China PM's trip to Britain ends in shoe protest

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Stas Bush: Currently I'm rather sleepy, and though I promise you I'll have a full response tomorrow (which may end up being a temporary concession if I start getting too interested in researching economic and civil rights development), I'll answer a couple points which don't require evidence-gathering right now, to ease my mind.

If you think China is "totalitarian", you clearly don't understand what totalitarian means. Hint: next to China, possibly the only surviving state which could classify as such, the DPRK.

I think states like Turkmenistan and, to an extent, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Uzbekistan qualify for that label.

It just demonstrates the state is not as mature in political terms to have higher standards of human rights. It doesn't demonstrate that "the state is an end unto itself". That's just stupid.

But China has no need today for such a defense. Remember why both the French and Russian Revolutions turned to repression and dictatorship: at the time, neither was recognised by any world power, and they were surrounded and infested with enemies both real and potential. The PRC, on the other hand, has broad support in political and social terms at home, and is recognised as a world power to the extent of being a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and is economically tied to most nations of the world. There are no grand threats waiting in the wings that require crackdown.

You are missing the critical point - industrialization. But carry on. Tell me how America suffered under the monarchic rule until the early XX century, tell me how untold millions perished in violence in America, destroying it's industrial base, in the XX century. Perhaps then I will consider giving it a "free pass".

Germany and Poland have both had it just as bad (hell, for that matter, Poland was a culturally suppressed province until 1918, and a satellite nation until the early '80s), but they have certainly progressed (Poland certainly has its own problems, but the point stands). For that matter, Korea was also on the end of a brutal civil war, was under the yoke of Japan far longer than China, and remains divided, and the South is certainly better-off than the Chinese.

No, it's not. Democratically elected president Yeltsin gunned down the opposition with tanks. Democratically elected President Putin hits the opposition - however marginal - with police detentions. Democratically elected President Saakashvili - well, you know already. Democratically elected President Milosevic... should I carry on, or you'll just indulge in No True Scotsman?

Well, yes, I suppose I will. I've already stated that I would have no intent on using the Russian model on China, Milosevic became a dictator shortly after he was elected (spurred on by a multi-ethnic regime held together only by the charisma of Tito coming apart at the regional seams), and as for Saakashvili, well, yeah, democracy is not a perfect barometer of leaders. And no, I would not classify any nation where the opposition to the government is publicly attacked or repressed to be democratic. That's kind of what I've been knocking China for, in fact.

What matters to me more than a multi-party state is the free voicing of opposition to all levels of government. If the PRC remained in control while lifting all censorship of political speech and closing its gaols I'd be far happier than if simple Republican legislatures were installed and strong-arm tactics against dissidents were continued.

Oh yes. "Britain was a democracy" which slaughtered untold millions with it's colonialist and imperialist policies, and practiced mass detentions of political opposition well into the XX century! That's a nice example. I'm sure it will show how the virtues of democracy prevent opressed and conqered people from slaughter. Oh right, they don't. Well crap, choose your next example better.

And the parts of the Empire without a voice in the Legislature were the ones which were repressed. Hmm...

You are saying China's Wen Jibao deserves shoes thrown at him because he is part of a government that supports political detention. Yet you are not saying Western leaders like Bush deserve the exact same treatment for what they support, which is often the same, or a very similar thing. That's a really consistent worldview, isn't it? But yeah, British democracy, kitties and flowers.

Liar.

Besides, we need more silly objects thrown at world leaders.

You fail at reading comprehension. My country and my position? Whew.

[K. A. Pital]

I think states like Turkmenistan and, to an extent, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Uzbekistan qualify for that label.

Well, that list is certainly close enough (I would object to Uzbekistan and, surprisingly, Saudis and Syrians - it's not really fitting into the list). But I don't see China there either.

But China has no need today for such a defense. Remember why both the French and Russian Revolutions turned to repression and dictatorship: at the time, neither was recognised by any world power, and they were surrounded and infested with enemies both real and potential. The PRC, on the other hand, has broad support in political and social terms at home, and is recognised as a world power to the extent of being a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and is economically tied to most nations of the world. There are no grand threats waiting in the wings that require crackdown.

So did China drive tanks to supress a protest recently? Like I said, modern China has relaxed the repression since long, and will probably do so even further as economic conditions permit. Which grand crackdowns are you talking about anyway? I'm just wondering, because you mentioned "millions" of injustily imprisoned, and tanks and massive police round-ups. Any evidence for that occuring in modern China routinely and without any reasons, like you posit?

Germany and Poland have both had it just as bad

Germany didn't have it "just as bad". Germany was industrialized even early in the century, and the death toll inflicted on it by World War II is ridiculous and pathetic compared to the nations which it tried to exterminate wholesale. Germany had massive help from foreign powers - something our resident grande Third World powers like China and India didn't get to such an extent.

For that matter, Korea was also on the end of a brutal civil war, was under the yoke of Japan far longer than China, and remains divided, and the South is certainly better-off than the Chinese.

South Korea has also progressed far further on industrialization. It's per capita far more industrialized than China. The early South Korean regime, when it was only industrializing, was pretty opressive in it's own right. That only proves my point that economic conditions are a pre-requisite to social changes.

What matters to me more than a multi-party state is the free voicing of opposition to all levels of government.

Perhaps we will see that when China's social pressures lessen. There is certainly far less authoritarianism as now the economic conditions permit China to be less frantic about concentrating all of it's resources for various wars, conflicts and probable defence from enemies both East and West. China is changing for the better, and regardless of whether people admit it or not, the centralized control of the CPC has been instrumental to leading China's centralized planning of all sorts of economic and social policies. The repression and a lack of "answerability" is an unwelcome vestige - incidentally, you will find that China's government is working to correct both, and has progressed quite far at that.

And the parts of the Empire without a voice in the Legislature were the ones which were repressed. Hmm...

Correct. So what if China installs a democracy? How that will change the situation in Tibet? And will it even? Or do you think China needs it's own analogue of the Chechen war, whereas the weakening Central power will try to destroy an ever-rising separatist movement, which then will lead to it's utter radicalization?

Liar.

Ok, so you are saying people should throw shoes at many world leaders as a sign of disrespect. How is that at all productive for international relations? How is that productive for anything? That's just useless bullshit, as I said. Do you think China's socio-economic order will change because someone threw a shoe which will be soon forgotten? Do you think Iraq will change suddenly because someone threw a shoe at Bush?

Shoe-throwing is not criticism, and certainly it's nothing rational. You are saying emotional PR attention whoring in front of world leaders is a behaviour worth emulating - I humbly disagree.

Besides, throwing a shoe implies moral superiority as you said:

I'll support a non-violent protestor over the head of government of a country which operates concentration camps for political dissidents

So you consider the attention whore who threw the shoe at Wen Jibao morally superior to the Chinese politician. Let's see. How many lives has that idiot saved? Perhaps he is leading very complex economic policies in a very hard time, bringing millions of people into an era of industrial production in China? Maybe it was his government who brought millions of people out of poverty, who raised their life expectancy, installed education, helped China to rise as an industrial nation? No, he did not. So you are supporting basically a worthless attention whore reporter whose life accomplishments are zero in comparison to what Wen Jibao does, and did, for the entire people of China - over a billion. That's what you imply. You think Wen Jibao and the Chinese government are morally inferior to a human being whose biggest accomplishment for humanity, so far, has been throwing a shoe at Wen Jiabo. That's a very fucking dubious position.

And would you think that I'm morally superior to Gordon Brown if I threw a shoe at him? Would you support me? After all, he is the representative of the government that supported America's war of invasion in Iraq which led to half a million deaths at least. Somehow I think you would not be so quick to assume my side, right? You would at least consider everything that Brown did as a politician, and weigh the accomplishments of his government against his shortcomings - upon this evaluation, you would make a judgement.

In case of Wen, you simply paint China's government as "black" and proceed to take the side of a person who accomplished nothing compared to someone who accomplished quite a lot.