEL: With regard to Iran, this patience could result in us losing a race against time in the end.

Fu Ying: We don’t have a better solution.

SPIEGEL: Given differences of opinion like that, how are powers like China and the USA supposed to cooperate in dealing with global challenges like cyber security, financial stability, food security and nuclear proliferation?

Fu Ying: We need to overcome the wall of distrust. If we only allow ourselves to be led by our own views, our own feeling, our own emotions, even our own values, then we will only create more problems. Be it peacekeeping missions or the protection of shipping channels off the coast of Somalia or climate change, I think you will find China to be an enthusiastic participant in world affairs.

SPIEGEL: How does it feel to be viewed as a new economic superpower?

Fu Ying: It is flattering.

SPIEGEL: Does it make you nervous, as well?

Fu Ying: Not at all. We don’t view ourselves as a superpower. You are not going to see a USA or a Soviet Union in China. You are going to see a culturally nourished country with a big population, being more content, being happy, being purposeful — and it will be a friend to the world. There is no reason to worry about China.

SPIEGEL: Madame Fu Ying, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Susanne Koelbl in Beijing.

Categories: Foreign Relations Tags:
  1. August 24th, 2011 at 23:43 | #1

    I note with some amusement the part where China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs doesn’t deny that foreign journalists aren’t given access to Tibet. I wonder if you guys will attack Fu Ying with the same fervor you used to attack me when I said that was true.

    Anyway, there are lot of questions here that Fu Ying dodges and doesn’t answer. But, to be fair, if the interview were going in the other direction, the same thing would probably happen.

  2. August 25th, 2011 at 00:15 | #2

    I think we all would agree many journalists are indeed not allowed to visit Tibet, because as Fu Ying explained, China blocks them for them being very selective with facts.

    Spiegel didn’t mean ALL journalists, did they? It would be preposterous.

    Custer, you are misrepresenting the question and Fu Ying’s response. I’ll quote the question asked and her response:

    SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, journalists are not allowed to access Tibet.

    Fu: There is a bit of concern about the intentions and motives of Western journalists. Sometimes it’s as if some of them come to a wedding and only want to inspect the contents of a dark corner. They want to show the world there is no smiling bride, there is no groom and no happy friends — just darkness. They write about it extensively. They may be facts, but they are very selective facts.

    Not denying this question doesn’t mean she agrees with Spiegel’s presumption.

  3. August 25th, 2011 at 02:19 | #3

    yinyang :
    I think we all would agree many journalists are indeed not allowed to visit Tibet, because as Fu Ying explained, China blocks them for them being very selective with facts.

    Who, though? No foreign journalists are allowed to visit Tibet, unless they’re part of the special government-approved and controlled trips. Even people who’ve never reported on Tibet at all are restricted.

    Given that, I don’t see what “selective with facts” has to do with it.

    Spiegel didn’t mean ALL journalists, did they? It would be preposterous.
    Custer, you are misrepresenting the question and Fu Ying’s response. I’ll quote the question asked and her response:

    SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, journalists are not allowed to access Tibet.
    Fu: There is a bit of concern about the intentions and motives of Western journalists. Sometimes it’s as if some of them come to a wedding and only want to inspect the contents of a dark corner. They want to show the world there is no smiling bride, there is no groom and no happy friends — just darkness. They write about it extensively. They may be facts, but they are very selective facts.

    Not denying this question doesn’t mean she agrees with Spiegel’s presumption.

    And yet, if Spiegel’s presumption is so off-base, why wouldn’t she deny it outright? After all, if journalists are given fair access to Tibet, that would be extremely easy to prove, no? Why avoid a question like this if you’ve got a slam-dunk answer?

    …Unless you don’t have a slam-dunk answer because Spiegel’s presumtion is essentially accurate (of course not ALL journalists are banned from Tibet ALL the time, but you know what I mean).

    Still, I’ll give Fu credit for being more honest than they usually are. I recall earlier this year when the foreign ministry spokesperson denied outright that something had happened despite the fact that reporter who was asking the question had the entire incident on video. She knew he had it on video, too. Now that takes some guts.

  4. Kai
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:36 | #4

    Thanks for posting this interview, yinyang.

    I wrote a response to it here: http://chinadivide.com/2011/fu-ying-spiegel-interview-the-west-has-become-very-conceited.html

  5. raventhorn2000
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:59 | #5

    “if Spiegel’s presumption is so off-base, why wouldn’t she deny it outright? After all, if journalists are given fair access to Tibet, that would be extremely easy to prove, no? Why avoid a question like this if you’ve got a slam-dunk answer? …Unless you don’t have a slam-dunk answer because Spiegel’s presumtion is essentially accurate (of course not ALL journalists are banned from Tibet ALL the time, but you know what I mean).”

    Because YOU didn’t read the CONTEXT of the exchange.

    “Fu Ying: Tibet is part of China. But, of course, the door to dialogue is always open. Dialogue is always welcome. I am glad more and more people are visiting Tibet, and more and more people understand life in Tibet better now.

    SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, journalists are not allowed to access Tibet….”

    (1) Fu said, “more and more people are visiting Tibet”.
    (2) Spiegel: “Journalists are not allowed to access Tibet….”

    Obviously, in that CONTEXT, the “access” by journalists as mentioned by Spiegel is NOT just ANY “visit”. (Fu then goes on to discuss the kind of access that Spiegel was talking about).

    By your own logic, Spiegel did NOT deny that PEOPLE can VISIT Tibet!!! Then WHY should Fu try to Reiterate something Spiegel did not deny??!!

  6. August 25th, 2011 at 08:27 | #6

    raventhorn2000 :
    “if Spiegel’s presumption is so off-base, why wouldn’t she deny it outright? After all, if journalists are given fair access to Tibet, that would be extremely easy to prove, no? Why avoid a question like this if you’ve got a slam-dunk answer? …Unless you don’t have a slam-dunk answer because Spiegel’s presumtion is essentially accurate (of course not ALL journalists are banned from Tibet ALL the time, but you know what I mean).”
    Because YOU didn’t read the CONTEXT of the exchange.
    “Fu Ying: Tibet is part of China. But, of course, the door to dialogue is always open. Dialogue is always welcome. I am glad more and more people are visiting Tibet, and more and more people understand life in Tibet better now.
    SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, journalists are not allowed to access Tibet….”
    (1) Fu said, “more and more people are visiting Tibet”.
    (2) Spiegel: “Journalists are not allowed to access Tibet….”
    Obviously, in that CONTEXT, the “access” by journalists as mentioned by Spiegel is NOT just ANY “visit”. (Fu then goes on to discuss the kind of access that Spiegel was talking about).
    By your own logic, Spiegel did NOT deny that PEOPLE can VISIT Tibet!!! Then WHY should Fu try to Reiterate something Spiegel did not deny??!!

    Uh….what? We’re talking about whether journalists can freely travel to Tibet or not. Who cares what Spiegel or Fu said about regular people visiting? Journalists have different visas than regular travelers, it’s not like a journalist could travel to Tibet with a regular travel permit so long as he promised he was just going as a personal trip…

  7. August 25th, 2011 at 08:33 | #7

    @C. Custer

    Give this issue a rest, how many Chinese reporters can get a work visa to the US? I would say the approval rate would be less than 10%.

    And how many would get approval to visit Guantanamo, Cuba which is illegally occupied by US forces.

    By your logic obviously the US has many things to hide also. The PRC has a right to refuse any visitors.

  8. August 25th, 2011 at 08:59 | #8

    “Uh….what? We’re talking about whether journalists can freely travel to Tibet or not. Who cares what Spiegel or Fu said about regular people visiting? ”

    Because that was the CONTEXT of their interview.

    If you want to infer something that’s NOT in the context of their interview, that’s just YOUR imagination.

  9. August 25th, 2011 at 09:22 | #9

    Ray :
    @C. Custer
    Give this issue a rest, how many Chinese reporters can get a work visa to the US? I would say the approval rate would be less than 10%.
    And how many would get approval to visit Guantanamo, Cuba which is illegally occupied by US forces.
    By your logic obviously the US has many things to hide also. The PRC has a right to refuse any visitors.

    Sure, and I have a right to draw my own conclusions, just as I do about the US. Guantanamo is a good example. We both know people aren’t allowed to travel there. Now be honest with me — do you assume that the US is keeping it a safe, happy playground for puppies and kittens? Or do you think the US government is hiding human rights violations there?

    Of course, it’s the latter. That’s what everyone thinks because when you hide something, it means you have something to hide. Of course now there’s plenty of hard evidence to support that as well, but even before people really knew what was going on at Guantanamo, people were suspicious. The US does have things to hide, yes!

    And, for the 90 billionth time, when the US does something horrible, why does that make it OK for China to do the same thing?

    For the record: I am just as annoyed by the US’s idiotic and restrictive visa policies as you, believe me. In fact, just a few months ago I wrote on Twitter to my 3,000+ followers that “the US embassy can go f*ck itself on that giant sword from Final Fantasy.” I don’t think that’s as much about “hiding” anything though, it’s more of a mix of xenophobia, classism, and an entirely outdated worldview. But that’s just my personal opinion based on experience.

  10. August 25th, 2011 at 09:25 | #10

    raventhorn2000 :
    Because that was the CONTEXT of their interview.

    No, it was just something that was discussed in the previous question. The next question had to do with access for journalists. It’s not my imagination, it’s what was actually being said.

    As a side note, I’m not sure you know what context means….the “context of their interview” would mean “the circumstances that formed the setting and background of their interview.” In this case, we might say the context of their interview was the Western financial crisis, the “Arab Spring” and the so-called “Chinese Winter”, etc….

  11. August 25th, 2011 at 09:28 | #11

    “And, for the 90 billionth time, when the US does something horrible, why does that make it OK for China to do the same thing?”

    Well, if NO ONE really says US was doing “something horrible”, how is ANYONE else supposed to know that it’s NOT OK to do??

    I means seriously, if the Media was completely SILENT when US does it, the reasonable assumption is that IT was OK to do.

  12. August 25th, 2011 at 09:30 | #12

    “No, it was just something that was discussed in the previous question. The next question had to do with access for journalists.”

    I don’t see a QUESTION. Spiegel was making a statement, with obvious reference to the PREVIOUS statement by Fu.

  13. August 25th, 2011 at 09:33 | #13

    raventhorn2000 :
    “And, for the 90 billionth time, when the US does something horrible, why does that make it OK for China to do the same thing?”
    Well, if NO ONE really says US was doing “something horrible”, how is ANYONE else supposed to know that it’s NOT OK to do??
    I means seriously, if the Media was completely SILENT when US does it, the reasonable assumption is that IT was OK to do.

    Yes, certainly the media has never reported anything on Guantanamo Bay! Total silence!

  14. August 25th, 2011 at 09:34 | #14

    raventhorn2000 :
    “No, it was just something that was discussed in the previous question. The next question had to do with access for journalists.”
    I don’t see a QUESTION. Spiegel was making a statement, with obvious reference to the PREVIOUS statement by Fu.

    OK, yes. However, this is an interview; clearly the intent was to make a statement that Fu would then respond to. It may not end in a question mark, but by making that statement, the interviewer is asking Fu to confirm, deny, or otherwise address it in some way.

  15. August 25th, 2011 at 09:59 | #15

    “OK, yes. However, this is an interview; clearly the intent was to make a statement that Fu would then respond to. It may not end in a question mark, but by making that statement, the interviewer is asking Fu to confirm, deny, or otherwise address it in some way.”

    Sure, Fu would “respond” to a statement, but OBVIOUSLY she would be responding with the CONTEXT of what she JUST said prior to Spiegel’s statement, since Spiegel didn’t change the context, NOR denied what Fu just said.

    Why should Fu interpret Spiegel’s statement as something OUTSIDE of context of what she just said??

  16. Al
    August 25th, 2011 at 12:18 | #16

    Really, Custer, comparing Guantanamo (a military base) to Tibet…are we? Ur (lack of)logic keeps on surprising me over and over..u really don’t stop at anything.

    Anyway, if I decide not to let u and ur friends in my home again, cause every time u were here u just took advantage for taking pics revealing and exaggerate every little problem, real or imaginary (a pair of dirty underpants waiting to be washed, or unwashed dishes in my kitchen etc. or maybe my kid crying cause he couldn’t get the last videogame he so much wanted), and speak ill of me and my family, trying to split us up, make me and my wife argue and put the rest of the people leaving in the building against me (cause u, in the end, just want us to go and to have the chance to buy my house for much less)…..would it mean that I am trying to hide some terrible, dirty secrets..or just that u and ur friends are gigantic assholes? (not in reality, just for the sake of this example..)

  17. August 25th, 2011 at 12:23 | #17

    To take Custer’s own words:

    China is certainly not a flawless system, but to suggest that Gitmo is the same as Tibet is just ignorant. (Follow by listing of misc. personal qualifications,…)

  18. August 25th, 2011 at 13:20 | #18

    @C. Custer
    My problem is why China is always judged differently then the other big 5 security councils members. China did not claim to be better but when closer scrutiny is used, the other 4 memebers can be pretty lacking as well.

    For example, when HK govn’t intervene on short selling in the market it is called unbalancing the market, now when European countries do it it is called protecting the market.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/european/four-eu-states-extend-short-selling-ban/article2141744/

  19. August 25th, 2011 at 19:03 | #19

    Al :
    Really, Custer, comparing Guantanamo (a military base) to Tibet…are we? Ur (lack of)logic keeps on surprising me over and over..u really don’t stop at anything.

    That was Ray’s comparison, not mine. If you have an issue with it, take it up with him. But I’m sure you won’t, because he agrees with you, and acknowledging that it came from him would mean you have to admit that your statement about my “logic” is based on nothing in this case.

    Anyway, if I decide not to let u and ur friends in my home again, cause every time u were here u just took advantage for taking pics revealing and exaggerate every little problem, real or imaginary (a pair of dirty underpants waiting to be washed, or unwashed dishes in my kitchen etc. or maybe my kid crying cause he couldn’t get the last videogame he so much wanted), and speak ill of me and my family, trying to split us up, make me and my wife argue and put the rest of the people leaving in the building against me (cause u, in the end, just want us to go and to have the chance to buy my house for much less)…..would it mean that I am trying to hide some terrible, dirty secrets..or just that u and ur friends are gigantic assholes? (not in reality, just for the sake of this example..)

    We’re assholes. But that analogy doesn’t really work. Reporters didn’t CREATE any of the problems in Tibet.

  20. August 25th, 2011 at 19:05 | #20

    raventhorn2000 :
    To take Custer’s own words:
    China is certainly not a flawless system, but to suggest that Gitmo is the same as Tibet is just ignorant. (Follow by listing of misc. personal qualifications,…)

    I would agree with that statement. The comparison was Ray’s, not mine. As for listing personal qualifications, I know someone who is just as guilty of that, Mr. $300-an-hour-lawyer 😉

  21. August 25th, 2011 at 19:07 | #21

    Ray :
    @C. Custer
    My problem is why China is always judged differently then the other big 5 security councils members. China did not claim to be better but when closer scrutiny is used, the other 4 memebers can be pretty lacking as well.

    For one, China’s behavior on the security council is quite different from that of other members. But I don’t think it’s treated all that differently. Certainly there are examples of unfair treatment in the Western media, but there are equal examples of unfair treatment of Western countries in the Chinese media…what of it?

  22. denk
    August 25th, 2011 at 21:42 | #22

    custer
    *Still, I’ll give Fu credit for being more honest than they usually are. I recall earlier this year when the foreign ministry spokesperson denied outright that something had happened despite the fact that reporter who was asking the question had the entire incident on video. She knew he had it on video, too. Now that takes some guts.*

    really ?
    well u aint seen nuthin yet
    http://tinyurl.com/3k75ao

  23. Kai
    August 26th, 2011 at 00:15 | #23

    I don’t understand the hostility a number of you have towards what Custer wrote. I’m assuming it is a combination of resentment built from past arguments and his words “I note with some amusement…”

    The way I read Custer’s first comment is that he feels vindicated because sometime in the past, you guys attacked him when he stated that foreign journalists aren’t given access to Tibet, and now he’s wondering if you guys are going to attack Fu Ying with the “same fervor” for corroborating that fact.

    I don’t understand how something as simple as this was derailed so badly…

    @YinYang

    First, where does Custer suggest Spiegel meant “all” journalists? If he didn’t suggest it, why correct him? I’m clearly familiar with Custer’s position on many issues so I automatically know he doesn’t mean all journalists are always denied access to Tibet, but I figure you guys would be familiar enough with him to know that too by now, right?

    Second, I don’t see how he’s misrepresenting the Spiegel exchange with Fu Ying. She indeed doesn’t deny that foreign journalists are denied access and indeed offers a response that EXPLAINS why foreigner journalists are sometimes denied access. Hence, it makes sense for Custer to then ask if she’s going to be attacked as he was insofar as he felt he was being attacked for stating the foreign journalists are denied access to Tibet. If he was attacked for that, then indeed he would feel vindicated in wondering if some of you guys are going to be hypocritical for not attacking her. If he WASN’T attacked for that, then maybe some of you guys need to explain to him what he was actually attacked for in the past.

    Third, what is the Spiegel’s presumption? I think both Fu Ying and Spiegel know exactly what Spiegel is referring to and answering appropriately. I think Fu Ying knows Spiegel isn’t referring to all journalists at all times but that some journalists have indeed been denied access and she’s explaining why. There is no presumption for her to deny or agree with because there isn’t one. There is no reason to argue over whether or not Fu Ying is corroborating that China denies journalists access. It is an fact that China denies journalists access in self-interest. She doesn’t apologize for it.

    If there’s an argument, it ought to be over whether or not Custer is entitled to question if Fu Ying is going to be attacked with the same fervor he was for saying journalists are denied access to Tibet.

    @Custer

    I don’t see why you don’t see how journalists being “selective with facts” has to do with them being denied access to Tibet. I thought Fu Ying and yinyang were both very clear on this. They explained that the Chinese government denies access to the journalists it feels will be selective with the facts they report (on Tibet in this case), and that obviously means selective in the way that the Chinese government doesn’t like.

    The corollary here is that the Chinese government is selective with facts too, right? The argument should be over independent media as a check against state-controlled media, of the nature of propaganda and information control. It sounds like you feel persecuted by some HH commenters for simply stating a fact. Were they attacking you for stating a fact or was it something else? I know this has to deal with some discussion on HH in the past, but I’m not familiar with it so I don’t know. All I do know is I’m pretty sure I understand what you’re saying, I definitely see the hostility some other HH commenters are throwing at you, and I don’t understand why you guys don’t seem to understand each other.

    @raventhorn2

    Have to go with Custer on this. I have no idea what you’re talking about or what you think Custer is talking about. I think you’ve misunderstood Custer and may even be misrepresenting the context of the interview.

    Fu Ying understood Spiegel was asking about journalist access to Tibet for reporting. The previous response you quote was in response to Spiegel saying the Dalai Lama doesn’t want separation, only greater autonomy. Fu Ying’s response is actually avoiding Spiegel’s question (I should’ve addressed this in my own post). Specifically, she’s avoiding the issue of the Dalai Lama explicitly saying he doesn’t want separation and independence while the Chinese government insists he’s saying that. Why? Because the most she can say is what she said in the previous response to that: Yes, the Dalai Lama says he doesn’t want independence but we still think he does, “in essence”, based on other things he’s said like his website.

    Thus, she ignores the question and puts forth the talking points. She reiterates Tibet is part of China, says China is open to dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and then adds something irrelevant to Spiegel’s question but is an advantageous platform to lay out: that more and more people are visiting and understanding life in Tibet. The Chinese government has advanced this before: “Go visit Tibet and see how we’re improving life there! It isn’t as bad as those Free Tibet bastards are saying! We’re investing in Tibet! We’re creating economic growth and opportunities! We’ve made life better there!” She’s reiterating that.

    Spiegel counters by saying journalists aren’t allowed access. What does this counter? Any suggestion that Fu Ying is making that China is totally open, welcoming, and glad.

    Fu Ying’s response acknowledges that they aren’t totally open, welcoming, or glad because China IS concerned with certain journalists’ intentions and motives being against its self-interests.

    That’s the context. What Custer has said doesn’t seem to misunderstand that context. What you’ve said doesn’t seem to make sense, much less match the context. What exactly is Custer inferring that isn’t in the context?

    @Al

    Uh, it was Ray who compared Tibet to Guantanamo. Custer’s response was to explain why denial of access leads people to suspect there is something to hide by using Ray’s example. Everyone here should already know why governments with something to hide will want to hide it and why journalists who make a living off reporting these things will want to find out what’s being hidden. There is no lack of logic here. The whole “u really don’t stop at anything” is just baseless moral blackmail.

    Has Custer actually said anything to suggest he doesn’t understand why the Chinese government wouldn’t be self-interested in denying access to people it feels will make them look bad? You seem intent on explaining something that he already understand. You have to understand that Custer simply believes the media’s role as a check on government should supercede the government’s self-interest in controlling information. He doesn’t just apply this to Western journalists and Tibet, but also when Chinese journalists are prevented by the government from reporting, such as the recent Wenzhou train disaster.

  24. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 06:19 | #24

    “I would agree with that statement. The comparison was Ray’s, not mine. As for listing personal qualifications, I know someone who is just as guilty of that, Mr. $300-an-hour-lawyer.”

    It was Custer’s logic, not anyone else’s. But Custer would be calling himself “JUST ignorant”. Full circle.

    As for my $300 an hour, that was an estimate for the benefit of a wager with FOARP, not a “personal qualification”.

    I at least, don’t measure my “personal qualifications” by how much I make per hour. I see no logical relevance between the two.

  25. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 06:26 | #25

    @Kai

    “I don’t understand the hostility a number of you have towards what Custer wrote. I’m assuming it is a combination of resentment built from past arguments and his words “I note with some amusement…””

    Custer only laughs when he gets to call others idiots and ignorant, and drops F bombs all over this forum, or sometimes use bad JOKES as a deflection for when he runs out of arguments.

    “Specifically, she’s avoiding the issue of the Dalai Lama explicitly saying he doesn’t want separation and independence while the Chinese government insists he’s saying that. Why? Because the most she can say is what she said in the previous response to that: Yes, the Dalai Lama says he doesn’t want independence but we still think he does, “in essence”, based on other things he’s said like his website.”

    I don’t think it’s a talking point that Fu is putting forth. “Explicitly saying” what he doesn’t want is contradicted by DL’s own actions and other words. That much is clear to many policy makers within China.

    I have to agree with Fu on this one. Her statement may not be as detailed to put forth all the evidence to support her assertion, but clearly, a long list of evidence is not what Spiegel or Fu had time for in the interview. (And I doubt Spiegel would bother to ask “offline” for supporting evidence).

  26. August 26th, 2011 at 07:38 | #26

    C. Custer :

    Ray :@C. Custer My problem is why China is always judged differently then the other big 5 security councils members. China did not claim to be better but when closer scrutiny is used, the other 4 memebers can be pretty lacking as well.

    For one, China’s behavior on the security council is quite different from that of other members. But I don’t think it’s treated all that differently. Certainly there are examples of unfair treatment in the Western media, but there are equal examples of unfair treatment of Western countries in the Chinese media…what of it?

    In case you don’t know the PRC mostly sided with the devloping countries in world issue. The Coppenhagen summit on climate change clearly showed that China is more in line with their interest than the developed rich countries. And in the case of resolution 1973, China abstained just like Russia, India, Brazil, Germany etc.

    Show us some unfair treatment of the west by Chinese media? You can start on your blog.

  27. August 26th, 2011 at 09:25 | #27

    @Kai
    I appreciate your effort in trying to referee here. I know many commenters here well enough to know they will respond to constructive comments when they see them. Despite what Custer has said here in the past, this forum will always remain open to him.

    I know Custer is capable of being constructive. I have said so on some of what he has written.

    But I think in order for you to side with Custer (vs. exchanges with Raventhorn for example), you will have to go back more to what were exchanged before this thread in other posts.

    Regarding me saying Custer implying ‘all’ journalist – this started when Custer tried to claim there is a ‘ban’ on travel to Tibet. You might want to confirm with him if he really meant ‘all’ journalist. I think that is basically what he meant.

    We have a tendency to jump right into points of contention. Person on the other side often liked to be acknowledged for points agreed with. Personally, this is something I should do more of. I’d encourage everyone to do that as well.

  28. raventhorn2000
    August 26th, 2011 at 09:52 | #28

    “We have a tendency to jump right into points of contention. Person on the other side often liked to be acknowledged for points agreed with.”

    I agree.

    And I like to make a finer point about debate and “admissions”/acknowledgments:

    It’s difficult to carry out a rational discussion with someone who constantly moves his own “standards”/criteria, trying to divert his own errors elsewhere, (and only admit to error, but NOT as an error of logic, when finally confronted with hard facts and backed to the wall).

    His conclusion statements, transform into (1) assumptions, (2) inferences, (3) mere bias, (4) mere hobby, (5) implications, (6) someone else’s prejudice, (7) even typing mistake.

    And even with his own piled up admission of his own errors, he continues to make MORE similar statements, without basic fact checking, repeat the above “moving target” logic, cycle through until he gets caught again.

    It is a hybrid case of logical fallacies, a mixture of “moving target”, “red herring”, and “double talk”.

    I would call it the “Moving 2 headed Red herring” fallacy. And it is frankly amusing and ridiculous.

    One can’t argue with such a fallacy, because (1) it’s constantly moving and every argument you make, he change the direction of the argument,

    (2) there are 2 heads, 1 says “I’m right because…”, the other says, “but I admit I made a mistake just now”,

    (3) even if you hit the target and defeat his argument, it’s a red herring, and he says, “BTW, that doesn’t matter any ways”.

    I have been going for a month on this forum dealing with the SAME cycle of (1), (2) and (3).

    And I’m not claiming “victory” in any sense, because lord knows he’s not really admitting anything, (even when he says he “admits” mistakes). The fact is he’s repeating the same cycle of logical fallacies here and elsewhere, over and over again (hence, not really admitting to anything more than the strawmans he put up).

    But hey, I just observe the patterns of logical fallacies, and I share.

    To me, I don’t really care if he “admits” his mistakes. I am simply amused and puzzled that he would continue to lob SO MANY of his mistakes in this forum for so long, and NOT realize that people can see the patterns of his behavior.

    I don’t like generalizations, but when there is a visible repeatable pattern, it becomes rather self-evident.

  29. August 26th, 2011 at 16:45 | #29

    “He has explicitly rejected that, saying he doesn’t want separation, but instead greater autonomy.”

    I think the honest answer to this question would have been something like, “Regardless of what the Dalai Lama says now, we don’t trust him based on our experience with him. What is to stop him from claiming he doesn’t want independence now and then working for independence publicly or secretly later?” This claim could then be assessed on the basis of facts. If Fu Ying had summarized a couple points in favor of this conclusion, rather than just asserting it, that would have been a start.

    An even more honest answer would have, “With or without the Dalai Lama, we are afraid that Tibet will quickly spiral out of control if we loosen our grip even a little, so no change is possible for the foreseeable future.”

    Although Fu Ying generally comes across as reasonable, note that her response to the question, “The Dalai Lama has officially retired from his offices. Is this not a good point in time to seek a peaceful solution?” is a complete non sequitur.

  30. zack
    August 26th, 2011 at 16:50 | #30

    @Otto Kerner
    the dalai lama’s conditions for an ‘autonomous tibet’ effectively amount to defacto independance; you can read his conditions at the dalai lama’s website.

    one key condition in this ‘autonomous tibet’ under the guidance of the dalai lama calls for an independant defence force and independant foreign policy. There is no way in hell any government Chinese or otherwise is going to acquiesce to those demands.

  31. Naqshbandiyya
    August 26th, 2011 at 22:30 | #31

    Der Spiegel, C. Custer, and others are engaging in convenient self-deception when they crow that foreign journalists are “not allowed to access Tibet”, because in the West, it’s customary to refer to all of the historically ethnic-Tibetan areas as “Tibet”. Fu Ying on the other hand was just speaking about the smaller Tibet Autonomous Region, because the Chinese government only considers that region to be “Tibet”, applying most of the extra governmental restrictions against separatism only to the TAR.

    But the alleged restrictions are immaterial, because we’ve seen from the August 15 self-immolation in Daofu, Sichuan that the most rebellious Tibetan Buddhist monasteries are located not in the TAR but in Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu. The relative journalistic and personal freedom in these provinces placate neither the Tibetans nor the journalists, so from a pragmatic point of view, not allowing foreign journalists into TAR seems like a good step towards reducing the spread of hysteria and unrest in a volatile region.

  32. Naqshbandiyya
    August 26th, 2011 at 23:01 | #32

    @Otto Kerner
    Why would Fu Ying want to argue about the Dalai Lama’s personal credibility? A historical or political debate on this question is possible, but what you’re proposing is a war of perceptions that China simply can’t win. News profiles of the Dalai Lama are invariably fawning, always noting with delight his bright clothes, cute giggles, and childlike mannerisms. The message is that the Dalai Lama is honest, peaceful, and accomodating (among other things). The global media is not part of an anti-China conspiracy in this respect, but is simply not subjecting the man to enough scrutiny, reverting to lazy orientalist stereotypes.

    But why are we still talking about the Dalai Lama, and what guarantees he can make for China; hasn’t he just “retired” for the 387293854th time this decade? You say that Fu Ying’s response to “The Dalai Lama has officially retired from his offices. Is this not a good point in time to seek a peaceful solution?” is a “complete non sequitur”, but the question itself is a complete non sequitur. If the Dalai Lama can enforce a political settlement, then he is not retired; if he cannot, there is no use in negotiating with him. (If he’s not retired, then there’s no urgency, but the Dalai Lama’s job is to create the illusion of urgency.)

    Look behind the phrase “time to seek a peaceful solution”, and you’ll find a nasty implied threat of violence. If blackmail and intimidation are what the “pro-Tibet” people have to offer China, then China is morally right to refuse it.

  33. Pete North
    August 27th, 2011 at 00:22 | #33

    ‘ in the West, it’s customary to refer to all of the historically ethnic-Tibetan areas as “Tibet”.’

    Customary? Says who? Ask most of the posters here what they think as they are American…
    Semms you might be confusing the political region known as Tibet, from the Tibetan plateau, to the areas of China largely occupied by ethnic Tibetans. You Yanks can be so damned ignorant

    ‘Look behind the phrase “time to seek a peaceful solution”, and you’ll find a nasty implied threat of violence’

    Sounds similar to the PRC’s approach to Taiwan…

  34. Al
    August 27th, 2011 at 07:22 | #34

    Ranting again Peter, are we?

  35. Pete North
    August 27th, 2011 at 07:31 | #35

    Care to be more specific? BTW it’s Pete, not Peter.

  36. denk
    August 27th, 2011 at 09:20 | #36

    p north
    *Sounds similar to the PRC’s approach to Taiwan*

    whats all the fuss about tw old chap ?
    the tw n mainlanders have been trading, hobnobbing, dating n for yrs
    n u should complain ?

    its not as if the pla had booted out the tw islanders to some
    gettos 2000 miles away from home
    http://tinyurl.com/3v3by

    or throw out old tw farmers from their ancestors home to
    make way for another god damned army base
    http://tinyurl.com/4yxcq8a

    or violate 12 yrs old tw school girls during r n r
    http://tinyurl.com/66hvou

    or rain drones on tw villagers
    http://tinyurl.com/3s4bvzu

    or…….do i need to go on ?
    so wtf is all these fuss about tw ?

  37. raventhorn2000
    August 27th, 2011 at 10:02 | #37

    “Customary? Says who?”

    Says apparently lots of Westerners, such as Otto (see above)

  38. August 27th, 2011 at 15:30 | #38

    Naqshbandiyya :
    @Otto Kerner
    Why would Fu Ying want to argue about the Dalai Lama’s personal credibility? A historical or political debate on this question is possible, but what you’re proposing is a war of perceptions that China simply can’t win. News profiles of the Dalai Lama are invariably fawning, always noting with delight his bright clothes, cute giggles, and childlike mannerisms. The message is that the Dalai Lama is honest, peaceful, and accomodating (among other things). The global media is not part of an anti-China conspiracy in this respect, but is simply not subjecting the man to enough scrutiny, reverting to lazy orientalist stereotypes.

    If her mission is to articulate Chinese perspectives well, this would be a good opportunity to do that. If she’s decided that articulating Chinese perspectives is a hopeless cause in the Western media, then there’s no reason to do it.

    But why are we still talking about the Dalai Lama, and what guarantees he can make for China; hasn’t he just “retired” for the 387293854th time this decade?

    Can you list one other time when he has retired? He has talked about retiring many times.

    You say that Fu Ying’s response to “The Dalai Lama has officially retired from his offices. Is this not a good point in time to seek a peaceful solution?” is a “complete non sequitur”, but the question itself is a complete non sequitur. If the Dalai Lama can enforce a political settlement, then he is not retired; if he cannot, there is no use in negotiating with him. (If he’s not retired, then there’s no urgency, but the Dalai Lama’s job is to create the illusion of urgency.)

    No, the question is very clear. The Dalai Lama retired from his secular offices in the so-called “government-in-exile”. It’s true that it doesn’t make much sense for him to say that he opposes secession while he remains the head of something that resembles (but officially is not) a government-in-exile, which is why he eventually put his money where his mouth is by retiring from those offices.

    The Dalai Lama’s potential to ensure the success of a negotiated agreement is entirely due to his personal charisma and the trust that ordinary Tibetans in Tibet put in him. This is not an office and he couldn’t retire from it if he wanted to. It’s on this basis that the Chinese government might want to negotiate with him. His secular offices were an impediment.

    Look behind the phrase “time to seek a peaceful solution”, and you’ll find a nasty implied threat of violence. If blackmail and intimidation are what the “pro-Tibet” people have to offer China, then China is morally right to refuse it.

    You have the first part exactly right, although I don’t think the second part is what the questioner meant. “A peaceful solution” is necessary because of the implied threat of violence by the Chinese government against people who won’t toe the party line. You might want to claim that that violence is only used against people who are themselves violent, but I think the facts say otherwise (it’s like the Pontius Pilate scene in The Last Temptation of Christ: “Killing or loving, it’s all the same. It simply doesn’t matter how you want to change things. We don’t want them changed.”) In fact, it isn’t really an implied threat: the violence actually happens. There could well be some sort of violence going on against Tibetan political prisoners right now.

  39. August 27th, 2011 at 15:38 | #39

    Pete North :
    ‘ in the West, it’s customary to refer to all of the historically ethnic-Tibetan areas as “Tibet”.’
    Customary? Says who? Ask most of the posters here what they think as they are American…
    Semms you might be confusing the political region known as Tibet, from the Tibetan plateau, to the areas of China largely occupied by ethnic Tibetans. You Yanks can be so damned ignorant

    People everywhere can be ignorant, but it’s correct that “Tibet” is often used to refer to the entire Tibetan ethnic region (usually arbitrarily excluding areas outside of the PRC like Ladakh and Bhutan). Please refer to http://www.rangzen.net/2011/04/16/tubote-tibet-and-the-power-of-naming/ and the Wikipedia article on Tibet.

  40. August 27th, 2011 at 15:48 | #40

    zack :
    @Otto Kerner
    the dalai lama’s conditions for an ‘autonomous tibet’ effectively amount to defacto independance; you can read his conditions at the dalai lama’s website.
    one key condition in this ‘autonomous tibet’ under the guidance of the dalai lama calls for an independant defence force and independant foreign policy.

    I looked on http://dalailama.com and it says, “The Central Government of the People’s Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet’s international relations and defense, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection”, so it sounds like you are mistaken about that. I find that very surprising, because this is the very first time that a poster on this forum has ever, ever misquoted or misrepresented something the Dalai Lama or any other Tibetan has said in an effort to criticise them.

    I’m curious what your opinion would be about a less-demanding form of autonomy for Tibet. I have often thought that, if I were a Tibetan activist, I would request that the TAR be given exactly the same special administrative status as Hong Kong, with almost word-for-word the same Basic Law. Surely that would not amount to de facto independence, but I still don’t think the Chinese government would be at all interested in implementing that, which means that “de facto independence” is not the only problem.

  41. raventhorn2000
    August 27th, 2011 at 15:56 | #41

    Otto,

    I think the problem is, we have a HISTORY of DL’s previous “autonomy” in Tibet, under the 17 point Agreement, which he decided to upend with his collusion with CIA for a little “uprising”, which HE still commemorates every year.

    Oh, let’s go BACK to that “autonomy” again??

    I don’t think even US politicians would be that stupid to fall for that trick again.

    So, no thanks. 🙂

  42. August 27th, 2011 at 16:43 | #42

    Not that I think your version of history is accurate, but that was a form of autonomy in which the Dalai Lama was the ruler of the Tibetan government. No one is suggesting going back to the 17 point agreement. The Dalai Lama has suggested a democratic, autonomous Tibet in which he has no political role.

    However, as I said in my initial comment, I agree with you that the government does not trust the Dalai Lama to stay out of politics. I also agree that the government is afraid they will see a repeat of the 1959 rebellion if they loosen control a little. My point was merely about Fu Ying’s success in articulating their viewpoint. Considering that her audience is tacitly hostile on this point, it doesn’t work to simply assert something. If she had mentioned a couple points of evidence briefly, it might have given somebody something to think about.

  43. Naqshbandiyya
    August 27th, 2011 at 17:50 | #43

    @Otto Kerner
    The consistent cliché in the Western media about the Dalai Lama is that China better negotiate with him fast, or else radical young Tibetans will use violence in their struggle for independence. That is transparently not a compelling reason to negotiate for a state that, good or bad, has a lot of experience in putting down armed revolt. In fact, the Dalai Lama’s influence is probably overstated. If he didn’t instigate the 2008 Lhasa riots and instead opposed it, as he claims, then how can the Dalai Lama give China any future assurances of stability?

    @Otto Kerner
    Tibet already has a “less-demanding form of autonomy” than the Dalai Lama desires, at least in terms of language, culture, and economic self-management. These are the only modifications necessary to respect Tibetans’ differences. The other stuff in the Lama’s demands, such as multiparty electoral democracy, are not requisite to fulfill Tibetans’ traditions or desires, so they only serve to undermine China’s political system and pave the way for eventual independence.

  44. August 27th, 2011 at 18:49 | #44

    Naqshbandiyya :
    @Otto Kerner In fact, the Dalai Lama’s influence is probably overstated. If he didn’t instigate the 2008 Lhasa riots and instead opposed it, as he claims, then how can the Dalai Lama give China any future assurances of stability?

    The Dalai Lama has a lot of influence with Tibetans, but he is not able to command all of them like soldiers. Tibetans are upset because the government is not interested in addressing their basic political concerns, a small part of which is the government’s disrespectful attitude toward the Dalai Lama. Out of the large number of upset Tibetans, there have been rare occasions when a small number of them have responded to the Chinese government’s violence with violence of their own. If the basic political problems were resolved, there would be a lot fewer upset Tibetans. Also, there would be less need for government violence. As a result, there would be a much reduced risk of riots. However, Tibetans are much more likely to believe that the political issues have been resolved if the Dalai Lama endorses the resolution. That’s why negotiating with the Dalai Lama is potentially valuable.

    @Otto Kerner
    Tibet already has a “less-demanding form of autonomy” than the Dalai Lama desires, at least in terms of language, culture, and economic self-management.

    Tibet has no autonomy.

  45. raventhorn2000
    August 27th, 2011 at 19:10 | #45

    @Otto Kerner

    I would say that DL’s suggestion of a “democratic autonomy” is tainted by his own history, tainting also every one of his followers. The very extent of that “democratic autonomy” was hardly implemented in any sense of reality in his own Exile.

    Why practical purpose would it serve the people of Tibet to try out DL’s fantasy system?? I mean, come on.

    Oh yes, let’s just drop everything that’s in place and switch to something completely new, based upon the vision of a Holy Man.

    *”Considering that her audience is tacitly hostile on this point, it doesn’t work to simply assert something. If she had mentioned a couple points of evidence briefly, it might have given somebody something to think about.”

    I think Fu is smart enough to know a futility when she sees one. If Der Spiegel is going on nothing more than their own “talking points”, Fu can take a hint.

    Obviously Der Spiegel was not interested in more than a simple response for their own rather simplistic questions.

  46. raventhorn2000
    August 27th, 2011 at 19:12 | #46

    “Tibet has no autonomy.”

    Such simplistic generalization. Tsk, tsk, Otto.

    Here is an appropriate response:

    OH YES IT DOES!!

  47. Pete North
    August 27th, 2011 at 20:13 | #47

    …or ‘Tibet has about as much autonomy as Xinjiang, Ningxia, Inner Mongolia, and Guangxi’

  48. raventhorn2000
    August 27th, 2011 at 20:18 | #48

    … which is better than Native American Reservations.

  49. Pete North
    August 27th, 2011 at 20:25 | #49

    Do native Americans have their passports taken off them by the local authorities for ‘safe keeping’ like my Uyghur friends too?
    More to the point this is not about America, it is about autonomy in the PRC’s Autonomous regions. Though if you care so much about Americas first nation people, perhaps you as an American are in a good place to do something about it…

  50. denk
    August 27th, 2011 at 22:58 | #50

    p north
    *More to the point this is not about America, it is about autonomy in the PRC’s Autonomous regions. Though if you care so much about Americas first nation people, perhaps you as an American are in a good place to do something about it*

    if u care so much about peoples’ right to self determination
    why this obcession with china ?
    what’ve u done about the no 1 scourge of the world at this moment…..
    5oo yrs of anglo imperialism n counting…
    from little bighorn to libya
    http://tinyurl.com/nodnk

  51. Pete North
    August 27th, 2011 at 23:23 | #51

    I think Americas problems are best solved by Americans or people living in America. People such as Raven, yinyang and their ilk.
    Me, I live in China, and many of my friends and family are ‘Chinese’, so why wouldn’t I care?

    As an aside, it seems the LXB thread has been blocked by the GFW, at least where I am now . Must’ve been something you said Raven…

  52. denk
    August 27th, 2011 at 23:56 | #52

    p north
    what do u mean *amerikka’s problem* ?
    its an anglo crime syndicate comprising fukus, australia canada
    this is the no 1 threat to world peace
    it have been running amok for the past 500 yrs
    n currently committing naked aggression against 7 countries

    u talk so much about peoples right to self determination
    but this god damned plague of the mordern world doesnt concern u ?
    u are a god damned hypocrite dude

  53. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 03:21 | #53

    Pete, where I am (Beijing) LXB 3d has no problem at all…check ur connection…don’t always think about some evil scheme, sometimes the answer is much simpler

    “Do native Americans have their passports taken off them by the local authorities for ‘safe keeping’ like my Uyghur friends too?”

    U must really be at a loss for arguments for such silly comparisons…don’t u? (maybe you should study again some history, because Uighur are only one of the ethnicity than can call that place “home”, and FOR SURE, not the oldest…)

  54. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 04:14 | #54

    I never said they were the original, nor the oldest, unless you can quote me…
    I just wonder how one would feel living in an ‘autonomous region’ if one of the benefits of this ‘autonomy’ is to have ones passport confiscated, thus preventing one travelling overseas.
    As for you Denk, your English, and possibly your mind is seemingly incoherent. Please explain again how exactly I am a hypocrite, but take a few deep breaths first.
    My connection……well several hours later and other pages on the site work, but still I get a ‘The connection to blog.hiddenharmonies.org was interrupted’ error on the LXB thread here in Shanghai.

  55. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 04:34 | #55

    Never said u said it, unless u can quote me..once again u missed the point….

    As for your friends, I must take ur word for it (and it’s not really much), that they didn’t really do anything at all…But from here to state that it’s “common practice” I think it’s a long shot, wouldn’t u (BTW, I still can’t really see any relationship between autonomy and the confiscated passport…do you think than in autonomous regions around the world nobody gets passports confiscated for different reasons?)?
    I hope u finally realized why ur comparison with native americans is completely idiotic….

    For the hypocrite….I am not Denk, but I can see u missed another important point…

  56. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 05:13 | #56

    p north
    the anglophone countries consisting of fukus , canada, australia
    participate in the
    theft of diego garcia
    the death of exyugoslavia
    the destruction of iraq
    the devastation of afpak
    the ongoing rape of libya
    [this just the tip of the iceberg]
    n currently eyeing another *humanitarian intervention* in syria

    thats right,
    u hail from the world’s most rapacious imperialists tribe
    yet u’ve the cheek to lecture on how china should conduct its internal affair ?

  57. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 05:39 | #57

    denk, stop rambling. You don’t know where I come from.

    ‘(maybe you should study again some history, because Uighur are only one of the ethnicity than can call that place “home”, and FOR SURE, not the oldest…

    So tell me now al, if you are not claiming I said or even implied that Uyghurs are the only ethnicity that can call Xinjiang home an/ or the oldest, why did you even bother making that statement? Furthermore what does it have to do with the ‘benefits’ of autonomy?
    As to the passports issue, a cursory search will turn up results and is well documented. From my personal knowledge, even prior the Urumqi riot the practice was widespread in at least Urumqi, Kashgar, and Hotan. The process of getting a passport for the Han who have a Xinjiang hukou is more difficult than for those with hukou’s from other provinces also, though they at least don’t face the problem of the authorities holding their passports. And my family members with Xinjiang hukou’s are without fail pulled aside by customs officials and questioned when they return to China. The joys of autonomy eh…

    Wasnt it Confucius who said ‘ all men are created equal, but some more equal than others’ ?

  58. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 06:13 | #58

    p north
    u’re an anglo, thats enuff
    u think u’ve any biz talking about han’s *oppression* of minorities
    while ur tribe is committing mass murders all over the world ?

  59. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 06:27 | #59

    De Wang, your newest recruit is really something. Doing wonders for the cause…the face of a new China indeed.
    Brilliant stuff, keep up the great work tongzhimen

  60. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 06:58 | #60

    Pete…I still fail to see autonomy and passports issue relationship…excuse me…but they’re not related whatsoever..Repeat, do you think that all other autonomous regions in the world, if there are issues of security etc. nobody have their passport hold etc? Autonomy doesn’t mean that the central state (whatever central state) can’t uphold such measures if it deems them necessary (for right or for wrong).
    As for the history lesson…you seem to imply in ur reasoning that the autonomy in Xinjiang should “protect” or exist only for the Uighur (it’s not THEIR home, it’s the home of the Uighur as well as many other nationalities, HAN included), while Xinjiang is a multiethnic region.
    As for longer times in customs….well, it’s not only a Xinjiang problem (try to be a muslim, or a black african in Europe and America – as well as Japan – or an eastern european – mostly romanian – in western Europe…and we’ll see..Sometimes private people “pay” for the problem of the entire region and for the wrong doing of others). It’s out of any doubt that Xinjiang is a “particular” region (ALSO cause different foreign entities keep on meddling around to provoke and give trouble to China…deny this would just be dishonest), and as I already said, can happen to normal guys to have problems or difficulties cause of the wrongdoings of others (and the recent riots in UK is a demonstrations of this fact)…U may not like it, it’s understandable, but it has NOTHING to do with autonomy or the lack of it whatsoever…

  61. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 06:59 | #61

    p north
    ad hominen is the last resort of a loser
    [mind correcting my spelling pal ?]

    u think the uighurs are getting a raw deal eh ?
    coz *ur friend* couldnt get a hotel room n some get *special treatment*
    at the custom, now thats tough !!

    if the minorities in angloland committed such atrocities
    http://tinyurl.com/ykmqc4j
    lets see how long they’d last before the swat team or even
    the sas swoop in n blast them to smithereens

    *De Wang, your newest recruit is really something. Doing wonders for the cause…the face of a new China *

    kid, u’re getting kinda paranoid u know ?

    suffice to say that china is just minding its own biz
    its the anglos, thats right ur tribe, are committing serial
    supreme international crimes
    http://tinyurl.com/6h65m5y

  62. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 07:03 | #62

    Pete…it’s sad u can’t really see the point in Denk’s statements…maybe u’r being an english (i kinda remember ones u said u were english…correct me if I am wrong) makes u feel a little uncomfortable with the issue…but those are simply facts..
    And sorry, to define him as “Dewan new recruit” is nothing but childish

  63. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 07:31 | #63

    Clearly denk is far too intelligent and articulate for me to comprehend the gravity of what he is saying…..sigh. And whats ‘an english’? You mean an English breakfast? You ‘kinda’ remember do you? You mean you don’t know if you remember? Let me set you straight….I never said it, so your either mistaken or lying.

    Is the term’ anglo’ racist?…hard to say. How about ‘chink’ or ‘chinaman?

    What a wonderful level of discourse eh….this site truly is a bridge of understanding.

  64. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 07:48 | #64

    p north

    wow, so u think this site n its posters suck
    so why keep banging ur head against the wall here old chap

    ever consider custer’s advice ?
    how about trying something constructive for a change ?
    like petitioning the anglophones to stop their rape of the world ?
    which reminds me its 7 supreme international crimes in 7 yrs now
    http://tinyurl.com/3byxgu6

    we easterners learn at a very young age that
    *charity starts at home*
    i find that anglos seem to like poking their noses into others latrines
    while shits are piling up at their own doorsteps
    kinda like cultural difference i guess

    btw,
    anglos as in anglosaxon are freely used in daily recourse without malice
    whereas i let the readers decide whether p north is being racist
    in calling the chinese *chinks*

  65. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:01 | #65

    Oh to be 17 again…… you’ll make a fine little foot-soldier denk. Racist, moi? I merely asked an innocent question.
    Maybe you should ask yinyang, raven and co to ‘petition the anglophiles’ They are American after all…hey maybe you are too.

  66. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:12 | #66

    p north
    why should i tell yinyang n raven what to do ?
    they aint *the* hypocrite who lecture the han how to be nice with
    the *choppers* of xinjiang

  67. Pete North
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:22 | #67

    Ahh so ‘The Han’ represent China, and the Uyghurs represent the ‘choppers’ Its becoming much clearer to me now….anything else you’d like to add? Don’t hold back now

  68. denk
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:36 | #68

    al
    *Pete…it’s sad u can’t really see the point in Denk’s statements…*

    al

    from the oxford dictionary
    *5. (Psychology) a psychological process by which painful truths are not
    admitted into an individual’s consciousness *

    its called the 3 monkeys syndrome, mostly afflicting the anglos
    this is a kind of defence mechanism for hypocrites
    thats why the anglos often act like the parents of a serial rapist
    telling a neighbour how to raise his child, with straight face n all.

    p north
    *you’ll make a fine little foot-soldier denk. *

    ad hominen is the last refuge of a loser
    [u havent told me is the spelling correct]

    good nite everybody

  69. raventhorn2000
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:51 | #69

    “Maybe you should ask yinyang, raven and co to ‘petition the anglophiles’ They are American after all…hey maybe you are too.”

    Maybe you own generalizations like that make you appear racist, when you insist upon speculating on other people’s nationality.

    Yeah, maybe you don’t live in China at all. Right back at you, Pete North.

    🙂

  70. raventhorn2000
    August 28th, 2011 at 08:56 | #70

    “Do native Americans have their passports taken off them by the local authorities for ‘safe keeping’ like my Uyghur friends too?”

    If they are on the “no-fly” list, sure. Well, technically, their “passport” would be worthless at that point.

    Also, if they are convicted of some felonies, they are not allowed to use or obtain passport to leave the country.

    Or if there are court orders or executive orders that confine their travels, for pending cases/investigations.

  71. raventhorn2000
    August 28th, 2011 at 09:02 | #71

    For further reference on curbing of Native American “culture” in US, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Supreme Court of US ruled, integrity of the state “unemployment” benefit outweighed the individual importance of Native American religious belief/ceremony.

    Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

  72. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 11:37 | #72

    ” Let me set you straight….I never said it, so your either mistaken or lying.”….

    U see Pete, u’r nervousness betrays ur poverty of arguments and ur weakness..anyway, there’s no need of accusing others to lie, if I was lying i wouldn’t ask u to correct me if I was wrong…My god how terribly low ur level is…And I see u completely ignored all the other points, nice way to flee

  73. Common Tater
    August 28th, 2011 at 12:02 | #73

    @raventhorn2000

    That little uprising was against PRC military control. I understand that you’re on the PRC’s side, but can you not understand that the Tibetans didn’t – and largely don’t – want to be controlled by the PRC? Or are their wishes so irrelevant to you?

    Do you think many Tibetans revere the DL because they want to be feudal serfs? Or is it because they don’t trust Beijing, and the DL is their best national symbol?

    Anyway, that uprising was over 50 years ago. Do you know what kind of horrible stuff happened in the PRC since then, due to MZD, that had nothing to do with the West? The GLF and the GPCR. And yet you trust the CCP. Strange how you hold grudges against the CIA and the DL, for crimes – real or imagined – far less serious than your own heroes, who you so obligingly forgive for some of the nastiest evil FUBAR events of the 20th century.

    Highly selective and biased, and thus lacking in credibility.

  74. zack
    August 28th, 2011 at 12:08 | #74

    @Common Tater
    the CCP today is not the CCP of the GLP and GPCR; it’s like saying the US administration today is the same administration responsible for jim crow laws, kent state etc etc

  75. Al
    August 28th, 2011 at 12:16 | #75

    @Common Tater: care to say something relevant, or just ranting around? 🙂 U’r vision of the “little uprising” is kinda hilarious

  76. raventhorn2000
    August 28th, 2011 at 12:27 | #76

    @Common Tater

    I don’t see any denial, so I’ll take that as “confirmation” of what I wrote.

    And I don’t see any of your speculations about what “Tibetans” want as any thing more than your personal opinion without any supporting facts.

    US has Native Americans on reservations for how long? 100 years or more?? FUBAR!!

    You sure forgive a lot. Why worry about what I “forgive”??!!

  77. August 28th, 2011 at 14:56 | #77

    raventhorn2000 :
    And I don’t see any of your speculations about what “Tibetans” want as any thing more than your personal opinion without any supporting facts.

    Well, that’s the whole point. The government makes it impossible for Tibetans to express their political opinions freely. That way they can claim that reality is whatever they want it to be and trying to read between the lines is the only way to get closer to the truth.

  78. Charles Liu
    August 28th, 2011 at 18:32 | #78

    As a patriotic American, I would never for a second allow the Chinese to arm and finance the Native American independence movement, or consider such revolt legitmate.

    So why should it be any different when it comes to CIA instigated revolt in Tibet 50 years ago? German and US government orchestrated protests coincide with Beijing Olympics (according to research TGIE was involved.)

  79. Pete North
    August 29th, 2011 at 01:56 | #79

    As a patriotic American, what would you do about it exactly?

  80. raventhorn2000
    August 29th, 2011 at 05:34 | #80

    “Well, that’s the whole point. The government makes it impossible for Tibetans to express their political opinions freely. That way they can claim that reality is whatever they want it to be and trying to read between the lines is the only way to get closer to the truth.”

    That’s a circular logic, and conjecture on what “they want”.

  81. Al
    August 29th, 2011 at 06:46 | #81

    U have to understand him..it’s all Pete has in his hands…

  82. raventhorn2000
    August 29th, 2011 at 07:00 | #82

    The argument that TGIE supporters would have people believe, is simply that it does NOT matter what kinds of BS dirty tricks TGIE, CIA, NED, etc. pulled in the last 60 years, It’s still all Chinese government’s fault.

    That, my friends, is a truly pathetic argument filled with desperation and irrationality.

    Seriously, we are beyond diplomatic “engagement”, and into full diplomatic “stalking” mode, apparently.

    No MEANS NO, DL. Take a hint already! LOL!!

  83. Common Tater
    August 31st, 2011 at 11:18 | #83

    @raventhorn2000

    You don’t see a denial so you’ll take that as confirmation? Wow! You are one light-weight in the world of debate. Pretty desperate to try to appear to score points that aren’t really there.

    If Tibetans want Han dominance, why are there problems? Oh wait! It’s an evil clique! And anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the state! How convenient.

    About the Amerindians: it has been noted that the US government is culpable in their mistreatment. I assume that by your comparison, the PRC is similarly culpable in Tibet.

  84. raventhorn2000
    August 31st, 2011 at 11:31 | #84

    @Common Tater

    Not my logic, Tater. Just something I heard from Custer. But in your case, it works, because you are still trying to change the subject, which was the “UPRISING”.

    If you want to dispute what the Tibetans have admitted, and what the CIA’s files have shown, go ahead.

    “About the Amerindians: it has been noted that the US government is culpable in their mistreatment. I assume that by your comparison, the PRC is similarly culpable in Tibet.”

    I dispute your assumption, as you have not provided any evidentiary comparison of “culpability”, NOR US’s acceptance of its “culpability”.

  85. Charles Liu
    September 1st, 2011 at 00:57 | #85

    @Common Tater PRC is similarly culpable

    Ok, following your logic, why should such culpability affect China’s current states and established sovereignty? Especially when we Americans are culpable for worse transgressions yet our culpability do not affect United Sates’ current states and established sovereignty?

    Hypocrisy, what’s why.

  86. Common Tater
    September 1st, 2011 at 11:37 | #86

    raventhorn2000 :
    @Common Tater
    Not my logic, Tater. Just something I heard from Custer. But in your case, it works, because you are still trying to change the subject, which was the “UPRISING”.
    If you want to dispute what the Tibetans have admitted, and what the CIA’s files have shown, go ahead.
    “About the Amerindians: it has been noted that the US government is culpable in their mistreatment. I assume that by your comparison, the PRC is similarly culpable in Tibet.”
    I dispute your assumption, as you have not provided any evidentiary comparison of “culpability”, NOR US’s acceptance of its “culpability”.

    If that’s your best shot, then the opposition has nothing to worry about.

  87. raventhorn2000
    September 1st, 2011 at 12:30 | #87

    @Common Tater

    “If that’s your best shot, then the opposition has nothing to worry about.”

    The Opposition certainly worries about “NOTHING” a lot. I hear them EVERY DAY, worrying about “nothing” and writing reports about “nothing”.

    And apparently, they get a lot of money from US for “nothing” at all.

    Sure, I certainly am not worried, not my money for “nothing”.

  88. September 1st, 2011 at 15:23 | #88

    Charles Liu :Ok, following your logic, why should such culpability affect China’s current states and established sovereignty? Especially when we Americans are culpable for worse transgressions yet our culpability do not affect United Sates’ current states and established sovereignty?
    Hypocrisy, what’s why.

    That’s a reasonable question, albeit one that has been asked and answered in the past.

    Fundamentally, because of facts on the ground, that’s why.

    Now, you could say, “well, that’s not fair, those so-called ‘facts-on-the-ground’ were created by the same parties that benefit from them now!” Well, close but not quite, since the facts I’m talking about were created some time ago by people who are no longer alive. Close enough, though, since we are, in some sense, their heirs.

    However, it is an inescapable fact that the past is not fair. Why is China a big country and Albania is a small country? Because of history. What has become of all the countries that used to exist but don’t anymore, like Pictland, or Old Prussia, or Anatolian Galatia, or Champa, or Dzungaria? What I’m suggesting is to try to make the world a less brutal place in the present and the future.

  89. September 1st, 2011 at 15:30 | #89

    Charles Liu :As a patriotic American, I would never for a second allow the Chinese to arm and finance the Native American independence movement, or consider such revolt legitmate.

    As a patriotic American, I agree with you very much that I do not want to see foreign countries arming revolutionary movements in the U.S. It is our responsibility, then, to reach a modus vivendi with the people who live in our country by honoring their valid interests such that internationalizing the issue is not their only possible recourse. To the extent that we use fear of Chinese influence to avoid addressing American Indian issues, that only adds to our shame.

    As Carl Schurz said: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

    So why should it be any different when it comes to CIA instigated revolt in Tibet 50 years ago? German and US government orchestrated protests coincide with Beijing Olympics (according to research TGIE was involved.)

    It’s easy to make claims without citing any evidence. Canadian journalist Doug Saunders stated that Chinese media dramatically misquoted him as reporting that the German and U.S. governments orchestrated protests in Tibet. Is that your source?

  90. raventhorn2000
    September 1st, 2011 at 17:10 | #90

    “It’s easy to make claims without citing any evidence. Canadian journalist Doug Saunders stated that Chinese media dramatically misquoted him as reporting that the German and U.S. governments orchestrated protests in Tibet. Is that your source?”

    There were certainly sufficient evidence to point to TGIE’s orchestration.

    (1) There were orders and shipments of TGIE flags, of the same size all being used by the protesters. 1 order was made to a Chinese factory, and was stopped.

    (2) TGIE’s own websites broadcasted coordinated “uprising” events prior to the protests inside China.

  91. Charles Liu
    September 1st, 2011 at 22:09 | #91

    @Otto Kerner

    My source is not Chinese media:

    http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145

    Now I’d appreciate you back up your claim with citation. BTW glad to see you not disputing CIA involvement in HHDL’s revolt 50 years ago.

  92. Charles Liu
    September 1st, 2011 at 22:21 | #92

    @Otto Kerner

    And here’s one fundamental “fact on the ground” – Native Americans are all separated and put away in desolate tiny pockets of reservations, while Tibet SAR remained one large contiguous historical territory where Tibetans enjoy kinship and exchange.

    I once asked a Free Tibet person if China should implement our reservation system, he can’t bring himself to say yes. ‘Nuff said.

  93. September 1st, 2011 at 22:55 | #93

    Charles Liu :
    @Otto Kerner BTW glad to see you not disputing CIA involvement in HHDL’s revolt 50 years ago.

    I’m aware that the Tibetan people rose up against the Chinese government at various times and places in the 1950s, but there was no “HHDL’s revolt”. By definition I cannot have an opinion about whether the CIA was involved in something that did not actually happen.

  94. September 1st, 2011 at 22:57 | #94

    raventhorn2000 :
    “It’s easy to make claims without citing any evidence. Canadian journalist Doug Saunders stated that Chinese media dramatically misquoted him as reporting that the German and U.S. governments orchestrated protests in Tibet. Is that your source?”
    There were certainly sufficient evidence to point to TGIE’s orchestration.
    (1) There were orders and shipments of TGIE flags, of the same size all being used by the protesters. 1 order was made to a Chinese factory, and was stopped.
    (2) TGIE’s own websites broadcasted coordinated “uprising” events prior to the protests inside China.

    The claim I was responding to was that the German and U.S. governments orchestrated it, not TGIE. You are attempting to move the goalposts again.

  95. September 1st, 2011 at 23:04 | #95

    Charles Liu :
    @Otto Kerner
    My source is not Chinese media:
    http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145
    Now I’d appreciate you back up your claim with citation.

    Fine, so Saunders was misquoted by one leftwing German website in addition to China Daily.

    Here’s my source: http://www.bullogger.com/blogs/talk/archives/130791.aspx (it’s a reprint of the original article by Doug Saunders in the Globe and Mail). Will you now admit that you were wrong when you referred to “German and US government orchestrated protests”?

  96. September 1st, 2011 at 23:07 | #96

    Charles Liu :
    @Otto Kerner
    And here’s one fundamental “fact on the ground” – Native Americans are all separated and put away in desolate tiny pockets of reservations, while Tibet SAR remained one large contiguous historical territory where Tibetans enjoy kinship and exchange.

    I know what the facts on the ground are. I answered your question, but you did not really respond to me.

  97. Charles Liu
    September 2nd, 2011 at 14:50 | #97

    @Otto Kerner

    Otto, my advise is to read it carefully. “in Tibet” was your invention. I was refering to the Oylmpic torch protest Saunders wrote about which the German think tank provided further analysis – entirely independent of whatever Chinese media you claim I relied on.

    Who’s wrong now? Still think I quoted Chinese media? BTW changing your answer won’t change the fact you are the one that is wrong. I bet you didn’t read the other citations by German Foreign Policy:

    “[2] Die ersten vier “International Tibet Support Groups Conferences” fanden 1990 (Dharamsala), 1996 (Bonn), 2000 (Berlin) und 2003 (Prag) statt. Bereits die zweite Konferenz wurde von der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung organisiert.
    [3] Gerhardt kritisiert Belgien nach Absage des Dalai-Lama-Besuchs; http://www.fnst-freiheit.org 11.05.2007
    [4] Brussels Tibet conference roadmap for peace in Tibet; http://www.tibet.com 14.05.2007
    [5] Valedictory Speech, International Tibet Support Groups Conference 5th, Dr. h.c. Rolf Berndt, Executive Director, Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung fuer die Freiheit,Brussels, 14th May 2007
    [9] Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet; CNN 20.03.2008
    [10] Chinese beaten mercilessly – tourists; Herald Sun 19.03.2008
    [11] Fotos aus Tibet; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 24.03.2008
    [12] see also Augenzeuge
    [13] “99 Prozent der Tibeter vertrauen in Seine Heiligkeit”; Berliner Zeitung 20.10.1997. Ähnlich hat sich erst kürzlich der Dalai Lama geäußert. “Alle Chinesen, die Tibetisch sprechen und die tibetische Kultur respektieren, können bleiben”, sagte er einer deutschen Zeitung – mit einer Einschränkung: “sofern es nicht zu viele sind”. “China mischt sich auch in Deutschlands Angelegenheiten ein”; Süddeutsche Zeitung 21.09.2007″

  98. September 2nd, 2011 at 15:23 | #98

    Charles Liu :@Otto Kerner
    Otto, my advise is to read it carefully. “in Tibet” was your invention. I was refering to the Oylmpic torch protest Saunders wrote about which the German think tank provided further analysis – entirely independent of whatever Chinese media you claim I relied on.
    Who’s wrong now? Still think I quoted Chinese media? BTW changing your answer won’t change the fact you are the one that is wrong. I bet you didn’t read the other citations by German Foreign Policy:

    If you want to be picky about it, which, of course, you do, I didn’t say that you quoted the Chinese media, I asked if that was your source. Here’s what I said, “Canadian journalist Doug Saunders stated that Chinese media dramatically misquoted him as reporting that the German and U.S. governments orchestrated protests in Tibet. Is that your source?” You advised me that you were actually using a different source that also blatantly misquoted Doug Saunders. I have no 0 interest in reading other sources cited by the same website, since they have destroyed their credibility by lying about what Saunders said. If there’s something specific in those other sources that demonstrates that the U.S. or German governments orchestrated pro-Tibet demonstrations anywhere in the world, please tell me what it is specifically.

  99. denk
    September 3rd, 2011 at 20:19 | #99

    kerner

    the 1959 *uprising* was a cia caper
    that’s already declassified material.

    whats more…………..

    cia insiders sam halpen, McGehee
    http://tinyurl.com/3w74zor
    http://tinyurl.com/3zk7eab

    tibetan contras trainer morrison
    http://tinyurl.com/oq95vd

    security analysis Bennet, ex raw director raman
    http://tinyurl.com/4byqyl

    n other astute observers [i count myself as one]
    all believed cia was the dark hand behind the 2008/9 tibet/xinjiang riots
    http://tinyurl.com/3mzvn3f

    are these pros all *lefties conspiracy theorists* to u ?

  100. September 4th, 2011 at 02:01 | #100

    denk :
    kerner
    the 1959 *uprising* was a cia caper
    that’s already declassified material.
    whats more…………..
    cia insiders sam halpen, McGehee
    http://tinyurl.com/3w74zor
    http://tinyurl.com/3zk7eab
    tibetan contras trainer morrison
    http://tinyurl.com/oq95vd
    security analysis Bennet, ex raw director raman
    http://tinyurl.com/4byqyl
    n other astute observers [i count myself as one]
    all believed cia was the dark hand behind the 2008/9 tibet/xinjiang riots
    http://tinyurl.com/3mzvn3f
    are these pros all *lefties conspiracy theorists* to u ?

    If you go back and read what I wrote above, I was pointing out that there was no “HHDL’s revolt”; i.e. the Dalai Lama did not instigate a revolt. Of course the CIA was involved with the Tibetan resistance. The CIA has done a lot of things that are worthy of being ashamed of, but this isn’t one of them. They should have been more involved and earlier.

  101. raventhorn2000
    September 4th, 2011 at 09:51 | #101

    “there was no “HHDL’s revolt”; i.e. the Dalai Lama did not instigate a revolt.”

    Classic CIA style “plausible deniability”.

    “They should have been more involved and earlier.”

    Well, that settles it, China should be involved in Native American “revolts”, and UK “revolts”.

  102. Charles Liu
    September 4th, 2011 at 13:15 | #102

    @raventhorn2000

    Exactely, as a patriot American I am completely ashamed the CIA’s past involvement in other country’s domestic affairs, such as toppling Iran’s domcratic government and installation of the Shah, as well as aiding HHDL in order to instigate revolt within China.

    I hope the Chinese never get so powerful, they arm the Native Americans to the detriment of America’s established sovereignty and current states. That is why I am against present day NED’s activity in China.

    “Do to others as you would have them do to you”

  103. September 4th, 2011 at 13:32 | #103

    raventhorn2000 :
    “there was no “HHDL’s revolt”; i.e. the Dalai Lama did not instigate a revolt.”
    Classic CIA style “plausible deniability”.

    I think you will believe whatever you wish to believe.

  104. raventhorn2000
    September 4th, 2011 at 13:49 | #104

    @Otto Kerner

    Oh please. I hate to use the old cliche, “Follow the money” has never been clearer in case of CIA and DL.

    I think you are the one believing in whatever you wish to believe.

    “The CIA has done a lot of things that are worthy of being ashamed of, but this isn’t one of them”???!!

    Yeah, right… OK, your case is the EXCEPTION.

  105. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 18:38 | #105

    “Of course the CIA was involved with the Tibetan resistance. The CIA has done a lot of things that are worthy of being ashamed of, but this isn’t one of them”

    Is it not? Wow, instigating revolt in another country only cause you don’t like the government in power is not something worth of being ashamed of (ask urself, but SERIOUSLY, if any of this would have happened had Guomindang – US ally and lapdog – won the civil war…and please, respect mine, our and ur own intelligence, don’t start saying that Tibet would have been “free” that way cause, make no mistake, Guomindang would have certainly kept Tibet and all the other territories, as it is normal – they still cling to them – and the US wouldn’t have said ONE SINGLE word on the issue)…Really, I start questioning your own morality after this kind of statement. Instigating violence and fomenting revolts in other countries is not “worth of being ashamed of” for you, as long as it happens to fulfill ur imagination…Interesting.

    This really is a serious case of “I think you will believe whatever you wish to believe.”

  106. Otto Kerner
    September 4th, 2011 at 19:23 | #106

    Al :
    Is it not? Wow, instigating revolt in another country only cause you don’t like the government in power is not something worth of being ashamed of

    I am not aware of any revolts in Tibet were instigated by the CIA. They supported revolts after they had already occurred.

    “Instigate” is the wrong model anyway. It takes away Tibetan agency, making it sound like the CIA imposes revolts on them. Assuming that Tibetans are passive subjects acted upon by outside forces is typical of Chinese-oriented discourse about Tibet; unfortunately, it is common in Western-oriented discourse as well. As an example of what I mean, consider that the U.S. did attempt to “instigate” Tibetan resistance in 1951, by promising support to the Dalai Lama if he would reject the 17-Point Agreement. However, in that case the Tibetan government made a decision to reject American aid and pursue cooperation with the Chinese.

    (ask urself, but SERIOUSLY, if any of this would have happened had Guomindang – US ally and lapdog – won the civil war…and please, respect mine, our and ur own intelligence, don’t start saying that Tibet would have been “free” that way cause, make no mistake, Guomindang would have certainly kept Tibet and all the other territories, as it is normal – they still cling to them – and the US wouldn’t have said ONE SINGLE word on the issue)

    You’re conflating two different issues. I said that what the CIA actually did under the circumstances was not shameful. Under other circumstances, they would have acted differently and maybe that would have been shameful — I certainly never said that the CIA never does anything shamful; in fact, I said the opposite. I certainly agree with you that they would not have tried to undermine ROC control of Tibet. In fact, in actual history, U.S. loyalty to the Guomindang is a big part of the reason why they did not support Tibet more vigorously: in the 1950s, they still hoped that Chiang Kai-shek would somehow be able to regain control of the Mainland.

    …Really, I start questioning your own morality after this kind of statement.

    I don’t think you have really understood this comment yet, so I’m not very interested in your opinions about my morality.

  107. denk
    September 4th, 2011 at 21:43 | #107

    kerner
    *If you go back and read what I wrote above, I was pointing out that there was no “HHDL’srevolt”; i.e. the Dalai Lama did not instigate a revolt. Of course the CIA was involved with the Tibetan resistance. *

    yet in ur previous post
    u demanded proof from charles liu about merikka n german complicity ?

    *The CIA has done a lot of things that are worthy of being ashamed of, but this isn’t one of them. They should have been more involved and earlier.*

    do u know that this consitute an act of war
    under international law ?

    as others have pointed out,
    in ur previous post , u said
    *As a patriotic American, I agree with you very much that I do not want to see foreign countries arming revolutionary movements in the U.S*

    whats this,
    double standard ?
    amerikkan *exceptionism* ?
    do as i say, not what i do ?

    *What I’m suggesting is to try to make the world a less brutal place in the present and the future.*

    how do u classify these, brutal, heinous, downright evil ?

    http://tinyurl.com/3344nol
    http://tinyurl.com/3bg49b6
    [i bet u figured nato was doing the *right* thing in kosovo right ?]
    http://tinyurl.com/y9lkstf
    http://tinyurl.com/3kr5ydu
    http://tinyurl.com/3odrcpb
    http://tinyurl.com/3v3by

    what have u suggested here that’ll *make the world less brutal* ?
    i’m holding my breathe !

    *As Carl Schurz said: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”*

    nice *words* that
    http://tinyurl.com/5r4ee4d
    how has it worked out so far ?

  108. September 4th, 2011 at 22:15 | #108

    denk :
    kerner
    *If you go back and read what I wrote above, I was pointing out that there was no “HHDL’srevolt”; i.e. the Dalai Lama did not instigate a revolt. Of course the CIA was involved with the Tibetan resistance. *
    yet in ur previous post
    u demanded proof from charles liu about merikka n german complicity ?

    Indeed so, because he and I were talking about a completely different event. I’m going to stop reading your comments now.

  109. denk
    September 4th, 2011 at 22:35 | #109

    kerner
    *I’m going to stop reading your comments now.*

    tsk tsk tsk

    i’ll answer for u colonnel

    *u admit u’re cheering on ur country’s act of war against china
    *u admit u’re a hypocrite who deplore other country’s reciprocative action against merikka
    *u admit u’ve done nothing to make the world *less brutal*, a world which has been brutalised by amerikka n its anglo cohorts for the past 500 yrs.
    *u’ve done nothing to *set right* ur country’s *wrongs*
    coz u are too busy minding others business.

    u’ve conceded defeat
    the logical thing to do now is to go fly a kite 😉

  110. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 23:20 | #110

    “I don’t think you have really understood this comment yet, so I’m not very interested in your opinions about my morality.”

    I think u really must be at a loss for argument to try such little tricks, aren’t u? I think u’d better read more carefully what I wrote, maybe u will understand it then, cause it really seems u didn’t really get it till now.
    Ur comment and ur words were pretty clear, and not revealing a particularly “profound” or “difficult” reasoning, so, no, I understood it all right..just u now have a problem defending what u wrote, and this comment of urs is the clear demonstration of this fact.

  111. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 23:25 | #111

    “I am not aware of any revolts in Tibet were instigated by the CIA. They supported revolts after they had already occurred.”
    Then u’r even less informed than what I thought

  112. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 23:28 | #112

    I hope at least u have reflected on when and why those “revolt” (mostly including monks and nobility) happened, right? Until the prerogative, property and power of the Dalai and the nobility had not been touched by the central government (which is until 1959), they didn’t a problem..strange uh?!? 😀

  113. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 23:36 | #113

    “Indeed so, because he and I were talking about a completely different event. I’m going to stop reading your comments now.”

    ahahah, the last resort of the “argumentatively” weak

  114. September 4th, 2011 at 23:46 | #114

    I have to agree with Otto on the specific point that the CIA’s involvement in Tibet was primarily within the context of the Cold War, of opposing Soviet Communism. After the normalization of relations by Nixon and Mao, those type of clandestine activities formally ceased by the CIA. Though we all know, the PR nonsense and the funding of TGIE by organizations like NED continue today.

    What I feel missing today in the U.S. psyche is humility. It is cocky and believes it can sow disunity anywhere around the globe it wishes. What the U.S. needs to recognize is that some day, it would too be a less dominant player on the global stage. Then, she would not want to have external forces create chaos within.

    While being in the dominant position, the U.S. should use this opportunity to create an international order so it is more difficult for hegemons in the future to create chaos all over. This “check on power” idea is in fact part of the U.S. DNA if one thinks about it.

  115. Al
    September 4th, 2011 at 23:56 | #115

    “I have to agree with Otto on the specific point that the CIA’s involvement in Tibet was primarily within the context of the Cold War, of opposing Soviet Communism.”

    Agreed on the specific point, but does it make it right to act like that?

  116. September 5th, 2011 at 00:23 | #116

    yinyang,

    The quality of discussion on your site is very low. It’s annoying to try to participate in discussions and be met instead with abusive jeering.

  117. September 5th, 2011 at 00:34 | #117

    @Al
    I understand why you ask that way. During the WW2, the Chinese people greatly appreciated U.S. assistance in countering the Japanese invasion. You likely know about the Flying Tigers (btw, John Woo is working with Hollywood on a big budget film about it).

    Did the U.S. aid China out of China’s sake? I don’t think so. It did so in a grander scheme of fighting the Japanese.

    I think what the CIA did in the 50s was wrong, because as we see today, China’s brand of ‘Communism’ has always been benign; not the type the U.S. was fighting during the Cold War.

    Let’s suppose China’s version was the same as that of the Soviet Unions. In that case, would you feel U.S. actions were justified (in fomenting the uprising in Tibet)? Maybe partly justified?

  118. September 5th, 2011 at 00:36 | #118

    Al :
    “I don’t think you have really understood this comment yet, so I’m not very interested in your opinions about my morality.”
    I think u really must be at a loss for argument to try such little tricks, aren’t u? I think u’d better read more carefully what I wrote, maybe u will understand it then, cause it really seems u didn’t really get it till now.

    So, you think that if I suggest that you didn’t understand what I wrote, then I am playing tricks. But you also say that I don’t understand what you wrote. Is that it?

    Ur comment and ur words were pretty clear, and not revealing a particularly “profound” or “difficult” reasoning, so, no, I understood it all right..just u now have a problem defending what u wrote, and this comment of urs is the clear demonstration of this fact.

    I wrote two other paragraphs in response to you, but you chose not to respond to them.

  119. September 5th, 2011 at 00:38 | #119

    @Otto Kerner
    I believe the jeering happens both ways.

    I’ve had some time off from blogging, and one thing I have decided to do now that I am back is to conscientiously look for points of agreements and acknowledge them – knowing that we tend to focus on points of contention.

    I ask that we all try to do that.

  120. denk
    September 5th, 2011 at 00:49 | #120

    kerner
    *The quality of discussion on your site is very low.* [sic]

    ever consider *migrating* to more *high end* sites ?

    * It’s annoying to try to participate in discussions * [sic]

    who says this ?
    *denk, i’ll stop reading ur comments*

  121. Al
    September 5th, 2011 at 00:58 | #121

    @YinYang…it’s not an easy question. I’m not much convinced that USSR kind of communism was evil (and I must stress here, I have NEVER considered myself as a communist or a communist sympathizer. I like to observe things, and when I see something I deem false or, let’s say, preposterous, like US fight for freedom, for example, I like to point it out.)
    Many of the events we historically are used to be told to have been caused by the evil red soviet communists and their friends, don’t stand up at a closer historical scrutiny (so it is for Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, so it is for the causes and the unfolding of the Korea War, so it is also for the birth and growth of the communist party in China). Many of those phenomenons started and grew stronger (with of course the interested help of the Soviet Union) cause first western powers, and US with them of course, refused to give help when it was asked to free people, or help them in their struggle for independence..just cause it wasn’t functional to their own power interests (I’m thinking of Ho Chi Minh here, and of Sun Yat-sen and the communists).
    I am not a soviet historian, so I might all too well be wrong, but the communist revolution in USSR has been opposed and attacked by the then western powers as soon as it started, and it kept being so all along the way.
    Also the decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan is historically not due to the need to save americans soldiers lives or to finally defeat the Japanese (it is a coomplex matter, but requests to get to a conditionate surrender – as it eventually was the japanese surrender – had already been started through other countries by Japan..They asked that the imperial system and the Emperor figure to be maintained – and that’s exactly what eventually happened -..so there was no whatsoever need to use not just 1 but 2 nuclear devices on the civilian populace) but mostly to the need to test the new weapons on the real field, and to let USSR know that US had such powerful and terrible weapon of mass distructrion, and to show them and the world for real its terrible power . It has been nothing more than a political decision.
    So, you ask me if the US actions would have been justified (or were justified in the case of the USSR)..My answer is, from an objective point of view, no, not even partly justified.
    They were justified only from the subjective point of view of growing and consolidating one’s own international power, against what was perceived as an enemy/adversary.

  122. Al
    September 5th, 2011 at 01:00 | #122

    @Otto, why do u want to keep people loosing time….I answered also to those 2 points, it’s u who do not understand where the answers are….keep reading, maybe in the end u’ll find out.

  123. September 6th, 2011 at 11:24 | #123

    @Al
    I respect your view.

    All these talks of ‘freedom’ are indeed propaganda.

    There are two ways to look at our world:
    1. Through fairness
    2. Through might is right

    As to today, I don’t think the U.S. is trying to contain China; definitely not in a way they did against the USSR. George Kennan, as you might know, formulated the Containment strategy that was used by the U.S. against the USSR. We can get a hint from what he said below of what should be the current U.S. strategy:

    ‘[I]t really is in ill grace for us to be talking down to them [Chinese] and saying, by implication, that “you ought to learn to govern yourselves as we do”. … But purely military power, even in its greatest dimensions of superiority, can produce only short-term successes … I can say without hesitation that this planet is never going to be ruled from any single political center, whatever its military power’.

    I would also add, the Cold War was a result of at least one party (perhaps both) wanting to dominate militarily. In that process, all of us on this planet were put into severe risk. For example, in the Cuban Missile crisis, the USSR was responding to U.S. placing nukes in Turkey and other locations within striking distance to key cities. As the USSR shipped more nuke materials into Cuba, the U.S. navy harassed their ships in international waters. Nuclear war was so imminent during that crisis.

    My hope is that the U.S. have learned a lesson from the Cold War. Military dominance is not the end all be all.

    And, my point is that the U.S. stance towards China is vastly different today than during the Cold War erra. Fairness aside, I think that difference deserve recognition.

  124. Charles Liu
    September 6th, 2011 at 16:38 | #124

    @YinYang

    It may be different, but I’d tend to say some things remain the same. We continue to pump millions into destablizing China, weakening it’s sovereignty, foment dissent to the detriment of China’s functioning society, well being of 1.3 billion citizens.

    Why is NED advisory board member Perry Link so intimately involved in Liu Xiaobo’s drafting of Charter 08? Perry Link’s English translation read like The Battle Hymn of the Republic and had significant differences than the Chinese original, not to mention the million dollar funding from NED to groups Liu founded.

    Why does the NED line it’s pocket with Falun Gong nutjobs (~6 million dollars for pre Olympics propaganda), Taiwanese operative like Wang Dan (how much of the “discretionary fund” from Chen Suibian corruption case went to the Taiwan Lobby)?

    The right thing to do is to stay vigilant and criticize America’s shameful exceptionalism, from present day NED overt activities to CIA’s past covert activities. Else one can advocate might, and reason that future Chinese Empire’s underwriting of Native American revolt Against US statehood is not only not shameful, but the Chinese “should have been more involved and earlier”.

    This American chooses the former, thou I don’t believe we have learned from history, as the official narrative demonstrates. With recent targeting of China in the upcoming presidential election, bad days are ahead for the Chinese-looking Asian-Amercians like myself.

    America is constantly in need of an enemy, who better to replace the olive skin muslims in Guantanamo Bay than the mottled skin Chinese?

  125. Al
    September 6th, 2011 at 18:29 | #125

    @YinYang

    I respect your view too, and I also agree on most of the thing you wrote on this last comment. I completely agree about US not trying to contain China the way they did with USSR, that’s very clear…I hope it will continue this way, but as China grow, I hope US stance on the matter won’t begin to resemble the old one with USSR.
    Of course I was not implying in my previous comment that anyone being a “saint” (not USSR, least of all not Japan etc.), I was only pointing out that as far as I see and as far as my knowledge goes, at least in the last few centuries, western powers, and US as the last embodiment of those powers, have almost always been the first to provoke, attack or meddle in others affairs worldwide, in so doing causing the inevitable reaction of other countries and peoples.

  126. Al
    September 6th, 2011 at 18:34 | #126

    Charles Liu :
    @YinYang
    It may be different, but I’d tend to say some things remain the same. We continue to pump millions into destablizing China, weakening it’s sovereignty, foment dissent to the detriment of China’s functioning society, well being of 1.3 billion citizens.
    Why is NED advisory board member Perry Link so intimately involved in Liu Xiaobo’s drafting of Charter 08? Perry Link’s English translation read like The Battle Hymn of the Republic and had significant differences than the Chinese original, not to mention the million dollar funding from NED to groups Liu founded.
    Why does the NED line it’s pocket with Falun Gong nutjobs (~6 million dollars for pre Olympics propaganda), Taiwanese operative like Wang Dan (how much of the “discretionary fund” from Chen Suibian corruption case went to the Taiwan Lobby)?
    The right thing to do is to stay vigilant and criticize America’s shameful exceptionalism, from present day NED overt activities to CIA’s past covert activities. Else one can advocate might, and reason that future Chinese Empire’s underwriting of Native American revolt Against US statehood is not only not shameful, but the Chinese “should have been more involved and earlier”.
    This American chooses the former, thou I don’t believe we have learned from history, as the official narrative demonstrates. With recent targeting of China in the upcoming presidential election, bad days are ahead for the Chinese-looking Asian-Amercians like myself.
    America is constantly in need of an enemy, who better to replace the olive skin muslims in Guantanamo Bay than the mottled skin Chinese?

    On the other hand, I also can’t but agree with most Charles Liu said here. It’s not military containment alright, but in many ways (and, to be fair, somewhat more subtle and vicious ways) it still is containment.

  127. denk
    September 6th, 2011 at 23:58 | #127

    actually the containment is complete….military, economic n political
    http://tinyurl.com/67tc6f6

  128. September 7th, 2011 at 05:29 | #128

    yinyang :
    @Otto Kerner
    I believe the jeering happens both ways.

    You really don’t see a difference between my behavior and demeanor and that of some of the people I’m talking to here?

  129. raventhorn2000
    September 7th, 2011 at 06:14 | #129

    @Otto Kerner

    I would LOVE to hear your explanation of the “difference”.

    NOTE: I hear the “demeanor” of your question to yinyang, as if it should be condescendingly obvious. But hey, You really don’t see it??

    Or do you just believe what you want to believe??

  130. denk
    September 8th, 2011 at 00:22 | #130

    kerner
    *You really don’t see a difference between my behavior and demeanor and that of some of the people I’m talking to here?*

    +And we are not outraged, anymore. Law-obeying citizens of our countries are buckling-up, not littering on the streets, waiting in the middle of the night obediently for a green light to cross the streets. But they don’t oppose massacres performed in the name of their economic interests. As long as the massacres are well packaged by the media and propaganda apparatus, as long as it is not being spelled out that the killing is to support big business but also the relatively high standard of the majority of those living in so called “developed countries+
    http://tinyurl.com/3qcl9j3

    kerner,
    u’re are well behaved, i bet u’re one of those who waits patiently for the traffic light to turn green in the middle of the night too……q is, do u’ve have a conscience ?

  131. Al
    September 8th, 2011 at 09:34 | #131

    come on guys, still losing time with Pete? Do it for him, leave him alone…maybe this way he will realize he needs to go out and get a life, instead of trolling here and there on the net. Leave him alone, is sad enough by himself.

  132. September 8th, 2011 at 18:08 | #132

    Folks – I have marked Pete North’s recent comments as spam. Some of your responses to him have been removed as well (since they make no sense dangling around).

  133. denk
    September 8th, 2011 at 18:08 | #133

    al
    *leave p nort alone*

    agreed
    *dont feed the troll*
    the creep is probably paid 5 cts per post hehehe

  134. September 8th, 2011 at 18:19 | #134

    @Charles Liu
    I understand what you are saying. And therefore we spend time on this blog talking about the wrongs in the Nobel Peace Prize committee in awarding Liu Xiaobo, among other things.

    At the risk of defending NED, I do think it is very difficult for a present day U.S. government to shut it down. For example, if Obama tries to cut it’s funding, that will then direct all those feed from it to go after Obama politically.

    Diplomatically between China and the U.S., I’d bet there’s discussions privately involving what the U.S. is doing to try to undermine Chinese society. But that is not all that characterizes the relationship between the U.S. and China.

    It’s both embrace and backstabbing.

    Both China and the U.S. have to deal with other NED like organizations anywhere. I imagine they get good at it over time.

  135. denk
    September 8th, 2011 at 18:21 | #135

    yinyang

    good move
    if he does the same thing over at sites like pekingduck
    he wont even last 5 min
    i should’ve ignored him earlier
    seen lost of trolls in my time
    but this p north character takes the cake

  136. xian
    September 8th, 2011 at 21:26 | #136

    If everyone thinks you’re a superpower you should declare yourself one. Not that you need to act like other superpowers, but it brings that title to clout on the world stage. People will treat big players different than little players.

    Fu Ying does sound articulate, but in the end she makes too many deflections with “China’s culture” and “Well you guys are doing bad too” and other copouts. It’s still a trend of backing down to foreign ideals by making half-excuses for what China does. She should just be completely unapologetic:

    “It’s our way and we prefer it”, “We find A to be more important than B, even if at the cost of C”, or just “no”, “deal with it” etc. but in nicer words

  137. September 9th, 2011 at 16:35 | #137

    @xian
    Interesting take. I think I like it. Well, humility has its draws too.

  138. Al
    September 9th, 2011 at 17:48 | #138

    And usually this kind of humility and non directly and openly confrontational stance is more proper to the chinese way.

  139. Rhan
    September 9th, 2011 at 18:21 | #139

    “And usually this kind of humility and non directly and openly confrontational stance is more proper to the chinese way.”

    Agree it is the Chinese way, read Singapore LKY interview, then we know the difference between a Chinese mind and those with Anglophile upbringing.

  140. jxie
    September 10th, 2011 at 23:01 | #140

    Fu Ying is one of those rare ones who actually went to college (工农兵学员) during the Cultural Revolution. She is also an ethnic Mongol.

    While she told the reporter, “you really take yourself very seriously”, she was actually being quite reserved. Germany bounced back quite nicely (until very recently) after the global financial meltdown, compared to other major Western economies. Germany is also the only country in the top 4 Western economies (the US, Germany, the UK and France) with 40+% of people considering their country in the right direction in the most recent Pew survey. However, quite some people believe it’s largely because German products sell well in China, and to a less extent, other BRIC countries. A 2009 Deutche Bank report called the post-crash rebound in Germany and the Eurozone, “made in China.”

    BTW the percentage of the people in the US who thought their country in the right direction is a dismal 21% in the latest Pew survey. That’s even lower than the pre-Arab Spring Egypt.

  141. jxie
    September 11th, 2011 at 10:23 | #141

    BTW, Mohamed El-Erian, one of the sharpest minds in the investment world, posted an investment-theme type of question — will the world survive with a Chinese soft-landing? The immediate thought is he was questioning how countries such as Canada, Australia & Brazil would perform if China was indeed slowing down. The second thought is, maybe Germany will be the most worrisome one because,

    1. its gross fiscal debts at some 80% of GDP already.
    2. its baseline growth isn’t that high to begin with.
    3. it may end up shouldering the Southern European “slackers”, of which the bailout will be MUCH MUCH more expensive than the East Germany integration.

You must be logged in to post a comment.