I sure see you are crying, anything from the collapse of Soviet Union, China-Africa trade, to Roman Polanski child rape case ... Many of your posts have neocon-ism written all over them. You are fighting imaginary, ideological enemies which are either non-existent or non-consequential. My position is crystal clear, China should be and is sticking to its non-interference foreign policy, which is welcome by all the nations that don't carry xxxmen's burden baggage. China is reaping benefits while idiots like you are on edgy.
Yeah, I wrote in the Soviet Post that I wish USSR could have gone a different route than a drastic shake-up. I wrote in Polanski, IIRC, that sex with minor is strict liability. Why are these neocon like? I also wrote I am pro gay marriage, pro abortion largely, BTW May I ask you what you are crying about as the State's spoke person for China on this board? And I am glad to be an idiot with a moral if there is such notion, and I certainly don't want to live your world.
Neocon-ism is all about imposing liberal ideals onto another nation deemed "rogue" or undesirable. It doesn't sound that great in theory, never mind that it has been a fail in reality. Even a neocon stalwart like Francis Fukuyama has doubted its effectiveness. Your position on Russia seems to be quite contradictory to your views on China. What gives? BTW, in your last trip to China, did you get a chance to light a fire under CCP's azz? Or maybe the fire you started was simply extinguished by the tears gushed from you eyes? You see, just because a bunch of Hollywood yahoos cried "genocide" in Darfur doesn't make it so. UN certainly doesn't recognize the conflict in Darfur as genocide. Independent journalists and TV producer from UK who set their feet in Darfur and interviewed women in the area strongly disputed the genocide claim trumpeted up by the corporate media in the West. Christian Science Monitor published an op-ed stating that the "genocide" in Darfur isn't what it seems and slammed activist groups for their hype and misdirecting the funds that could have lives. Many more lives were lost due to diseases, malnutrition and starvation than the casualties (figured distorted or inflated) in the war. As years sanctions from the West took heavy tolls on the lives of Sundanese, China's investing was well received there as the Chinese are trusted and seen not interested in hegemonic power. Now go shed another tear or two.
And you have a legitimate point my response though was that I agree with Yuantian and others that whether the PRC invest or not that may not change anything, possibly make things worse. At the moment I don't think we can come to a definative conclusion about what the PRC's investments will end up doing to Africa. It might continue to prop up corrupt regimes but it also might force them to change if for nothing more than economic accountability.
My first post, emphasis added I think you didn't bother to understand my point and I don't think my point was that subtle. I have repeated many times that China does not have an obligation to interfere with or impute China's standards to its trading partners. I, however, think that China does have a moral obligation not to deal with states once it is clear that they are engaging in activities that any responsible gov't will not endorse. To make it clear, I think non-interference means to abstain from action such as stopping events in another country no matter what, and that policy simply is not adequate. Under the non-interference principle, China would not need to stop trading with a country even if UN imposes a trade embargo on that country. There is no logical stopping point of non-interference. It makes no sense in my view when China defended itself on that principle in several occasions. You are trying very hard to prove Darfur was not genocide. But does that really matter? China could have even traded with 3rd Reich under the non-interference theory. I see the internal conflict of your arguments. I think you are prejudiced by your defensive mentality against any criticism toward China. IMO, you are not rational. I also don't appreciate your arrogant and wise-azz comment, but I will not allow myself to degrade into that business.
All I am saying there has to be something China can defend itself on when others accuse of China being a ruthless exploiter. When something egregiously bad is happening in a country, you can't say b/c the outcome of stop trading with that country is unknown, we should keep trading with that country even if that indirectly supports the "bad" thing.
Frankly the PRC doesn't care that much about the rest other countries accusations. I wish it wasn't but its pretty clear that world opinion doesn't bother them that much.
Well, that's not what I am debating about though. And also Frankly, PRC doesn't want to carry forward a policy that it abhors for years. But that, IMO, shows that China does not want to hold itself to a higher standard, foreign and domestic policies. I think that might be a practical reason to explain China's non-interference policy, besides economic benefit.
So if a country is under a corrupt regime, you're saying the best way to deal with it is to leave it alone and pretend it doesn't exist? Or do you think we should go in Somalia-style instead? It's not as if US's "you don't have oil so I don't give a damn about you" policy towards Africa has really left positive impressions on the continent.
Maybe I missed it, but I fail to see where you've come up with an alternative that is better for the well being of these African countries.
It really matters more to yours than mine. You have been screaming "genocide" throughout this thread without any substantiation. When you were challenged you admitted you were not sure about the clear delineation between civil war and genocide and you started to waffle on the subject of "rogue nation." If your claim on genocide, the most serious charge against a sovereign government, doesn't even hold water, your entire argument can be pretty much regarded as gibberish. Your above interpretation on non-interference is also not right. What you described is actually non-intervention. Non-interference goes beyond that. African countries, just like other sovereign, developing countries, appreciate China's principled approach in their bi-lateral relations far more than the arrogant and patronizing attitude displayed by west toward their post-colonial leftovers. I'd be interested to see what you mean by "responsible government" now that you started to be evasive on "genocide." Naturally China itself is being "irresponsible" by trading with those "irresponsible" African nations, no? Doesn't that mean U.S. should stop trading with China then, or else U.S. will be a member of "irresponsible club," too? LOL? Gotta love Godwin's Law. I don't speak for PRC, but I think at the very least no trade is merited when the actions of the 3rd Reich cross the internal line. China has a host of problems that need to addressed, including many of its domestic policies. Quite frankly, however, I can't find much fault with China's international policies. That said, I am prejudiced against those China-can-do-no-right clowns, of which you are fast becoming one. If using your own arguments against you is wise-azz, then so be it.
YallMean, for the sake of debate, it'd be more productive if you gave up the moral argument on whether China is responsible to the citizens of other nations and focus on what rocketsjudoka, yuantian, mathloom, meh etc. are discussing - whether China's policy of non-interference in the short term and the long term is better or worse for the people/countries in Africa. We've already gone through the moral responsibility argument, and this is in essence the crux of your argument: This is nothing more than an "agree or disagree" opinion which not everyone (ppl like me) agrees with. There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but there's nothing left about it to debate. Interestingly enough, I think China is actually a good example of a country that is under more pressure to provide for its citizens better as it has gotten more affluent through trade with outside nations. China may not be a democracy, but with access to tools like the internet to voice dissent and gather support for causes, the govt can't go about pissing off the majority of its own citizens too much either, or there will be civil unrest. By opening up trade channels and with more personal wealth, its citizens are also more mobile, and a greater percentage can choose to migrate to other countries if they are unhappy, posing the threat of a brain drain if the govt is too oppressive.
This is the same china that arms the sudans GOVRMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE or the one backs ahmadinejads and mollahs bruital dictatorship. in rescent protests the people in th anti regime protests in iran were chanting death to china and russia for keeping this puppet regime in power.
What's your alternative? The same type of interference policy that arms Saddam's GOVRMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE or the one backs Saudi's royal family's bruital dictatorship? This type of policy also gets its fair share of angry protests around the world.
Given the ratio of death to America chants, a small portion of idiots chanting against China is just fine...
