|
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 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: China's Tough Dichotomy |
 |
|
After seven years of waiting, 13 months of rehearsal practicing for the opening ceremonies and $43 billion spent, China has opened the 2008 Olympics with great fanfare. Indeed, some see it as a 'coming out party' analogous to the 1964 games in Tokyo and the 1988 games in Seoul. At the time of the 1964 Olympics, Japan's economy was growing at an incredible rate of 12-15% per annum leading it to become the world's second richest nation. Likewise, 1988 was a watershed moment to Korea as well. Korea's economy soon began to take off after 1988. As today, in 2008, China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Yet, China remains a one party authoritarian state. By 1970, Japan was the most liberal country in Asia, if not one of the freest in the world at the time. Likewise, Korea began to become a stable democracy after 1988 with many more personal freedoms. China's one party state doesn't want to cede power nor does it want its people to have more personal freedoms such as religion, speech or even movement in some cases. The politburo has kicked out all migrants from the capital and closed down all the factories for the games. I, personally, think that China will become more open to more personal and political freedoms in the future; it's just a question of how much time.
The WSJ's op/ed board's take on everything:
| Quote: |
he Beijing Games
August 8, 2008; Page A14
As the Beijing Olympics begin, people of goodwill wish for a successful Games. The competing athletes, in events both celebrated and obscure, dedicate their lives for this opportunity, and properly the spotlights will fall on them.
There is no ducking the fact, however, that this is a political Olympics. China today is in no way the rank evil that lay behind Nazi Germany in 1936 nor the grim totalitarianism of Moscow in 1980. China's ruling Communist Party, which was responsible for so much of the country's suffering the past half-century, can take credit for continuing the market reforms begun under Deng Xiaoping. This is an opportunity for China to showcase economic progress that was unimaginable only 30 years ago.
For all that, China remains a one-party state. The Communist Party brooks no dissent, and already controversy has arisen over blocked Web sites and Internet access. The mass closing of factories to diminish pollution was a fantastic display of authoritarian might.
In the run-up to the Games, a global debate ensued over whether this or that national leader would attend the opening ceremonies. The expressed fear was that participation would legitimize China's acts of repression, as recently in Tibet. French President Nicolas Sarkozy famously threatened to boycott, then relented. "If backpedaling were an Olympic sport," Time wittily noted, Mr. Sarkozy "would be a strong contender for the gold."
Mr. Sarkozy's ambivalence reflects the policy problems China poses as the world struggles to integrate a large nation that is politically unfree and economically vibrant. The challenge is to discourage China's worst tendencies while hoping that in time its economic liberalism will drive further reform. For all his recent bad press, President Bush deserves high marks for the way he has handled this puzzle, notably under the glare of the Olympics.
Last week before heading to Beijing, Mr. Bush met with five Chinese dissidents in the White House residence, and with Bob Fu, an activist for China's underground Christian movement. The U.S. media barely noticed, but China certainly did. A Foreign Ministry spokesman accused the U.S. of "rudely" interfering in "China's internal affairs" and sending a "seriously wrong message to hostile anti-China forces." Chinese President Hu Jintao remarked to a foreign press gaggle -- his first such appearance -- that "I don't think that politicizing the Olympic Games will do good." In fact, Mr. Bush is striking a responsible balance: attending the ceremonies to give China credit for its recent ascension, while speaking candidly about our differences.
Arriving in Thailand on his way to Beijing, Mr. Bush said: "America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists. We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights -- not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential." Mr. Bush will attend church services in China, drawing attention to one of the most severely repressed freedoms there.
Recent commentary has asked what exactly the International Olympic Committee was thinking when it awarded the Games to Beijing in 2001. Certainly so far the Olympics has not fulfilled the hopes of those who thought, naively, that it would lead to a freer media or more political tolerance.
Communist authorities have reneged on their promise of media freedom during the Games, have jailed human-rights activists, ejected migrants from the capital and made travel visas so difficult to obtain that even businesspeople had trouble getting into the country. The Web site of our sister publication, the the Far Eastern Economic Review, remains inaccessible in Beijing. In an echo of the old regimes of Eastern Europe, with their infamous national sport combines, China is clearly using its athletes and the medal count to burnish its national legitimacy.
So yes, China remains a tough dichotomy -- a reforming but powerful and authoritarian nation. For all that, it would be foolish to underestimate the good that could come from China opening itself as the host of a major and truly international event.
Rather than do politics, most Chinese citizens will spend the days ahead cheering their athletes. As they mingle with and hear from foreigners, many inevitably will feel themselves, and their country, to be part of a bigger world. This is of a piece with U.S. policy toward China: It is a long-run bet that encouraging economic freedom will ultimately lead to more political freedom. We believe that is a bet worth making, though the run will be more distance than sprint.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
adios4ca
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: China's Tough Dichotomy |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| ... Yet, China remains a one party authoritarian state. |
What most of the people don't know, or care less to know is:
Surely China's Communist Party is the one and the only ruling party in China.
But inside the party, it is HIGHLY democratic, if not more than that of any other countries.
Almost all of the decisions are made by consensus but not "executive order", even to the highest ranking like Mr. Hu.
That is what my professor said - he served in National Security Council as Senior Director, and as a Special Assistant on National Security Affairs to Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adios4ca
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: China's Tough Dichotomy |
|
|
just googled online, seems Chinese Communisty Party has 80 million members ,nearly 1/3 of the US population.
| adios4ca wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| ... Yet, China remains a one party authoritarian state. |
What most of the people don't know, or care less to know is:
Surely China's Communist Party is the one and the only ruling party in China.
But inside the party, it is HIGHLY democratic, if not more than that of any other countries.
Almost all of the decisions are made by consensus but not "executive order", even to the highest ranking like Mr. Hu.
That is what my professor said - he served in National Security Council as Senior Director, and as a Special Assistant on National Security Affairs to Clinton. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: China's Tough Dichotomy |
|
|
| adios4ca wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| ... Yet, China remains a one party authoritarian state. |
What most of the people don't know, or care less to know is:
Surely China's Communist Party is the one and the only ruling party in China.
But inside the party, it is HIGHLY democratic, if not more than that of any other countries.
Almost all of the decisions are made by consensus but not "executive order", even to the highest ranking like Mr. Hu.
That is what my professor said - he served in National Security Council as Senior Director, and as a Special Assistant on National Security Affairs to Clinton. |
I don't understand. Are you saying that China's Communist Party is democratic? Because that seems to be what you are saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adios4ca
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: Re: China's Tough Dichotomy |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I don't understand. Are you saying that China's Communist Party is democratic? Because that seems to be what you are saying. |
i am just saying, within the party, the whole process is highly democratic.
a proper analogy could be the Roman Republic.
note the difference between democratic and republic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| just googled online, seems Chinese Communisty Party has 80 million members ,nearly 1/3 of the US population. |
| Quote: |
| I don't understand. Are you saying that China's Communist Party is democratic? Because that seems to be what you are saying. |
Well, when the House is supposed to grow with the population, but it gets frozen at 435 in the early 1900s, doesn't it start moving toward being something more akin to a politburo?
What power do third parties hold when you force them to compete against 2 monolithic machines with far more money for a static number of seats (that should absolutely not be static)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zolt
Joined: 18 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, you could see it the other way round and say that the Olympics helped bring democracy along rather than the other way round. After all Park Chung-hee was still in power in 1988, and one can argue wether Japan was a functional democracy at that time - the elites from WWII or their sons had and still have a lot of say.
All I hope is that these olympics had nothing to do with the 1936 ones, but I honestly think China's got the worst part of its history behind it already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zolt wrote: |
Well, you could see it the other way round and say that the Olympics helped bring democracy along rather than the other way round. After all Park Chung-hee was still in power in 1988, and one can argue wether Japan was a functional democracy at that time - the elites from WWII or their sons had and still have a lot of say.
All I hope is that these olympics had nothing to do with the 1936 ones, but I honestly think China's got the worst part of its history behind it already. |
Park Chung-hee was killed in 1979.
And adios, the CCP is not nearly as democratic as you make it out to be. For one, it doesn't even meet on a yearly basis. I will try to elaborate tomorrow. |
|
| 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
