Will U.S.A. and China become good partners in future?

i think most of china's grossest human rights violations are in tibet, vs. the falun gong and other religious sects, and vs. political activists.

on the taiwan, the rights they've violated are the rights for our people to live free from fear (fear of war in particular), have international representation, travel abroad, determine our own sociopolitical future, and access international humanitarian assistance during disasters. each of these rights are detailed in various international human rights treaties which China herself has signed, and yet each of the rights have been directly denied or indirectly obstructed by the actions of the chinese govt.

nonetheless, i personally think the oppressed in china have it far worse. all the more reason why most taiwanese oppose reunification i guess.

as for the question in this thread. i really really hope that america and china can become good partners. not only for the world order, but also because it would implicitly mean that the taiwan issue is resolved amicably.

 

Thanks to the global war on terrorism,they are in honeymoon now. But the short-term future is in jeopardy because of the taiwan issue,President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan is doing his best to make sure it's a short-term problem.Long-term?Well,i don't give a darn.

 

Your incessant China bashing to push for your agenda is getting old, and your posts on China and the Taiwan issue reek of naivete.

"i really really hope that america and china can become good partners. not only for the world order, but also because it would implicitly mean that the taiwan issue is resolved amicably."

I hate breaking this to you and bursting your bubble, but it's more likely that it will be the other way around with a good relationship between China and the USA. China comes first, Taiwan comes last.

 

And if there were any Chinese Jews, it would make your day.

 

You nailed it mleahy999. Some people thinks what Palestinians are to Isrealis are what Taiwanese seperators to Mainland Chinese.

 

ashinningpig,

i just want to commend you on your benevolent worldview. progress (sociopolitical, economic, technological, etc.) in china is something everyone wants to see. and what's more, i see in you hope that this future china would be friendlier to the rest of the world, and not harp on its past misfortunes.

i believe that if this is the case, that if china becomes a champion for morality (dao4-de2), human rights, economic progress, democracy, universal peace/order (da4-tong2-shih4-jie4), as a benevolent/virtuous power, taiwan would have no hesitation in reunifying with the mainland.

 

It all rests squarely on the shoulders of Steve Francis and Yao Ming.

 

I don't mean to always be the liberal naysayer, but part of the doctrine that the administration is following would eventually involve putting military bases throughout SE Asia near to China.

Remember how we were working up China as the next great enemy? Then Bin Laden came along and delayed those plans.

Tough to say what'll happen with China.

 

i so far like where this thread is going, The US and Chinese fundamental beliefs are different but, with a lot of understanding and relating i think conflict can be avoided.

One thing that is interesting about US history is that the majority continually chooses to forget parts of history, ive found that a minority is often times associated with remembering history which has be antithetical to US beliefs. slavery, imperialism in the pacific, KKK, a good chunk of our population agreed with hitler before pearl harbor, the vietnam and korean war, native american indians, funding and training bin laden, giving chemical weapons to saddam, assasinating democratically elected leaders and only time will tell with our war now. we forget these things and hide them under the rug and accentuate the good things america has done.

however, can we do this to other countries? no, we wont let go of the tibet issue, which was 50 years ago, and we wouldnt know that the taiwan issue is at its best time yet. believe it or not, as an american i studied the falun gong group and the top members are closer to heavens gate than they are to mormons. regardless, these are things that historically we are inclined to forget build nations.

now, as far as the chinese that I have talked to who do realize some of the things that the CCP are doing are objectionable, they look at a america and say, well they did it to build their nation, why cant we? the big vice of liberal democracies, and not to say they are bad, is that they forget about their own mistakes and act morally pious when wanting to change other countries just because they didnt have the same history.

to put the US in china's shoes just for perspective, what if the rest of the world, or even a stronger power, is telling us that we were wrong for having slavery, even if slavery was 100+ years ago?, and they are threatening force for violating sovereignty? is it just because we were the big power that we are allowed to get away with it and punish other countries for doing the same thing?

As much as I love the US and our liberal democratic principles, i accept that we went through a certain process to get there, other countries likewise, go through different processes and achieve different results. Im not saying that the US shouldnt disapprove of some things, but given our past record, other countries are going to have difficulty listening at us. god forbid the day when another country decides to invade another for the reasons of a preemptive strike (placing bets on israel), you can bet anything the US will be against it and the rest of the world will scratch their heads.

 

What?

 

sorry, i meant to write one thing, ended up with another,

i did a research paper on the falun gong and interviewed some members. they are weirdos.

 

Exactly. Which is why that those who say it's ridiculous to even consider that oil might have been a factor in our decision to go to war are not being objective. Consider:

* We have gotten involved in the region for oil before. In 1951, Operation Ajax, when we conspired to overthrow the popular Prime Minister and put the murderous Shah of Iran back in absolute power, oil was a major reason, as has been acknowledged.

* We have gotten into military actions before for financial reasons. Take, for example, our repeated engagements in Panama to protect our finacial interest in the canal.

* Many who adopt the position that oil can't have been a facotr are also the quickest to point out that financial concersn were THE reason why France, RUssia etc. decided to oppose it. This, despite the fact that in both nations the vast majority of the people also opposed the war, and the fact that most of those we did get to support us recieved financial gain...so why would we, the United States, the nation which most prioritizes financial considerations in all the world, be so unique in this regard? Especially as, contrary to France, Russia, etc., our people needed a lot pf persuasion to adopt the position that we did.

* Bush has extreme ties to oil; in fact oil companies were his major campaign contributors. If you don't realize that reciprocity is the name of the game, you don't understand the way Washington works.

* And this is the strongest point: There are examples of dictatorship all across the globe, yet we don't get involved. We have, in fact,outright refused to make a major commitment to Liberia despite, as did not happen in Iraq, pleas from Liberians, surrunding African nations, and the world in general to get involved. We have said that it's an African problem, and should be resolved by Africans. A defensible stance, had we not adopted the exact opposite stance in Iraq, and in a situation where the world, the surrounding nations, etc. were asking us to do the exact opposite.

For those who say to this: " So if we don't get involved everywhere, we can't get involved anywhere?", you are missing the point here, which is about motive. We are arguing for motive, and if you only choose to seriously get involved in regions where there are potential material benefits for you, and conversly refuse to get involved in regions where that potential does not exist, it seriously calls your motivation into question. Can you not see that?

Add to that the fact that virtually all the other reasons we gave for the war aside from the humanitarian cause, which as established exists all over the place, have turned out to not only be non-factors, but also that we knew going in were non-factors, and it would seem that intelligent, objective people would be trying to figure out what, exactly, our motive was for needing to go into Iraq the way we did.

That is not to say that oil is the certainly the reason; but an objecitve look would certainly beg the question, and to dismiss it outright is to close your mind. It would be consistent with our history, consitent with our established priorities, consistent with the agenda of Bush's primary financial supporters, consistent with how we say the rest of the world works, and an explanation for why Iraq and not so many other places. That's ridiculous?

 

how weird? you mean as compared to people who believe in a god that created the world in 7 days, who infused in each of us a "spirit" which survives after we die and which rises up to join him in an extra-dimensional place called heaven or descends into hell for eternity? or do you mean compared to people who believe that it is possible for one man to part an ocean through summoning some supernatural intervention?

i know what the falun gong believes. i don't buy their stuff either, but i think there is an element of "weird" in just about any religion. and i'd hesitate to say they are as weird as some of the christian scientists i've met. but would you like to see christian scientists tortured?

 

ok, ill agree with you on that, all religions have some weirdness but i dont know where you got that I wanted them to be tortured. I will respect china's sovereignty and it was probably falun gongs own fault for staging a huge silent protest outside of the headquarters, marking them for life.
you cant compare them to the older religions based on their logical reasoning, the older religions get credibility based on their history, not necessarily on their myths.
and when i say weird, i mean a kid in my school flew over to tiananmen square to protest for falun gong and got himself bit*h slapped, put in custody, and blacklisted (him and his family) from the country.

 

I've often wondered who finances these people who go around the world to protest. Those who protest the IMF, WTO, gov'ts, etc. They're often just young people. How can they afford to fly to Bali, Israel, Europe, Beijing to protest? Normal people with jobs don't do these things. And I have no sympathy for someone who goes half way around the globe, knowing full well that there are consequences to their protest and will get smacked around, and then have the gall to complain about it when they come home to tell their sob stories. FOOLS.

 

yeah. that's my point. i think the falun gong is being persecuted simply because they've got the political clout (i.e. the ability to mobilise masses) which the chinese communist party does not permit anyone in china to possess except for themselves. i too am skeptical about a religion that garners such fanatical support from such a large portion of the population so quickly. but nonetheless, unless proven otherwise, most of their believers are not quilty of any crime except for faith and political protest, and yet for that they are being persecuted in China. and i think that's just wrong.

 

Nice derailment MacBeth.

All been discussed over and over and over. You have your beliefs, others differ. Neither can know for sure. Most likely, reality is somewhere in the middle.