|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Look at the following official statement on Sudan and Darfur,
a couple of brief sentences that come after a longer accusation of US Customs officers for attacking a China woman.
Not clever.
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/qwgz/t144002.htm
US urged to punish officer for beating Chinese(26/07/04)
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and US Secretary of State Colin Powell had a telephone conversation on July 26 morning, according to the Foreign Ministry.
Li reiterated China's position on the Taiwan issue, emphasizing that a country's national sovereignty and territory integrity overtops all else.
He urged the United States to fulfill its commitment of adhering to the "one-China" policy with concrete actions.
Powell said the United States will continue to observe the "one-China" policy and give no support to any attempts for "Taiwan independence".
Li also urged the United States to carry out a serious and thorough investigation into an incident occurring on July 21 near the Niagara Falls at the US-Canadian border, when Zhao Yan, a Chinese business woman from Tianjin on her first US business trip, was reportedly attacked by officers of US Customs and Border Protection in disregard of normal checking procedures.
Those responsible for the incident should receive legal punishment, Li said.
Powell responded to Li's requirement, saying that he will inquire into the issue.
Powell briefed Li on US stance on the Sudan issue and said he hoped the United Nations Security Council will take concerted actions on it.
Li said China is very concerned with the Darfur conflict in Sudan and hopes that the UN Security Council will listen more to the voices of Sudanese people, the African Union and the League of Arab States so as to take measures that are helpful for an appropriate solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh-oh...you copied and pasted!!!
Jinju is probably pulling his hair out right now over that. It makes him so angry.
Btw, I half agree with both sides of this argument. The 'Non-interference' is exactly what people tell America to do, but in some cases, maybe interference is called for.
| cosmo wrote: |
| freethought wrote: |
China doesn't go around saying they are the freest, greatest country in the world, in a global fight against evil doers.
|
Maybe so. China is more like Murder Inc.
Kidneys, lungs, hearts, livers and corneas are valuable commodities in China providing a source for hundreds of millions of dollars annual income.
The company Yeson Healthcare Services Network offers liver transplants for USD 120,000. If you contact hospitals in China directly, prices for liver transplants are USD 70,000. at First Affiliated Hospital at the College of Medicine of the Zhejiang University in Hangzhou.
There are dozens of hospitals that do thousands of transplants in China and transplant tourism is a blossoming business.
Prisoners are executed to coincide with customer need for organs.
Not only is China economy increasing rapidly, the China government has been developing various methods of business that is making the government wealthy and powerful.
When it comes to freedom, China has more than its share of contradictory things to say.
Look at the following official statement on religious freedom.
There are so many artificial things said in this statement that it takes too long to debunk it sentence by sentence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zjxy/t36496.htm
China Refutes U.S. Charges on Religious Freedom
A spokesman for the Religious Affairs Bureau of the State Council issued a statement on October 14 refuting charges by the U.S. State Department's "Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999" against China's policy on religion. The following is the full text of the statement:
The State Department of the United States recently issued its "Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999", which irresponsibly commented on religious affairs in many countries, including China, threw mud at China for no reasons, listed China as a country for "special concern" based on the "the International Religious Freedom Act", and went so far as to threaten China with sanctions.
We are strongly indignant at and resolutely opposed to such unfounded and unreasonable accusations.
The China section of the "Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999" is nothing new, but rumors, distortion, fabrication and imagination with some brand-new packaging, plus some threats as always, to create excuses for the implementation of its International Religious Freedom Act.
We must solemnly point out with justice that in China, freedom of religious belief is a fundamental right to which all citizens are entitled by the Constitution and law and the problem of "religious persecution" does not exist in China. Such fact can not be distorted by anyone in any means.
Chinese citizens enjoy full religious freedom. China is not only a large country in terms of population, it is also a major country in terms of religion, with schools of Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism and others, and a total of 100 million religious adherents among a national population of 1.2 billion.
Religious adherents engage in various religious activities at temples, mosques, churches and individual residences. There are 85,000 places of worship across the country, 300,000 clergymen, over 3,000 religious organizations, and 74 religious seminaries run by those organizations to train clergymen.
All religious organizations operate their own affairs independently, run seminaries to suit their own needs, publish their classical works and other publications, and have service organs for the public interest.
In the case of Christianity, more than 20 million copies of the Bible have been printed in the past ten and more years, making Chinese Christianity the largest school of religion in the world in terms of Bible publication.
Most religious figures praise the fact that this is the best time for all the religions in Chinese history.
The authors of the U.S. State Department's report have put on a masquerade of caring for the religious freedom in other countries, and have been repetitiously producing legislative bills and reports for the alleged purpose of improving religious freedom in other countries.
Faced with the sound conditions of religion in China, they still irresponsibly throw stones at China like a blind man feeling a giant elephant. Can anyone believe they do not have ulterior motives?
Along with hackneyed and stereotyped expressions, the U.S. report chooses bits and pieces with which to criticize China to deny any achievements made by the Chinese government in the field.
Regarding the fact that the Chinese people have the right to believe in religion, a right protected by Chinese law, the report' s authors had to acknowledge the freedom of religious belief among the Chinese on one hand, but repudiated the role of the law to standardize social behavior in China on the other hand.
The U.S. report made the nonsensical charge that the registration of religious places to the Chinese government means strict control of religious groups and their activities.
In fact, the Chinese government strives for better protection for the legitimate rights of religious groups through registration, in accordance with the Chinese law.
It is also an international practice to register social groups. In China, any social group, including religious one, must apply for registration from civil affairs authorities, a practice which is in agreement with the management regulation for social groups.
In accordance with the management regulations for religious ritual places which was promulgated in 1994, appropriate religious activities in ritual places should be protected by the law, and no group or individual may infringe on religious people's legitimate rights or intervene in their affairs.
The regulation also stipulates that all ritual places which meet the legal requirements can be authorized to register. After registration, the ritual place can obtain legitimate status, which is fully safeguarded by the law.
If there are infringements on its legal rights, religious groups and management bodies for religious activities may appeal to governmental administrative organs or even people's courts to seek legal settlement.
Therefore, Chinese religious figures uphold the regulation on registration of religious places. If ordering religious groups to register is a restriction, many nations and regions throughout the world are implementing the very same "restriction."
What is the purpose of the U.S. criticizing the registration regulation, a practice normal in many countries?
In addition, the U.S. report talked nonsense about 30 million Chinese people carrying out their Mass at "home churches". In fact, there are no "house churches" in China.
Christians usually organize religious rituals in families, which is only called a House Meeting. Christians who take part in the House Meeting also join congregations in churches, except for those who are too old or weak. House Meetings are just a supplement to church meetings.
The Chinese government respects these House Meetings and would never intervene.
The authorities do not ask religious believers to register these kinds of gatherings, and they neither intervene in nor restrict their activities.
Thus, the Chinese government has no specific statistics on House Meetings. The U.S. report barely knows the facts about the religious activities of the Chinese people, but rather fabricates stories according to their own daydreams.
After randomly criticizing religious freedom and governmental management in China, the U.S. report pretends to bewail the times and pity the people, asking the Chinese government to revise its laws and regulations and loosen the requirements for registration.
It is rude as well as naive for the U.S. to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations and impose its own will on them.
In today's world, there is no nation with sovereignty that follows up other nations' will or allows them to intervene in its internal affairs.
The report alleges that in China, foreigners' religious activities face more limits and monitorings and that preaching is not allowed in the country.
The fact is that the Chinese government fully respects the freedom in religious belief of all the foreigners within its territory, and protects their normal religious activities.
"The Provision on the Administration of Religious Activities of Aliens Within the Territory of the People's Republic of China,"which was promulgated by the Chinese government in 1994, categorically stipulates that China respects the freedom in religious belief of aliens within its territory, and protects friendly contacts and cultural and academic exchanges of aliens with Chinese religious circles.
It also stipulates that aliens may participate in religious activities at sites for religious activities within the Chinese territory, may preach and expound their scriptures at Chinese sites for religious activities at the invitation of Chinese religious bodies at or above the level of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, may hold religious activities attended by aliens at the sites for religious activities approved by the department of religious affairs of the people's government at or above the county level, may invite Chinese religious personnel to hold such religious ceremonies as baptism, weddings, funerals, and Taoist and Buddhist rites, and may carry into the country religious printed matter, religious audio-visual products and other religious articles for personal use.
Also, when China holds large international conferences, sports events, and cultural and academic exchanges, organizers may apply to the Chinese government for designating special religious sites for the religious activities of foreign participants.
During the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, religious organizations and sites in the city of Beijing received over 10, 000 participants from 103 countries and regions.
In 1998, a U.S. religious delegation led by Rabbi Arthur Schneier, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of the Newark Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and Reverend Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, visited China and was received by Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Chairman Li Ruihuan of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
During his visit to China the same year, U.S. President Bill Clinton went with his family to the Chongwenmen Church in downtown Beijing to attend Sunday morning services.
As a sovereign state, China has always held that its relations with other countries should grow on the basis of friendship. Aliens conducting any activities, including religious activities, within the Chinese territory should naturally abide by China's laws and regulations, and not undermine the country's public interest, nor interfere in its internal affairs including religious ones, nor preach or spread religious materials to the public.
For those aliens that violate the country's laws and regulations, Chinese law-enforcement departments have every right to punish them according to law. If this is regarded as limiting and monitoring aliens, one would like to ask whether the United States allows aliens to engage in unlawful activities within its territory.
The report also accuses China of "imposing restrictions on construction of new mosques" in Xinjiang, and of having "arrested and executed quite a few Moslems."
In fact, Moslems in Xinjiang have the complete right to enjoy freedom of religious belief, and there are enough mosques in the region to satisfy the religious needs of the Moslems.
Only a few ethnic separatists have been punished by Chinese law enforcement departments for the violence and terrorist activities they have committed, which has nothing to do with their religious belief.
Xinjiang is a region with quite a few ethnic Islamic groups that densely populate part of the region.
Under the system of ethnic regional autonomy, the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has been established to ensure regional ethnic autonomy, and people in the region fully enjoy their right of religious belief as protected by law.
There are nine million Moslems in Xinjiang, accounting for half of all the Moslems in China, but the number of mosques in the region totals 23,000 and represents two-thirds of the total in China, or one mosque for every 200 Moslems. More than 30,000 Moslems in Xinjiang have gone on the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia in recent years.
The great majority of Islamic people in Xinjiang and other religious believers there are patriotic and law-abiding and conduct their religious activities as permitted by laws and regulations and government policies.
Generally speaking, the situation in Xinjiang can be characterized as one of stability and unity among the different ethnic groups. Terrorist activities in the past few years such as murders and bombings committed by a very small number of ethic separatists who use Islam as a camouflage have caused great indignation among the Moslems of various ethnic groups who strongly oppose such violence.
In order to maintain stability and unity in Xinjiang and assure the safety and normal life of local Moslems, the local government has stood firmly against religious extremism and has cracked down on violence and terrorist activities in accordance with law, and as requested by the local people themselves.
The effort made by the government, therefore, is fully justified, as separatist activity would in no way be tolerated by any country in the world, and would be dealt with firmly.
The authors of the report, who regard as abnormal the legally justifiable punishment against the very small number of separatists and terrorists, went on to make accusations against China. Judging by their accusations, people can see very clearly what they support and what they oppose.
The report does not mind taking the trouble to list many "individual" issues in a bid to accuse China of conducting what it calls religious persecution.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese government is committed to freedom of religious belief. And the Chinese Constitution and laws provide Chinese citizens full guarantees for freedom of religious belief and legal religious activity, therefore there is no question of an issue of religious persecution.
Under the Chinese Constitution, every Chinese citizen enjoys equal rights and obligations in the eyes of the law, and any person who commits any criminal act is subject to criminal prosecution regardless of their religious belief.
No single person in China has been or will be detained or imprisoned simply because of their religious beliefs or their legal religious activities. On the contrary, stipulations have been made within China's criminal laws saying that any government employee who illegally deprives any citizens of their freedom of religious belief is subject to up to two-year imprisonment, or criminal detention according to the seriousness of the case. But those who use religion as a camouflage for illegal activities will be dealt with firmly according to law.
Some cults have existed in parts of China in recent years whose leading members spread misinformation using religion as a camouflage to deceive the general public, swindle money and property from people, and sexually exploit women. These people are hated bitterly by the general public and religious people. Taking legal action against the leading members according to law is meant to rid the people of a scourge and benefit the community.
As a matter of fact, there is no country in the world which allows illegal and criminal activities in the name of religion. One has to ask why it was quite reasonable for the United States to ban the Branch Davidian cult a few years ago, and Japan to outlawed the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult, while China is being accused of "persecuting religious people" simply because it banned some cults?
While ignoring its own problems, including religious ones, the United States has been making purely fictitious and improper comments about China's religious affairs, willfully vilifying China, and even threatening sanctions and demanding that China amend its laws in a way preferred by the United States.
The key point at issue is the United States using the freedom of religion as a camouflage to grossly interfere in China's internal affairs, which is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese government and people.
The U.S. government must immediately put an end to interfering in China's internal affairs through the use of the so-called religious issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
You violated their primary rule, Jinju: never permit anyone to shift the focus and especially the blame for all that is wrong and unholy in the world from America to anybody else. |
Yup.
I could post 100 topics about America support for crappy governments and these typers would never say "naaanaaanaaa China does it toooooooo". |
When you are surrounded by patriotic Americans chanting about the greatness of America, it is not particularly relevant to point out the failings of the Chinese (patriotic Americans think otherwise).
When you are surrounded by patriots chanting about the greatness of America, it is somewhat relevant to point out the failings of America.
If China is your home, your culture, your family, you have a particular entitlement--even duty--to call attention to its faults.
America is my home. It is my country and my culture. I have a particular entitlement--even duty--to call attention to the lies it tells about itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
| Uh-oh...you copied and pasted!!! |
Yes, I did. To illustrate a point.
Actually, you could accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist on the transplant issue, because I did not copy and paste anything about that.
But I could provide lengthy info on that issue and additional issues which I only hinted at.
Then you could accuse me of copying and pasting again.
There is one site I know of which includes one page of over 200 links to over 200 scholarly articles concerning the military buildup situation in China.
If I said this problem is real, you could disagree.
If I provide the 200 articles, you could accuse me of copying and pasting.
Watching China get bigger and more powerful is a full time occupation in various governmental and NGO departments.
It is also a full time academic endeavor in academia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
jinju ejaculated:
| Quote: |
| By protecting the Sudanese government the Chinese are in effect supporting mass gang rapes of women in Darfour |
Nice try, but don't get a hernia straining to make your logic stretch.
gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| While I do not share your Sinophobia, or whatever it might be called, I do share your laughing at those who would castigate America for nearly anything that any Third-World dictator has ever done |
Sorry, bruddah. This time you're giving him far too much credit.
Big Bird:
Yep, it's the CE Forum. Ain't it fun?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| to tell you the truth, I was simply turning the leftist "logic" around and seeing what would happen, and its painfully obvious that the lefties love to denounce America for anything that they think America is guilty of, even in part. BUT you see, if you take that "logic" and shift blame away from America, you get snide remarks like this. What I find inconceivable is that one could actually make snide remarks about a real genocide occurring right now. Well, that would ofcourse require empathy and a true love of humanity, something the left has none of but loves to fly that banner anyway. |
Garbage.
| Quote: |
CHINA HAS ACTIVELY BLOCKED ALL ACTION ON DARFOUR. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF CHINESE COMPLICITY. CHINA HAS NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE, HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY.
Now, seriously, my sinophobia. Ive explained it before. It comes from a real analysis of China's presence in world affairs. be it Myanmar or North Korea, Taiwan or Tibet or in this case Africa. China's "non-interference" policy is a sham because through direct Chinese actions, be it investment in places like Sudan or its roles as the primary bottle neck at the UNSC, China has actively propped up, defended and supported some of the most vile governments in the world. It really doesnt get worse than the junta in Myanmar, Kim or the Sudanese mass murderers.
The fact that China was awarded the Olympics is a farce. But it could also be a great opportunity. I would dearly love to see the top Olympic powers pull out of the Olympics at the last minute. I would love to see China on the hook for billions of dollars for organizing the games and nobody of any stature going over. |
An honest opinion useful in beginning a debate. Now, that wasn't hard, was it? Next time try leaving out the baiting and trolling. Ah, that's right: your sole purpose was to bait and troll. Sad, given Darfur is a worthwhile topic.
It would have been nice to learn something more on the topic as it is one I've not followed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
jinju ejaculated:
| Quote: |
| By protecting the Sudanese government the Chinese are in effect supporting mass gang rapes of women in Darfour |
Nice try, but don't get a hernia straining to make your logic stretch.
gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| While I do not share your Sinophobia, or whatever it might be called, I do share your laughing at those who would castigate America for nearly anything that any Third-World dictator has ever done |
Sorry, bruddah. This time you're giving him far too much credit.
Big Bird:
Yep, it's the CE Forum. Ain't it fun? |
There you go, steve again defending China. This time Steve is defendng china vis a vis its role in Darfour When will you wake up to the fact that China as it is now is a force for the negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Jinju,
Maybe we should stop trading with China. What say you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jinju, regicide, and EFLTrainer:
The Axis of Bollweevil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Now, seriously, my sinophobia. Ive explained it before. It comes from a real analysis of China's presence in world affairs. be it Myanmar or North Korea, Taiwan or Tibet or in this case Africa. China's "non-interference" policy is a sham because through direct Chinese actions, be it investment in places like Sudan or its roles as the primary bottle neck at the UNSC, China has actively propped up, defended and supported some of the most vile governments in the world. It really doesnt get worse than the junta in Myanmar, Kim or the Sudanese mass murderers. |
I agree. China supports some tyrranical despots around the world.
It's funny how South Korea has a non-interference policy with North Korea as well isn't it? The sexual slavery of North Korean women in China and the reprehensible actions of the North Korean despotism continues with nary a cry of protest. Millions have starved to death and are being tortured and killed in concentration camps.
I called you out on that before and you said that South Korea's hands were tied. There is nothing they could do. South Korea gives large amounts of money every year with no strings attached and actively hinders North Korean refugees from escaping to freedom. They not only do nothing. They do worse than nothing. South Korea is propping up a vile government just the same as China is doing. Why don't you condemn the pathetic brown-nosing, Kim Jeong Il fawning South Korean government? Or is there a double standard? 
Interesting interview with the Secretary General of the United Nations here.
| Quote: |
How can the United Nations be empowered so that member states states can no longer disregard its decisions with impunity and humanitarian disasters like the one unfolding in Darfur remain beyond its reach?
I think the Sudanese government should accept without further delay the peacekeeping missions in Darfur. This was decided by the Security Council of the United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan also made important and honest efforts in his talks with the Sudanese leadership. It is very important that before it may be too late we need to take necessary actions to deploy a peacekeeping mission in Sudan to save people from tragedy and crimes. It may develop into a genocide if we do not take the necessary actions at this time. |
http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/kimoon.cfm
Interesting. Would you think China or South Korea would be more likely to accept a United Nations mandate that went against their interests? You have stated that China is tolerating the genocide in Darfur in order to keep getting Sudanese oil. So it would be against their interests to act or accept a UN mandate to deal with the problem. Let's see...
| Quote: |
Accepting UN Decisions
While most respondents support strengthening the United Nations, there is less enthusiasm about submitting to possibly adverse UN decisions. Respondents were asked whether their country should be �more willing to make decisions within the United Nations� when dealing with international problems, even if this means that their country �will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice.� Ten of the 16 publics asked say that their country should do so, but only four of these are a clear majority, while six are pluralities. Four are opposed and two are divided. On average 45 percent said their country should do so, while 38 percent said it should not and 17 percent did not answer.
Not surprisingly the three countries most ready to accept UN decisions are also permanent members of the UN Security Council: China (78%), France (68%), and the United States (60%). The public in Russia, also a member, tend to be opposed to abiding by such decisions by 44 percent to 33 percent, however.
Israel, surprisingly, is another county where there is strong support for making decisions within the United Nations. Fifty-four percent of Israelis agree that their leaders should abide by such decisions even if they disagree. This is striking given the extent to which opponents of Israel have used the United Nations as a platform for criticism of the Jewish state.
In sharp contrast, the Palestinians are the only public polled with a majority opposed to accepting such collective decisions. A large 81 percent majority of Palestinians say their government should not go along with policies they oppose. This is also striking given that Palestinian leaders have used UN resolutions as a basis for legitimating their demands for statehood.
Pluralities favor accepting UN decisions in Peru (50% to 42%), Thailand (48% to 25%), Mexico (46% to 27%), India (44% to 35%), Argentina (41% to 32%), and Poland (35% to 31%). In two countries, pluralities are opposed: Armenia (45% to 36%), Philippines (46% to 26%). Views are divided in South Korea (48% agree, 49% disagree) and Ukraine (30% agree, 32% disagree and 38 percent do not answer). |
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/355.php
It seems here that China would be more willing to go along with a UN Mandate that is contrary to their interests while South Korea would not. So one could make the conclusion that China would act in accordance with the UN if they condemned Sudan and maybe started sanctions that hurt China economically. However South Koreans would likely be opposed to real action on North Korea as it is contrary to their interests in sucking up to Kim Jeong Il. Sad isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Genocide
Publics show very strong support for allowing the UN Security Council to use military force to �prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide.� Very large majorities in all 12 countries polled on this issue agree that the Security Council should have the right to use force in such cases. The lowest levels of support are in Thailand (62%) and India (63%), and the highest are in France (85%), Israel (83%) and the United States (83%). Average support across the publics polled is 74 percent.
This poll probed further about whether the Security Council has not just the right but the responsibility to intervene militarily to protect people from severe human rights abuses. �Some people say that the Security Council has the responsibility to authorize the use of military force to protect people from severe human rights violations such as genocide,
even against the will of their own government,� respondents were told. �Others say that the Security Council does not have such a responsibility.�
The idea that the Security Council has this responsibility is the most common view in all 12 of the publics polled and the majority view in eight of them. Interestingly the Chinese (76%) show the strongest support for this idea, followed by Americans (74%) and Palestinians (69%). In four countries, only pluralities agree: Ukrainians (40%), Thais (44%), Russians (48%), and Argentines (48%). In no country, do more than four in 10 say that the UN does not have a responsibility to act against genocide. On average 57 percent said the UN has this responsibility.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/may07/CCGA+_UN_article.pdf
Interesting. China is the most likely to support UN resolutions dealing with genocide.
Of course when it comes to dealing with rogue countries like North Korea getting Nuclear Weapons, South Korea loves the idea.
When asked whether the Security Council should have the right to authorize the use of military force in order �to prevent a country that does not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them,� the most common view in eight out of 11 publics is that it �should� have this right, including majorities in Mexico (70%), Israel (62%), the United States (62%) and Russia (55%). Only in the Palestinian territories (59%) and South Korea (55%) do majorities say the Security Council �should not� have the right to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons. The French are divided. Average support is 53 percent.
More specifically, respondents were asked whether the Security Council should have the right to authorize the use of force to �prevent a country that does not have nuclear weapons from producing nuclear fuel that could be used to produce nuclear weapons.� Once again the most common answer in seven of the 10 publics polled is that the Security Council �should� have this right. Support is highest in Thailand (59%), United States (57%), and Israel (54%). Again, the exceptions are those polled in the Palestinian territories (57% say no) and South Korea (56% say no). The French, again, are divided. On average, half of the respondents polled across all countries (50%) support this right and 37 percent are opposed.
Once again, South Korea doesn't care if it is against their self interest. After all they secretly rejoice in the idea that Koreans could have nukes and they finally could get their revenge against Japan. Truly pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| I have a particular entitlement--even duty--to call attention to the lies [America] tells about itself. |
This is the muckraking posture, Luvnpeas. Before embracing it fully, beware that those who subscribe to it create and move to enforce the following binary: one is either "a patriotic American [mindlessly] chanting about America's greatness" or one is an honorable, duty-bound truthteller "who calls attention to the lies America tells about itself."
Like all other dichotomies, this one creates false choices and leads to the most simplistic of the simplistic worldviews. When it comes to historical facts, it will ignore nonAmerican correlations of forces, conditions, and actors; it will round off all angles and force square pegs into round holes; it will studiously neglect differences and data that do not fit this hanging-jury's worldview: that evil, bloodthirsty, murderous America is the source of all that is wrong in the world. (These are leftist historian Buzzanco's descriptors.)
Everyone else is innocent, peaceable, and indeed guileless. If they are not, then that is because America created them in some fashion or another, and for one reason or another (usually as a pretext to feed the military-industrial complex's budgets so that America might continue enslaving and thus dominating the world, like SPECTRE, and joyfully killing others as it pleases) -- even Adolf Hitler, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Castro's Cuba, Saddam, and bin Laden. (These are William Blum and Chalmers Johnson's descriptors.)
Indeed, those who adhere to the muckraking posture -- those who choose to live in the gutter and see only the dirt and trash, in fact -- will attack anyone who says there is anything at all good about America as "a patriotic American [mindlessly] chanting about America's greatness" while ignoring the truth the muckrakers see down there in the garbage...
I think Jinju has adopted a muckraking posture vis-a-vis China. And I do not share that. I think America and China are natural allies and trading partners. However, although I see much good and potential in China, I would not avert my gaze from Chinese faults and shortcomings anymore than I would avert my gaze from American faults and shortcomings. (Perhaps we feel the same about this, and you just did not articulate all that I have said here.)
The question is: what is it about one's pessimistic, negative, perhaps depressive psychology that they might only have eyes for Chinese or American faults and shortcomings? That they look around them and see nothing good but rather only bad? Why do some define "critical thinking" to mean "necessarily harshly negative" and "staunchly oppositionist" when some things may indeed call for our condemnation but others call for praise -- and yet others things call for neither but rather something else entirely?
I guess my criticism of the muckraking posture is that I find it just as unlikely that someone or something -- like Beijing or Washington -- will always be in the wrong anymore than it might always be in the right. Yet the muckrakers insist on the former and refuse to hear any instance of the latter.
Are you sure you want to stand with the muckrakers, Luvnpeas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| I have a particular entitlement--even duty--to call attention to the lies [America] tells about itself. |
This is the muckraking posture, Luvnpeas. |
No, it's a necessary condition for improvement. It is also a basic responsibility, since my taxes support the US government not the Chinese.
I find it interesting that the complaining about criticism of the US here is not actually focussing on whether the criticism is accurate. Is it true that the US supports torture, public headings, etc., at least in the same sense that China supports gang rape? Nobody has bothered to address that question, preferring merely to complain that anybody would mention it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| No, it's a necessary condition for improvement. It is also a basic responsibility... |
That is certainly your prerogative, Luvnpeas. Suit yourself.
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| I find it interesting that the complaining about criticism of the US here is not actually focusing on whether the criticism is accurate... |
First, I find it interesting that on a thread that aims to critique Chinese foreign policy, you object to others' complaining about your critiques re: American foreign policy. Clear case of U.S.-centrism.
Secondly, to address your point, above: that is because many of us find that "the criticism" exceeds the evidence -- by a longshot -- and it exceeds the bounds of reasonable critique as well.
America has no love affair with any of these things, Luvnpeas, and I would wager neither does China -- even though, I must admit, there are many things Chinese that I do not understand, starting with Tiananmen 1989. In any case, both we and they, for the most part, Luvnpeas, take the world as we find it and work with that reality, for better or for worse.
Take Kennedy's listing the options he perceived with respect to American foreign policy in the Dominican Republic in spring and summer 1961: the President said we ought to strive to support democratic, reformist forces there. But we could in no case allow Castro to move -- and he was indeed moving there and elsewhere. This meant that we moved to back the status quo for the moment in order to stave off Castro's covert ops and guerrillas. But even this failed to work out as we had hoped.
In the end, Kennedy personally ordered American diplomats and operators to contact the Dominican conspirators and instruct them to hold off. What did they say? This is not an American op but a Dominican one. So they moved. Overthrew the govt. Then Dominican affairs cascaded downward into violent civil war -- even the army split in half and started fighting itself. And, lacking any alternatives at this moment, we moved in before Castro could seize control. No one in America was in love with this result. Was not even our "Plan B."
Take Iran's SAVAK, as another example. Critics allege that Americans and American security forces were deeply enamored of them and their methods. But that is not what the historical record says. Everyone in Delta Force, for example, who has spoken on the matter, speaks about these people with complete lack of respect.
| CSM Eric L. Haney wrote: |
| We were also supposed to take along a swaggering, loud-mouthed, smart-assed former member pf SAVAK...He supposedly was a man who knew the underside of Tehran, but when it came time to leave the United States [for Desert One], he developed what Colonel Beckwith called "intestinal problems (lack of)" and refused to board the plane. I guess he was fundamentally opposed to going into action against anyone but unarmed civilians. |
So when I hear people alleging that America loves to support dictators and killers, etc., either at the policymaking or the operations level, you will forgive me if I receive it skeptically... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I agree. China supports some tyrranical despots around the world.
It's funny how South Korea has a non-interference policy with North Korea as well isn't it? |
HAHAHHAHHAAH you are seriuosly trying to get me to argue FOR this government? Ive been a major critic of this administration and consider bot Roh and Kim to be the 2 worst presidents in this country's history. The whole Subshine policy has been a failure on all fronts and that includes human rights in North Korea and Seoul's failure to confrint them on everything. I have always supported the idea of a Sunset Policy with North Korea: total disengagement from North Korea in terms of trade and aid of any sort unless strict and significant conditions are met by the North. Starting with de-nuclearization and ending at human rights. If NK failed to meet these conditions then shut down exchange of all goods, aid and money.
| Quote: |
| I called you out on that before and you said that South Korea's hands were tied. There is nothing they could do. |
There is n0thing that South Korea could do DIRECTLY. You realize that this is taking place in China so SK has little influence there. THATS how their hands are tied. But there are things SK can and should do indirectly, i.e. tie the issue to aid and economic cooperation.
| Quote: |
| South Korea gives large amounts of money every year with no strings attached and actively hinders North Korean refugees from escaping to freedom. They not only do nothing. They do worse than nothing. South Korea is propping up a vile government just the same as China is doing. Why don't you condemn the pathetic brown-nosing, Kim Jeong Il fawning South Korean government? Or is there a double standard? |
Agreed. The Sunshine Policy is a massive failure and is a crime. If yu think I dont condemn them then you dont visit this forum often enough.
| Quote: |
| However South Koreans would likely be opposed to real action on North Korea as it is contrary to their interests in sucking up to Kim Jeong Il. Sad isn't it? |
Well the beauty of a DEMOCRACY like Sk is that this will likely change once the communists are voted out of power later this year. A new conservative president should take a hawkish position on North Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
