BBC Blog Network

User Profile

KrSund70

Listed below are comments made by KrSund70 between Saturday, 21st February 2009 and Thursday, 14th May 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Still searching for answers 12:39pm on 14 May 2009 James

I have to agree with many of the posts here. Your politically-charged slant on the story is quite obvious.

Even davidwhite44, who rarely has great things to say about Beijing and overseas Chinese, reminds you of the bigger picture--that in comparison with TangShan in the 1970's, this response was light-years better. To now forget all those positives, and to harp on only the negatives, is disingenuous at best.

You state that the parents should hold Beijing responsible, yet your Chinese readership, via these comments, have clearly voiced that you are likewise expected to be held responsible for balanced reporting. This story, unfortunately, strays far from the mark.
The right qualifications 1:14pm on 06 May 2009 dj1979 @ #27:

Yes, China must be allowed equal opportunity to develop.

Your analogy is incorrect for today, the same end result of slavery can be reached without slave labor. A better result even ... so there is no need to pursue the means if the ends or alternative better ends can be reached via another manner.

I've yet to see, however, reliable/sustainable industrial growth at a macro level without some amount of unforunate pollution. If you can show me how the same or or a better alternative end result (i.e. development) is possible without any or with significantly reduced emissions, I am all ears. The West (esp. the US) is hardly able to implement green technologies on its own behalf, let alone implementing them on China's behalf.

Having China make Western goods cheaply by pollutive means for Western consumption is the path of least resistance for Western business, who frankly, couldn't care less about the Chinese environment.
The right qualifications 2:04pm on 05 May 2009 Preferring that an ex-doctor be your health minister is hardly unreasonable is it? Having been a doctor is hardly an "obscure pursuit of a specialist subject." My understanding of Mr. Miliband's explanation is, simply, that he's a hired gun--willing and able to pursuade people and having that power of pursuasion as his main skill set, regardless of topic and the substantive correctness of the direction of his pursuasion. Give me that "grizzled, trusted public expert" anytime.

Also, RE: emissions, I think we're beating a dead horse as we've been well over this time and again.

1. Per capita, China is extremely low in emissions and consumption of resources. Equal human rights also must mean equal right to resource consumption and, thereby, emission. Entirely unfair to cap China's emissions when Beijing carries the water for 20% of the earth's population.

2. Temporally speaking, the West has well had her time in the sun to pollute at will during an industrial revolution. An explanation of, well, now we know better, is simply too convenient. China must be allowed an equal opportunity to develop as now is her time to do so.

3. Chinese factories turn out goods for Western use. Proper attribution of those emissions to the West must be accounted for in some sort of formulaic manner. Western factories in China must be held equally accountable in a fair manner.

Frankly, what Miliband has to say on the subject is of little interest to me as he, as must be the case, was merely fed climate facts by "grizzled experts" in order so that he may apply his skill set of "persuasion" and, simply, apply the correct "spin" for public consumption.
Defining relationships 12:40pm on 02 Apr 2009 Wise Deng implemented the workouts on the training pitch; now Hu has the reins for a few initial matches. The future remains to be seen, but team China seems match-fit and finally ready to play "the game."

The issue with France shows that China finally understands how to deal effectively with the Western World and now has the capacity to do so: leverage.
China's version of Tibet's story 3:41pm on 28 Mar 2009 1. Western media did give "distorted coverage" of the events in March, 2008.

2. Keeping BBC out of XinJiang is like trying not to get audited by the taxman. You know they're already convinced they'll find something wrong, why bother welcoming them into your files? Why British media considers fault-finding in regions of China a matter of "right" so fundamental as to merit unfettered access is beyond me. I doubt XinHua has such like fundamental access to all parts of governmental relations within the U.K.

3. Again, the implicit allegations of undue influence by Beijing on the Panchen Lama is no more serious than undue influence that will be exerted by Tibetan separatists upon the next Dalai Lama, who is surely to be a child. It's unfair to assert that only Beijing is trying to win the game here, when the rules of the game are inherently Tibetan (i.e. pass absolute rule to easily influenced children, pander to the West to market/advertise your position and political agenda).

4. The West's continued bias on this issue is simply helping Beijing to create a new generation of Chinese who, at least on this issue, grow increasingly weary and mistrustful of Western intentions. In attempting to win the "battle" in Tibet, the West has lost sight of the overall goals in the "war" (i.e. to convince the hearts and minds of the Chinese people that democracy is superior to CPC governance).
US and China's verbal duel 12:14pm on 26 Mar 2009 You said it right James: "Is there enough room for two military powers off the coast of China?" Now, assuming country A is a "military power," surely there cannot be a question of whether A is allowed to be itself (i.e. the "military power") off its own coast?!!! No no! Country B must be the military power off A's coast! How incredibly indefensible is such a position?

Further, a reading of the U.S. report can likewise be summarized in short order. "We are afraid of what we don't know." On the one hand, China is held responsible for many international matters, with other nations conveniently stating how China must assume a leadership role in world affairs now that it is a power. Somehow, Darfur became China's fault and, indeed, China's obligation to fix.

And, yet, as China begins to act accordingly in that global role (i.e. sending ships to combat pirates off the coast of Somalia, as the U.S. and Japan have done, as the pirates have become a menace to ships of all nations sailing those waters), that VERY REASON is now used on this report to stir up phobia as to China's military capabilities, simply because it is "unclear" and of "limited transparency?" Wow. I am astounded at the reasoning, simply astounded. I would have to suppose, then, that the operations of the CIA and U.S. Special Forces are 100% "clear" and "transparent" to China?

What is going on here is what has always gone on. We can't allow you to have capabilities we've had for years. We must be allowed to be a military power off your coast. We will criticize you for lacking transparency when we do not offer any ourselves. James, I am sure you're savvy enough to know why that "unarmed" U.S. vessel was off the coast in the S. China Sea doing "survey work" in "international waters." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with China's new submarine base at Hainan could it? It's amazing that China, acting in the interest of national security to prevent surveying of routes upon which her submarines must depend, off its own coast ... have in turn become the aggressors!

In conclusion, I wonder if the reference to "misunderstanding" and "miscalculation" refers to the "out-dated maps" which caused the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia. Ahh, THAT kind of misunderestimation (cheers, Dubya) ... how implicitly threatening of you, Washington.
Choosing the next Dalai Lama 11:55am on 17 Mar 2009 Allow me to analogize this way, for you baseball fans out there. China's the hitter being accused of using a corked bat (attempting to influence PL). Yet, it is not noted that Tibet's the pitcher throwing a spit-ball (a boy DL subject to same influence by Tibetan separatists). Here's the rub. If the pitcher wins, the rules will continue to permit such shenanigans in the game (Tibet's theocratic/absolute rule continues with the same power-transfer protocols). If the hitter wins, no more corked bats, no more spit-balls (China will separate church and state and limit theocratic political power of future DL's).

Puts things into perspective?
Choosing the next Dalai Lama 11:41am on 17 Mar 2009 Um, isn't this the very insanity of promoting a theocratic nation-state where absolute power is transferred to a boy? These are Tibetan rules by which China is forced to play, lest it be accused of cultural genocide or religious human rights violations. It is farcical to believe that any boy may be unduly influenced by Beijing, and yet NOT be subject to the same undue influence from ardent Tibetan separatists. This is a fundamental political issue ... a boy is caught in the middle solely because the Tibetans, not Beijing, mandate such a procedural side-show.

China's progressivity should be encouraged in Tibet, as anywhere else in China. Even in nations with monarchy, i.e. Britain, the Queen's political role has been reduced in modern times because of the recognization that absolute power and absolute rule have little place in a modern progressive society. I doubt the Tibetans have a such a reduction in power and influence planned for this, the next, or any other future Dalai Lama. The manner in which this feudal/theocratic system is perpetuated, at least in part, is aided by the selection of a ruler at a purposefully young, impressionable, and easily-influenced age. It is delusional not to admit that, throughout history and antiquity anywhere, junvenile rulers have only been the talk-head puppets of their behind-the-veil undue influencers. Thus, power over the masses should not be superficially given to them, especially in a theocratic-absolute power regime as is the case in the DL's Tibet. This is the very issue China takes with Tibetan separatism as a whole!
Whispers of the Dalai Lama 12:13pm on 12 Mar 2009 I find it difficult to justify that the world recession in which millions have lost their livelihoods is relegated to a mere p.s. or "another pressing subject," while the DL and Tibet again get the bulk of the perverbial newsprint.

The Chinese position is entirely proper, fair, and should not be subject to undue media recrimination.

Surveillance in order to deter violence and rioting is a 100% positive.

It seems that so long as people stay away from perpetuating such violence and rioting, they are indeed left alone, in order to make their pilgrimages, i.e. pursue their religion. This allowance of religious practice, while drawing a line at violence, is entirely correct, from both a governance point of view, and a human rights point of view. No activist can fairly argue that human rights includes the right to make violence.

Frankly, I believe that no government would truely be not concerned at all with regard to the god-worship of a single, secular human being as an all-encompassing deity. Everyone government would be watching closely, with some concern toward national stability, i.e. Germany and the scientologists, as an example.

So long as you weren't encouraging rioting James, I doubt you'd be arrested. Detained and questioned? Maybe, but any policeman in any nation would have a right to briefly question anyone within their jurisdiction. Even if we assume that every man in a pressed pair of trousers was an undercover policeman, I am sure that if 4 Tibetan women can make a pilgrimage to the DL's birthplace on that day, so could you James, without your fears of running afoul of the Chinese authorities.
How-to-save-the-world club 2:05pm on 21 Feb 2009 Another use of the most convenient argument in the world -- "When we were emitters/colonists, we didn't know any better, but now that we do, you China must play by the new, more restrictive rules now that it is your turn."

That argument would hold a lot more water if Westerners would actually put their money where their mouths are and allow China more per capita consumption of resources while decreasing per capita consumption in the West. Such "subsidizing" of resources with a China now so limited by these new, more enlightened "rules" for growth would be a meaningful gesture of good faith and proof positive that these new rules are well intentioned.

RE: that factory with the moden US environmentally friendly equipment ... I bet China had to pay a hefty sum.

Oh, but wait, it's still a mad consumerist culture here in the West, and Chinese people time and again make do with less, and still get blamed as polluters, while factories responsible for the pollution ship their products to the West for consumption.

I am not convinced James, and no Chinese should be until the West learns to tighten belts.

If I ruin the rice field by growing my rice, and now that it's your turn to use the field, you can gain no harvest, the right thing to do is to give half the rice from my full bowl into your empty bowl so we may both fairly and equitably eat.

Is that happening? I think not.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

KrSund70