China PM's trip to Britain ends in shoe protest

[ray245]

CAMBRIDGE, England (AFP) - - Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's European tour ended dramatically when a protester hurled a shoe at him as he gave a speech at Britain's Cambridge University.

ADVERTISEMENT

Police in the eastern English city later charged a 27-year-old man with a public order offence in relation to the incident, which came at the end of a three-day trip to Britain that included talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In a clear echo of the Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at George W. Bush in Baghdad in December, the Caucasian protester had shouted "This is a scandal" as he interrupted Wen's speech from the back of the auditorium.

"This dictator here, how can you listen to the lies he's telling? You are not challenging him," he said before blowing a whistle and hurling a sports trainer at Wen, who had been discussing China's role in the globalised world.

The shoe landed about a yard from the Chinese premier, who glanced sharply to one side to watch it hit the stage, but did not appear frightened. A security man kicked the shoe off the stage.

As the protester was bundled out, he shouted to audience members: "Stand up and protest," to which some of the spectators -- most of whom appeared to be Chinese students -- retorted: "Shame on you, shame on you."

After the interruption, Wen reproached the demonstrator.

"This despicable behaviour cannot stand in the way of friendship between China and the UK," he said, receiving a round of applause from the audience.

China said Tuesday it had expressed its strong dissatisfaction to the British government over the throwing of a shoe at Wen, but emphasised that bilateral ties would not be harmed.

The Chinese government appeared to want to play down the embarrassing incident domestically, with the state-run press either censoring or ignoring the event and Internet chatter about it restricted to a few pro-China comments.

"The Chinese side has expressed its strong dissatisfaction about the incident," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement.

But it then acknowledged the British government had expressed "deep regret".

The incident echoed the protest by Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi against then-US president Bush on December 14, which won him global fame.

A spokeswoman for Cambridge police said: "Following an incident in the auditorium during the premier's speech earlier today, a man has been charged with a public order offence." He will appear in court on February 10, she said.

She gave no information about the nationality of the man, who appeared to have a non-English, European accent.

Wen was interrupted as he delivered a largely anodyne speech in front of about 500 people in a concert hall here. Security was tight, and outside about 200 mostly pro-Chinese demonstrators were kept in two pens on the pavement.

Supporters waved red Chinese flags, some banged drums and there was a colourful paper dragon -- although one banner said: "Remember Tiananmen."

Earlier, Wen held talks with Brown in London where he promised to join urgent and coordinated action to avert a global economic disaster.

Brown said Britain wants to double its exports to China within 18 months, and stressed the relationship between the two nations would be a "pivotal force" in weathering the global economic storm.

Wen's first visit to Britain since 2006 came at the end of a high-profile European trip that included Germany, Spain, the European Union headquarters in Brussels and the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland.

But the tour was clouded by pro-Tibetan protests which regularly target trips by Chinese leaders.

China is particularly sensitive about Tibet questions ahead of the 50th anniversary of the March 1959 uprising that led to the escape of Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, into exile.

In London, some 50 pro-Tibetan and 100 pro-Chinese demonstrators gathered outside Brown's Downing Street office for rival protests to coincide with Wen's visit there. Five pro-Tibetan activists had been arrested in a protest Sunday.

Chinese state television CCTV broadcast Wen's speech in Cambridge but abruptly cut away from the coverage when the protest happened.

A proctor, who is responsible for discipline at the university, told AFP that university officials asked the protester to stop shouting and sit down.

"He continued, took off a shoe and then threw it towards the stage. The constables (university police) got to him and took him out," he said.

University Vice-Chancellor Professor Alison Richard said she "deeply regret" the outburst, saying: "This university is a place for considered argument and debate, not for shoe-throwing."

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090202/t ... 4ea94.html

What the hell is that guy doing, other than seeking attention? Standing up and protest? Come on, people in China do orgainse protest against the local government already.

Seriously, protesting is getting really annoying recently, given that most of the people protesting usually have no real idea about what is the politicial issue all about in the first place.

And I really want to see what kind of lies was made by the PM in his speech.

[ray245]

Crap, I run out of edit time

Anyway, another funny thing about that guy's comment about Wen Jiabao is quite funny, calling Wen a dictator when he isn't even the one holding on to real power in China.

Somehow, that guy has forgotten about the Chinese president.

[Sidewinder]

In a clear echo of the Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at George W. Bush in Baghdad in December, the Caucasian protester had shouted "This is a scandal" as he interrupted Wen's speech from the back of the auditorium.

Emphasis mine. I don't need to check Chinese websites to know the majority of China's netizens are claiming this guy's actions were racially motivated.

"This dictator here, how can you listen to the lies he's telling? You are not challenging him," he said before blowing a whistle and hurling a sports trainer at Wen, who had been discussing China's role in the globalised world.

And this loser did not bother to say what lies Premier Wen told the audience? He did not bother to cite verifiable data to contradict Premier Wen's statements? This is like throwing a shoe at President Obama for the Iraq War, without bothering to explain how and why our 44th President is to blame for what our 43rd did.

[K. A. Pital]

This is merely attention whoring. He sought to duplicate the feat of the Iraqi journalist without realizing that his attention whoring will not have the cultural and historical significance, and will slide into obscurity the next day.

Poor moron.

[Duckie]

At least the iraqi guy would have hit bush if bush hadn't have ducked- this guy reportedly missed by an entire yard?

[mr friendly guy]

The Austin Powers line "who throws a shoe" comes to mind. At least in Iraq, throwing a shoe is considered an insult, while the same cultural aspects do not apply here.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I wonder if some kind of shoe-securing measures will become the norm at public diplomatic functions like this from now on, as it appears to be catching on.

[ray245]

The annoying thing is, as long as you are chinese, saying that guy's action is stupid means you are supporting fascism and dictators.

The entire Tibet debate gets annoying as well, whereby most westerners totally ignored any word or argument made by any member coming from China, because they are brainwashed by their government and their sources are not reliable, because they don't have a free and liberal media in their nation.

[Sidewinder]

The entire Tibet debate gets annoying as well, whereby most westerners totally ignored any word or argument made by any member coming from China, because they are brainwashed by their government and their sources are not reliable, because they don't have a free and liberal media in their nation.

Dark-skinned Latinos were classified as "colored" and lost a lot of their civil rights after Texas became part of the US (as stated in Roy P. Benavidez's autobiography). Does this mean we should support the formation of a free and independent Texas, so the dark-skinned Latinos would no longer be oppressed by America's white majority? How about Southern California? Should we support the secession of Southern California so those of Mexican descent would no longer be accused of being "illegal immigrants," denied steady jobs, and oppressed? Should we allow Texas and Southern California to rejoin Mexico if that's what's good for the Texans and Southern Californians?

Damn American extremists (on the left and the right-wing). If they do get the "Free Tibet" they keep chanting for, I hope they pay with a "Divided States of America" or a "United Mexican States (including Texas and California)."

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I believe I'll support a non-violent protestor over the head of government of a country which operates concentration camps for political dissidents any day.

Besides, we need more silly objects thrown at world leaders.

[ray245]

I would be more inclined to support that guy, if he really knows why should he throw the shoe in the first place.

Although talking about concentration camps is rather extreme in my opinion. The Chinese is hardly the people who cared about human rights to such a huge extend, but a concentration camps?

Also, most of those dissenters against the CCP cannot even offer any alternative in regards to running China, beyond we need democracy and we can learn everything from the western world, including privtization on a huge scale.

Do we have to see a repeat of what Russia went through in the 90s?

BEIJING – It hesitated for hours over the sensitive footage of a protester in Britain shouting "dictator" and throwing a shoe at Premier Wen Jiabao. But finally, China's carefully controlled state broadcaster ran it Tuesday.

The move was a remarkable display of openness — but the footage already was leaking into China via satellite television and the Internet. Critics said it showed the increasing power of such media to erode strict information controls.

"It is impossible for a country to shut out a piece of news," said Shao Peiren, head of Zhejiang University's communications research institute in eastern China.

The broadcast might also help the government by appealing to Chinese patriotism. Wen is the leadership's most popular figure, and he emerged as the hero after last year's devastating earthquake, calling himself "Grandpa Wen." The nickname was embraced by some enthusiastic Chinese.

Still, incidents that could be seen as unflattering or insulting to the Chinese leadership have long been treated with the greatest sensitivity. The first Chinese reports on the protest during Wen's visit to Britain's Cambridge University left out key details, including that a shoe had been thrown.

But the China Central Television broadcast had it all. The evening news showed the footage among the first stories of its half-hour broadcast, leading into it with a report on Wen's speech itself and his return to Beijing.

Then the shoe-throwing footage was shown, with no commentary from the anchors, just a simple news setup.

The camera was fixed on Wen, but later cut to the whistle-blowing protester being removed from the hall, while the audience shouted "Get out."

"How can this university prostitute itself with this dictator here? How can you listen ... to him unchallenged?" the man — who has yet to be identified — could be heard shouting.

The sound of the shoe hitting the stage, away from Wen, could be heard as well.

Wen paused for about one minute and then continued his speech.

"Teachers and students, this kind of dirty trick cannot stop the friendship between the Chinese and the British people," Wen said, followed by applause.

The incident echoed the news conference in December in which an Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at former President George W. Bush — covered widely not only in China but around the world.

Bush joked off his shoe attack, saying "it was a size 10," but China's response was far sterner.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu called the disruption "despicable" but said it would not "stem the tide of friendly relations between China and Britain."

Internet chat rooms were filled with patriotic messages denouncing the protester, who did not appear to be ethnic Han Chinese.

"The uncompromising Iraqi people threw a shoe at Bush which is a brave act by a suppressed nation," said one comment on the Tiexue.net bulletin board. "But the ugly Englishman threw a shoe at Wen, which was only a barbaric trick."

In an apparent move to show national dignity had been maintained, reports by CCTV and the official Xinhua News Agency included prominent references to Britain apologizing.

The BBC reported the 27-year-old protester would appear before magistrates on Feb. 10 in Cambridge on charges of committing a public order offense.

China's online activity — with 298 million Web users — makes it increasingly tough for censors to keep sensitive news, like the shoe throwing, offline. Media watchers say that may be prompting official media to report on other news it would have suppressed before, such as riots and protests.

But the expanded coverage may also reflect a recognition by propaganda authorities that showing such events can work to the government's advantage.

Two incidents last year were given wide state media coverage: Attacks on the Olympic torch overseas before its journey to Beijing, and the devastating earthquake in Sichuan province.

The torch attacks sparked an outpouring of angry nationalism among Chinese at home and abroad. The second brought a wave of compassion and assistance for the quake victims.

The more the Western media tried to attack China, the more pissed Chinese as a whole gets. I remember the huge anti-CNN uproar in China during the Tibetian uprising, which reduced the credibility of CNN among Chinese audience.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

You posit a false dilemma. The idea that the only options are the Anarchistic Excesses of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin Era in Russia vs. a Totalitarian Oligarchy is preposterous. Hell, even if Glasnost/Perestroika sillyness was instituted today there wouldn't be nearly as much fallout, since so much of the Chinese economy has been privatized already.

And as far as concentration camps, do you deny that political dissidents are imprisoned or abused under the PRC? Now, I'm not sure if all of its gulags operate openly as such anymore, but they've still put a good few million people behind bars unjustly.

EDIT: Also, I despise the apparent implication that the media should not criticize China because the Chinese people can't handle it. You do realize that that actually helps the case that the Chinese government is a fascistic, brainwashing propaganda machine, right?

[ray245]

EDIT: Also, I despise the apparent implication that the media should not criticize China because the Chinese people can't handle it. You do realize that that actually helps the case that the Chinese government is a fascistic, brainwashing propaganda machine, right?

Look, I'm not saying the media should not criticize China. I am simply pointing out that many attacks on China is not going to convince most Chinese who used to watch Western news.

The problem is, news channel like CNN lost its respect among the Chinese after the Tibetian uprising. The Chinese government didn't try to censor CNN or anything, CNN's reporting and its distortion of events caused most well educated Chinese to stop relying on CNN as a credible news source.

CNN's reputation in China is like Fox News in SD.net . When you as a news source are trying to attack China's policies, at the least check your facts before reporting it. Sure, China has its propoganda machine, but it does not help things if people viewed CNN and etc as western propoganda machines as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Now, I'm not sure if all of its gulags operate openly as such anymore, but they've still put a good few million people behind bars unjustly.

That's funny coming from the nation holding the absolute world record in currently incarcerated people, and the size of the US prison complex is rising well to the size of a real 1930s' Gulag. Funny how you manage to imprison millions of people in a nation of 300 million, and it's fine and dandy, but do the same in a nation of over 1 billion humans and suddenly it's "gulag" and "millions of injustly imprisoned".

The idea that the only options are the Anarchistic Excesses of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin Era in Russia vs. a Totalitarian Oligarchy is preposterous.

You clearly think that social cohesion of China is not threatened by "excesses". Why? You think China's society is not under threat of an industrial collapse like Russia. Why? Prove it.

Hell, even if Glasnost/Perestroika sillyness was instituted today there wouldn't be nearly as much fallout, since so much of the Chinese economy has been privatized already.

Glasnost and Perestroika had nothing to do with privatization. They had all to do with absolute openness of free speech and criticism of the power from any place. They are political measures and not economic ones. Do you think China could weather the political collapse of the CPC without disastrous social consequences? Why?

You do realize that that actually helps the case that the Chinese government is a fascistic, brainwashing propaganda machine, right?

The Chinese government is "fascistic"?

But I see, supression of political dissent means the nation is evil and deserves all sort of criticism. Nevermind that most, if not all, powerful nations supressed political dissent for years, especially at a time when they were born. Nevermind that alleged democracy is never a support from violent supression of political dissent. And nevermind that China, a nation that entered the process of industrialization in the second half of the XX century is hardly expected to be a paragon of virtue - we will still criticize China.

But we would be shy on noting that the life standard in authoritarian commie China is better than in the neighboring democratic India, despite them starting at almost equal positions during the early century, and despite China experiencing a massive civil war and a botched agricultural reform that was incredibly destructive. We will also be shy to criticize nations which ally with the US but are shitholes, and god forbid people throw shoes at US' allies with an abominate, inhuman legal and moral system - like Saudi Arabia (not to mention it's a grave insult to an Arab!), but by all means, China's leader should get shoes thrown on him because he "imprisons dissidents".

Is that the train of thought you are pursuing, and if so, why? Because you prefer to imprison and torture people abroad, during wars of invasion, as opposed to opressing people at home? Sorry, but that doesn't look so morally superior to me.

Before getting on the tribune of self-righteousness, look around. A nation that had been an industrial giant from the early 1900s with abundant resources and no political perturbations, no wars raging over it's territory destroying 20-30 million people and half your industry, making the society violent and it's wealth reduced - nothing like that - compared to a nation which experienced it all and is just making it's first steps on the road to modern industrialization, becoming more powerful and simultaneously improving the life of it's people.

So is it fair to compare them and be all self-righteous?

[FSTargetDrone]

At least in Iraq, throwing a shoe is considered an insult, while the same cultural aspects do not apply here.

Is it the actual throwing, or simple the showing of the bottom of a shoe that is considered an insult? I've heard both. Is it both?

[ray245]

I think another point to make about the issue of free speech and human rights is this, no one should be supporting the freedom of speech and human right because they are seen as the way things are supposed to be.

People like myself supported these ideas because it is able to improve the lives of people living in it. However, there are times where freedom of speech without control can destablise an entire nation. If we came to a conclusion a immediate change in policies and laws cannot improve the lives of people, then we would have to choose the lesser evil in some case.

Also, Premier Wen Jiabao is extremly popular among the Chinese people. Imagine people throwing a shoe at Obama by some Chinese, how would Americans feel? Would such an event cause more Americans to dislike China and their worldview?

Perhaps trying to insult one of the most popular politicial figure in China who is not the one in charge by calling him an oppressive dictator (that's Hu Jintao)is not the best way attract more Chinese into accepting western ideas.

It seems funny that the more the western media and activist tried to spread Western values like Democracy and a 'free' nation to China, the more the Chinese dislike them. It certainly doesn't benefit anyone, if more and more Chinese is getting skeptical at the Western world, and their free media.

[mr friendly guy]

The annoying thing is, as long as you are chinese, saying that guy's action is stupid means you are supporting fascism and dictators.

The entire Tibet debate gets annoying as well, whereby most westerners totally ignored any word or argument made by any member coming from China, because they are brainwashed by their government and their sources are not reliable, because they don't have a free and liberal media in their nation.

Ah yeah, we had that as well over here. Any time some chinese citizen posts on a news messageboard to defend their country, or even if an Australian pointed out some of the criticism was bullshit the automatic counter argument, if you can call it an argument was to accuse them of being in the pay of the CCP. Because the CCP doesn't have anything better to spend its money on than paying a bunch of guys to post pro Chinese messages on an Australian message board. I guess this just reinforces my view that most people are simply stupid no matter which country they pop up in. And remember, its ok for pro tibet protesters to assault Chinese paralympians but when Chinese students stand in numbers to shout down opposing protesters, its just soooo wrong.

You should also see the bullshit criticism about China's handling of the olympics. I mean how dare not enough spectators come & watch AUSTRALIAN swimmers compete. I mean how dare they fill the gymnasium to watch table tennis. Just because its a more popular sport in China.

Legitimate criticism of China seems to be drowned out by bullshit criticisms, and is it any wonder that the average Chinese citizen would just go "fuck this" and not listen any more.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

That's funny coming from the nation holding the absolute world record in currently incarcerated people, and the size of the US prison complex is rising well to the size of a real 1930s' Gulag. Funny how you manage to imprison millions of people in a nation of 300 million, and it's fine and dandy, but do the same in a nation of over 1 billion humans and suddenly it's "gulag" and "millions of injustly imprisoned".

Strawman. First, point out where I said that my nation was superior, and then prove that Canada holds a world record in in incarcerated people or that we have 300 million people. Seeing as how my Location bar pretty clearly indicates that I'm a province of Canada, I'm going to assume that you know I'm Canadian and are not just an idiot who called a Canadian poster on a Canadian board who has never indicated he is anything but Canadian an American because of some Pavlovian response to Western criticism.

You clearly think that social cohesion of China is not threatened by "excesses". Why? You think China's society is not under threat of an industrial collapse like Russia. Why? Prove it.

More strawmen. I never said that I think that poorly-thought-out and excessive insta-reform would be non-threatening. Point out where I said that, or where I said anything related to an industrial collapse (not that I don't see a combination of environmentally ravaging policies and out-and-out desperation for oil to glut its newly-consumerised society as something that will end badly). The idea that China has to hold onto its totalitarianism or face anarchy is a blatant balck/white fallacy.

Glasnost and Perestroika had nothing to do with privatization. They had all to do with absolute openness of free speech and criticism of the power from any place. They are political measures and not economic ones. Do you think China could weather the political collapse of the CPC without disastrous social consequences? Why?

No. I never said it could. Do you think that the CPC would immediately collapse if it stopped rounding up and torturing its local detractors?

But I see, supression of political dissent means the nation is evil and deserves all sort of criticism.

YES! It demonstrates that the State no longer has in mind the liberty and fraternity of its citizens, but rather sees the State as an end unto itself.

Nevermind that most, if not all, powerful nations supressed political dissent for years, especially at a time when they were born.

Which is why slavery, property-marriages, and tribalism would be fine and dandy if a new nation instituted them. Hell, America is hundreds of years younger than Russia and China, so how can you criticize it for warmongering and Imperialism? It should get a free pass for another few centuries!

Nevermind that alleged democracy is never a support from violent supression of political dissent.

Er, yes, it is. If there is violent political suppression, then clearly there is only a pretence of democracy. Besides, this is a complete red herring.

And nevermind that China, a nation that entered the process of industrialization in the second half of the XX century is hardly expected to be a paragon of virtue - we will still criticize China.

YES! Why should it get a free pass because of it's a young nation? Britain was a democracy within 50 years of its industrial revolution. It's not like China is some fragile egg which will crack if its leaders stop driving tanks at protestors and putting walls around poor neighbourhoods.

But we would be shy on noting that the life standard in authoritarian commie China is better than in the neighboring democratic India, despite them starting at almost equal positions during the early century, and despite China experiencing a massive civil war and a botched agricultural reform that was incredibly destructive.

And all of this would be imperilled by allowing citizens to criticize the government? Nevermind the fact that they were hardly starting from 'equal positions' when China was an independent, politically active country in 1900 and India was a colony of the British for another 5 decades. Not that the CCP's early devastation of its people and their land didn't hinder their progress, but this is not exactly a strong argument for allowing the CCP to remain in absolute control without dissent.

We will also be shy to criticize nations which ally with the US but are shitholes, and god forbid people throw shoes at US' allies with an abominate, inhuman legal and moral system - like Saudi Arabia (not to mention it's a grave insult to an Arab!), but by all means, China's leader should get shoes thrown on him because he "imprisons dissidents".

Since I definitely mentioned ever how much I like the House of Saud.

Hell, not even me, but the Western media: give me proof that the MSM is pro-Saudi and consistently overlooks their flaws.

Is that the train of thought you are pursuing, and if so, why? Because you prefer to imprison and torture people abroad, during wars of invasion, as opposed to opressing people at home? Sorry, but that doesn't look so morally superior to me.

Proof that Canada is doing any of these things. Also, seeing as we're debating China's CURRENT activities, and the new president has already abolished secret CIA prisons and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques...

Before getting on the tribune of self-righteousness, look around. A nation that had been an industrial giant from the early 1900s with abundant resources and no political perturbations, no wars raging over it's territory destroying 20-30 million people and half your industry, making the society violent and it's wealth reduced - nothing like that - compared to a nation which experienced it all and is just making it's first steps on the road to modern industrialization, becoming more powerful and simultaneously improving the life of it's people.

So is it fair to compare them and be all self-righteous?

Yes. Prove to me that China needs to oppress its people in order to improve its people's standard of living and then maybe not.

[TheKwas]

TOTALLY OFFTOPIC:
Where abouts are you from in Saskatchewan? I'm a native of Regina myself, but currently in Ottawa for school.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

TOTALLY OFFTOPIC:
Where abouts are you from in Saskatchewan? I'm a native of Regina myself, but currently in Ottawa for school.

Regina, the place that rhymes with fun.

[TheKwas]

Cool, lets talk about bunnyhugs!

Now returning to your original programming:

[Sidewinder]

Note to Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba: I think Stas Bush thought you're an American, and directed his comments to one.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Note to Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba: I think Stas Bush thought you're an American, and directed his comments to one.

No shit. I simply replied in false confusion because, you know, I have my location as a province of Canada and I've never ever made any reference to being in the States, and it's a Canadian board, so I think it's kind of hilarious and ridiculous that he would just assume that I'm American.

But what can you expect from a bloody Mongolian, eh?

[K. A. Pital]

Strawman. First, point out where I said that my nation was superior, and then prove that Canada holds a world record in in incarcerated people or that we have 300 million people. Seeing as how my Location bar pretty clearly indicates that I'm a province of Canada, I'm going to assume that you know I'm Canadian and are not just an idiot who called a Canadian poster on a Canadian board who has never indicated he is anything but Canadian an American because of some Pavlovian response to Western criticism.

Well, serves me right for failing geography. However, the point stands: how does China's incarceration complex, which per person is inferior to that of the US, have "a few million injustly imprisoned"? As far as I know, China's constant penal populations are around 800,000, so how many of them are injustly imprisoned?

I'm not mocking you or anything - I'm asking the proof for your point.

The idea that China has to hold onto its totalitarianism or face anarchy is a blatant balck/white fallacy.

If you think China is "totalitarian", you clearly don't understand what totalitarian means. Hint: next to China, possibly the only surviving state which could classify as such, the DPRK.

Do you think that the CPC would immediately collapse if it stopped rounding up and torturing its local detractors?

Do you think the CPC is massively torturing local detractors to hold on to power? What are the numbers of people incarcerated for political reasons? What reports of torture are like - what are the numbers and the reliability of said reports?

YES! It demonstrates that the State no longer has in mind the liberty and fraternity of its citizens, but rather sees the State as an end unto itself.

It just demonstrates the state is not as mature in political terms to have higher standards of human rights. It doesn't demonstrate that "the state is an end unto itself". That's just stupid.

Which is why slavery, property-marriages, and tribalism would be fine and dandy if a new nation instituted them. Hell, America is hundreds of years younger than Russia and China, so how can you criticize it for warmongering and Imperialism? It should get a free pass for another few centuries!

You are missing the critical point - industrialization. But carry on. Tell me how America suffered under the monarchic rule until the early XX century, tell me how untold millions perished in violence in America, destroying it's industrial base, in the XX century. Perhaps then I will consider giving it a "free pass".

Er, yes, it is. If there is violent political suppression, then clearly there is only a pretence of democracy. Besides, this is a complete red herring.

No, it's not. Democratically elected president Yeltsin gunned down the opposition with tanks. Democratically elected President Putin hits the opposition - however marginal - with police detentions. Democratically elected President Saakashvili - well, you know already. Democratically elected President Milosevic... should I carry on, or you'll just indulge in No True Scotsman?

YES! Why should it get a free pass because of it's a young nation? Britain was a democracy within 50 years of its industrial revolution.

Oh yes. "Britain was a democracy" which slaughtered untold millions with it's colonialist and imperialist policies, and practiced mass detentions of political opposition well into the XX century! That's a nice example. I'm sure it will show how the virtues of democracy prevent opressed and conqered people from slaughter. Oh right, they don't. Well crap, choose your next example better.

It's not like China is some fragile egg which will crack if its leaders stop driving tanks at protestors and putting walls around poor neighbourhoods.

Oh right, when was the last time China "drove tanks at protestors", 1989? Real nice. You are saying China was not at a threat of violent desintegration and collapse in 1989?

And all of this would be imperilled by allowing citizens to criticize the government? Nevermind the fact that they were hardly starting from 'equal positions' when China was an independent, politically active country in 1900 and India was a colony of the British for another 5 decades. Not that the CCP's early devastation of its people and their land didn't hinder their progress, but this is not exactly a strong argument for allowing the CCP to remain in absolute control without dissent.

China's socio-economic indicators were similar to India at the start of the century. And yes, India was a colony. China however was also conquered, and also experienced a constant warfare in the 1930s, which claimed the lives of 20-30 million citizens. Wrap the head around that - did British India experience a civil war claiming 20-30 million lives? I guess no, even if the opression of the British (an enlightened fucking democracy!) was pretty brutal in it's own right. But nevermind, I guess I'm not going to dispell your view of history.

But India and China were still similar even in the mid- and late-XX century, long after both nations have been independent. And yet China's more opressive autocracy was better at improving the lives of it's citizens, than the apparently answering to the people Indian democracy.

GDP:

Number of poor:


China's centralized political apparatus is inseparable from the repression that is required to support itself, because it has been born in that repression, but you also cannot deny that "repression" in China is a joke compared to the life conditions in many formally democratic Third World nations, and that China went a long way to reduce the repression of it's own government and establish a legal system which is working to maintain public order on the large scale, as opposed to just being opressive due to the political weakness of the regime. Indeed, right now China's regime is strong, so the opression is low, while public order is strong. If it starts weakening, the public order will also weaken.

Since I definitely mentioned ever how much I like the House of Saud.

You are saying China's Wen Jibao deserves shoes thrown at him because he is part of a government that supports political detention. Yet you are not saying Western leaders like Bush deserve the exact same treatment for what they support, which is often the same, or a very similar thing. That's a really consistent worldview, isn't it? But yeah, British democracy, kitties and flowers.

Yes. Prove to me that China needs to oppress its people in order to improve its people's standard of living and then maybe not.

What is so opressive about China's policies? The autocracy of the CPC? Let's see: the only thing China's autocratic about is the rule of the CPC. Everything else, the people are fine to do and choose as they please. Listen to any music, wear any clothes, have fun, openly communicate with the world through internet and television, anything. Now let's assume China suddenly stops enforcing the CPC's monopoly on power. The administrative system of the CPC starts falling apart because the people holding administrating positions don't think they're going to last. This desintegration prompts up all sorts of nationalist and separatist movements in and around China - because once the nationalists see that the central government is weakening, they will become more active, that's a historical certainity which has happened a thousand times and then once. Not only that, but a massive rural backslash occurs as the administration of the rural areas copes worse and worse with providing basic law and order.

Why do I think the "basic law and order" will fail? Simple - the "open criticism" of the CPC will consist in endless bashing of the PLAN, and the police of China, as tools of violent opression. As a result, the populist measure to at least retain power would be to cut those short of funding.

At the same time, every corrupt crook in the system, will see the opportunity to seize power. It's easy for a corrupt crook to do so, because he can appeal to "I'm a victim of repression" if the Chinese authorities try to replace him on the charges of corruption. Once you start considering the whole power system of China "a tool of opression", the logical outcome would be it's destruction, which would unleash large-scale corruption and untold suffering on the whole of China as a nation.

You don't even know what the hell you are talking about when you are considering this outcome superior to whatever mild opression exists in China today, because you have never seen the collapse of power. A small fraction of society is politically opressed, but if it comes to a "reform", you should understand that enormous social upheaval would be a result, and suffering will follow.

You clearly fail to see that most large-scale centralized power systems, unless they are operating in abundance of wealth - which China clearly is not - are opressive to some degree, and the less they have progressed on the scale of industrialization, the more opressive they are. That's just the way socio-economic development goes. But you should be really pulling the strings to call current China "totalitarian", or you don't understand what totalitarian even means.

[ray245]

Just one reminder to Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba , you do know that the Chinese do allow protest against their local government?

People are protesting against their local government all the time and most of the time, the police do not bother to arrest them.