Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

  1. #21
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Most of the changes have been little more than window dressing.
    Nonsense, some changes are called window dressing by critics, but others are definitely not.

    In many ways, China has moved backward, especially in regards to human rights. Ask practitioners of Falun Dafa as well as various Christian groups how they feel about the progression of human rights in China. It is also one of the world's largest (perhaps still the largest -- have to check) prison for journalists in the world. Yeah, nice progress. Ever heard of the People's Armed Police? Know what their primary purpose is?
    One thing I notice about critics of the Chinese government is their narrow focus. In terms of both changes to laws and changes in practice the Chinese government has expanded rights in countless areas. Apparently people who criticize the Chinese government think there has to be major reform in all areas for China to be doing anything other than backtracking.

    In several areas like property rights, worker's rights, freedom of speech, and democracy there have been advancements. Economic rights are the most obvious and expansive areas, but political rights have also expanded over the years.

    Human rights groups make a fuss every time some critic of China gets arrested and say it is part of a crackdown on dissent, but they never examine why it happened and who arrested them. In many cases it is a local government this critic has gone after and it is the equivalent of libel or involves state secrets. Countless critics of the Chinese government are not arrested because they avoid making unprovable or outright false allegations and stick with facts that are not considered state secrets.

    Those China watchers risk losing access to China if they are overly critical of China. There have been a number of China watchers who HAVE noted that the changes are little more than window dressing and that human rights is moving in the wrong direction. Many of them have lost access to the country as a result. They reward those who carry their message to the West. That has been going on since the 1930s!
    I don't doubt that some people outstay their welcome and people who are more supportive of the government get favors (duh that's how it works everywhere), but your own claim acknowledges that it is not all of them and may not even be a majority of them who reiterate claims like yours. So you acknowledge that even highly critical reporters are allowed to continue operating in China.

    You are missing the point. The message is meant to fool foreigners into thinking that there is real change going on in China. It is superficial at best. Few foreigners are conversant in spoken Mandarin and even fewer can read Chinese.
    Pfft, that doesn't even make sense. Few foreigners may know Chinese, but the fact many Chinese know English means the opening up in English-language news is an opening up for hundreds of millions of Chinese.

    (either in the Simplified -- fake -- or Traditional -- real -- form)
    Your opinion on anything China-related is becoming increasingly less meaningful to me as you continue talking.

    And that is what the ChiCom government counts on and has for decades.


    Except that they have been doing this for decades. I would see things in English language media sources in China that would not be found in Chinese.
    I do not doubt this, but I think you are misunderstanding why it occurs and more importantly misrepresenting what it means. As there are fewer Chinese who speak English and more foreigners who do it is less of a risk to include more open information in such sources. At the same time you think it means Chinese media has remained stagnant, when this is not the case. I do know that Chinese-language sources have also become more open simply because of reports from foreign media on news from from mainland Chinese-language media. The Southern Metropolis Daily is one that I believe has often launched scathing criticism of the government.

    Except that DECADES of experience have borne out the claims of the critics. You should check out the book "China Misperceived" by Stephen Mosher.
    Another common tactic of opponents of the Chinese government is to cite only people who are blatantly biased against the Chinese government. I'm not even gonna bother with his book given what I have read about the man himself. There are no shortage of such books and I could care less about any specific one making unprovable claims, exaggerating statistics, or selectively citing sources.

    Except that you didn't show any citations and all but ignored the cases I cited (with links) in response. You were hardly convincing in that argument because your argument had no basis in international law.
    I cited several legal documents by name. Our dispute was primarily focused on whether the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was a legal treaty or not. I took the position that it was and cited relevant legal documents to back up my case and you said it wasn't without citing any documents to support that position.

    The fact is, the Kosovo advisory opinion even further strengthened Taiwan's case vis a vis China. If China were so confident it had a case, it would accept Taiwan's call for an ICJ ajudication.
    China does not want the dispute internationalized because it does not want to put what it considers an internal matter in the hands of other countries.

    Now... have you fallen for their propoganda on the South China Sea as well?
    Like I said, my opinion is not based on such things. I have not given much attention to the issue of the South China Sea, but looking over it I think the only other legitimate claims are those of Vietnam. Several sources make mention of a treaty between China and France in 1887 and if that is legitimate then it would seem to indicate the French who were in control of Vietnam renounced past claims to the Spratly and Paracel islands. I would need to look more into this, but one interesting thing is it seems the French after that never seriously exercised a claim until the Republic of China toppled the Beiyang government, which was essentially the successor to the Qing Dynasty.

    Based on this it seems to me the Chinese have a more legitimate claim than Vietnam. Certainly their claims to the rest of the South China Sea islands are the most legitimate ones. None of the other countries seemed to have any interest in any of the islands until the middle of the 20th Century while China's claims date back hundreds of years.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #22
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Look, I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion with you over this. I have seen many people feel like you only to be disappointed over time and wake up to reality.

    Based on this it seems to me the Chinese have a more legitimate claim than Vietnam. Certainly their claims to the rest of the South China Sea islands are the most legitimate ones. None of the other countries seemed to have any interest in any of the islands until the middle of the 20th Century while China's claims date back hundreds of years.


    I cited several legal documents by name. Our dispute was primarily focused on whether the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was a legal treaty or not. I took the position that it was and cited relevant legal documents to back up my case and you said it wasn't without citing any documents to support that position.
    You cited the Surrender and then went on to claim that it is a treaty. Not even the Chinese government makes THAT claim. I cited numerous examples of how a RATIFIED treaty is required to transfer territory from one state to another state... something you were never able to refute...

    So ...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #23
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Look, I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion with you over this. I have seen many people feel like you only to be disappointed over time and wake up to reality.
    The difference is I am probably not expecting what those people were expecting. I have no illusions about some huge magic reform that will make them into a Western democracy overnight. Hell, I would see it is as a huge loss to progress if China just rehashed the deeply flawed Western system. I know both the good and bad aspects of the history of nations and that if someone wants to say any country is backtracking on human rights they could easily be selective and condemn most, if not all, countries.

    Please, by all means explain why what I said is so laughable, other than the fact that you have an irrational hatred of the Chinese government and thus refuse to accept anything they say as legitimate. I hope you are aware that an independent Taiwan would have no legitimate claim to any of the South China Sea islands just like they would have no legitimate claim to Kinmen and Matsu.

    You cited the Surrender and then went on to claim that it is a treaty. Not even the Chinese government makes THAT claim. I cited numerous examples of how a RATIFIED treaty is required to transfer territory from one state to another state... something you were never able to refute...
    You claimed treaties have to be ratified by a legislature period, which was simply not true. You never proved in any way that it was a requirement for transferring territory. My argument was based off international law and I cited several examples of where my position was consistent with it.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  4. #24
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    The difference is I am probably not expecting what those people were expecting. I have no illusions about some huge magic reform that will make them into a Western democracy overnight. Hell, I would see it is as a huge loss to progress if China just rehashed the deeply flawed Western system. I know both the good and bad aspects of the history of nations and that if someone wants to say any country is backtracking on human rights they could easily be selective and condemn most, if not all, countries.
    China obviously has you believing what they want you to believe. This has been going on since the 1950s. For decades, they have found their mouthpieces in the West more than willing to spout off their version of what is happening inside, which has little relation to reality. You scoff this off as anti-China, but for decades, the skeptics have been proven absolutely correct. Have you ever read English language accounts of China in the 1950s and 1960s? Full of rosy reports regurgitated by their Western tools which we know today were completely false. They are more sophisticated in their methods today due to changes in commuications technology, but they still engage in it.



    Please, by all means explain why what I said is so laughable, other than the fact that you have an irrational hatred of the Chinese government and thus refuse to accept anything they say as legitimate. I hope you are aware that an independent Taiwan would have no legitimate claim to any of the South China Sea islands just like they would have no legitimate claim to Kinmen and Matsu.
    You actually think Chinese have been using the extreme southern reaches of the South China Sea longer than the Viet Namese, Chams, Khmer, and Malays?!?!? Yeah, right. More spouting of Chinese propaganda.

    And I agree on Matsu and Jinmen as well as the fact Taiwan has no legit claims to islands in the South China Sea.

    You claimed treaties have to be ratified by a legislature period, which was simply not true. You never proved in any way that it was a requirement for transferring territory. My argument was based off international law and I cited several examples of where my position was consistent with it.
    I stated that for territory to be transferred from one state to another state, a properly signed, ratified, and executed treaty is required. This is based on CENTURIES of state practice. I cited several examples.

    And as for legislative action, that requirement depends on the state in question, as I have already pointed out. IN some states, it is an executive or cabinat action that is required. The rules you cited are post-1969. You are citing an ARMISTICE, not a TREATY by which territory can be transferred. Not even the PRC makes that claim.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #25
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    China obviously has you believing what they want you to believe. This has been going on since the 1950s. For decades, they have found their mouthpieces in the West more than willing to spout off their version of what is happening inside, which has little relation to reality. You scoff this off as anti-China, but for decades, the skeptics have been proven absolutely correct. Have you ever read English language accounts of China in the 1950s and 1960s? Full of rosy reports regurgitated by their Western tools which we know today were completely false. They are more sophisticated in their methods today due to changes in commuications technology, but they still engage in it.
    I am not suggesting anything rosy, only that there has been considerable progress over the years. Not some major change, though it adds up over years, but just that they haven't remained static or gotten worse. Also are you talking about communist sympathizers who probably praised Stalin or Castro as well? I wouldn't trust anything they say automatically, though I would not rule out something if I can verify it with another source.

    You actually think Chinese have been using the extreme southern reaches of the South China Sea longer than the Viet Namese, Chams, Khmer, and Malays?!?!? Yeah, right. More spouting of Chinese propaganda.
    It wasn't simply a matter of using it, but claiming it. From what I read Vietnam is the one making a serious claim long before it was believed to be significant and the French that ruled over the territory apparently said the islands were part of Chinese territory in a treaty. Now, maybe there is something to contradict that, but if not then it seems pretty clear cut and I haven't read anything indicating the other islands were being claimed by any country other than China before last century. The Philippines seems to have a really absurd argument to back up their claim. Now, maybe this is not the case but aside from the Philippines the only countries other than Vietnam and China, including Taiwan as it claims them as a Chinese government, claiming any of the other islands have all made their claims to the Spratly islands after oil was found and are making claims based on the continental shelf as opposed to historic claims.

    If I am missing something by all means point it out. Personally, I have not invested much time looking into that particular dispute.

    I stated that for territory to be transferred from one state to another state, a properly signed, ratified, and executed treaty is required. This is based on CENTURIES of state practice. I cited several examples.
    I also pointed out that the Instrument of Surrender met all those criteria because all that matters is that representatives deemed by the governments in question to have the legal power to accept such an agreement accept it. Whether generals or diplomats if the governments who send them agree they have the power to simply accept the treaty and give it legal effect than it is all that matters. That is also based on centuries of state practice.

    And as for legislative action, that requirement depends on the state in question, as I have already pointed out. IN some states, it is an executive or cabinat action that is required. The rules you cited are post-1969. You are citing an ARMISTICE, not a TREATY by which territory can be transferred. Not even the PRC makes that claim.
    I also noted it didn't technically transfer territory, only said a declaration would be implemented that says it must be transferred. That it created an armistice rather than peace does not mean it wasn't a treaty. Also I was not citing rules but definitions, which certainly are legitimate as otherwise the clause stating it isn't retroactive would be meaningless. Obviously the definitions applied to agreements before that one.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  6. #26
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I am not suggesting anything rosy, only that there has been considerable progress over the years. Not some major change, though it adds up over years, but just that they haven't remained static or gotten worse. Also are you talking about communist sympathizers who probably praised Stalin or Castro as well? I wouldn't trust anything they say automatically, though I would not rule out something if I can verify it with another source.
    One step forward, two steps back? Have you ever lived there? You have already admitted you are not conversant in the language. As for the people reporting in the past, surely some of them were sympathizers. Others were China scholars who relied on the Chinese Communists for access to the country. Many Westerners were given tours of Potempkin-style villages during the Cultural Revolution showing how wonderful things were, and then dutifly reported back to the West how wonderful things were.

    I remember hearing Western tourists talking back in the late 90s how wonderful things were in China. And, talking about the people, the culture, the food, etc. I totally agree. However, there were many things they didn't see -- they couldn't see. They were on carefully controlled tour groups and only saw what the government wanted them to see -- and none of them could communicate in the language. Easy to fool. CNN journalists are also pretty easy to fool -- their language skills are typically pretty poor. I actually met a couple of CNN journalists when Clinton visited Shanghai. One of them was stationed in the Beijing bureau, the other in Hong Kong. Neither could speak Mandarin or Cantonese.



    It wasn't simply a matter of using it, but claiming it. From what I read Vietnam is the one making a serious claim long before it was believed to be significant and the French that ruled over the territory apparently said the islands were part of Chinese territory in a treaty. Now, maybe there is something to contradict that, but if not then it seems pretty clear cut and I haven't read anything indicating the other islands were being claimed by any country other than China before last century. The Philippines seems to have a really absurd argument to back up their claim. Now, maybe this is not the case but aside from the Philippines the only countries other than Vietnam and China, including Taiwan as it claims them as a Chinese government, claiming any of the other islands have all made their claims to the Spratly islands after oil was found and are making claims based on the continental shelf as opposed to historic claims.
    By which treaty did France recognize Chinese sovereignty over the Spratleys? France administered those islands up until 1954. The ROC stated in 1928 that the Paracel Islands, NOT the Spratleys, were the southernmost portion of China's territory as it was preparing to engage in a survey of its territory. Furthermore, the Chinese law in which it claimed the entire basin of the South China Sea was passed in 1982. The other states have far stronger claims off their coastlines as well as for EEZs in accordance with the UNCLOS. China's claim to anything south of the Paracel Islands is spurious at best. Furthermore, those islets are not capable of independently sustaining a permanent human population.

    If I am missing something by all means point it out. Personally, I have not invested much time looking into that particular dispute.
    See above... there is a lot more...

    I also pointed out that the Instrument of Surrender met all those criteria because all that matters is that representatives deemed by the governments in question to have the legal power to accept such an agreement accept it. Whether generals or diplomats if the governments who send them agree they have the power to simply accept the treaty and give it legal effect than it is all that matters. That is also based on centuries of state practice.
    It is not regarded as a document by which sovereignty of territory can be transferred. It is not recognized by the United States, PRC, ROC, or Japan as a treaty.


    I also noted it didn't technically transfer territory, only said a declaration would be implemented that says it must be transferred. That it created an armistice rather than peace does not mean it wasn't a treaty. Also I was not citing rules but definitions, which certainly are legitimate as otherwise the clause stating it isn't retroactive would be meaningless. Obviously the definitions applied to agreements before that one.
    If it didn't transfer territory, what was the LEGAL means by which soverengity over Taiwan was transferred to China?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #27
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    One step forward, two steps back? Have you ever lived there? You have already admitted you are not conversant in the language. As for the people reporting in the past, surely some of them were sympathizers. Others were China scholars who relied on the Chinese Communists for access to the country. Many Westerners were given tours of Potempkin-style villages during the Cultural Revolution showing how wonderful things were, and then dutifly reported back to the West how wonderful things were.

    I remember hearing Western tourists talking back in the late 90s how wonderful things were in China. And, talking about the people, the culture, the food, etc. I totally agree. However, there were many things they didn't see -- they couldn't see. They were on carefully controlled tour groups and only saw what the government wanted them to see -- and none of them could communicate in the language. Easy to fool. CNN journalists are also pretty easy to fool -- their language skills are typically pretty poor. I actually met a couple of CNN journalists when Clinton visited Shanghai. One of them was stationed in the Beijing bureau, the other in Hong Kong. Neither could speak Mandarin or Cantonese.
    None of this in any way goes to the argument you made. You claimed there has been no reform, that China has backtracked, and foreign reports saying otherwise are being managed or prevented from seeing this. Also claiming that Chinese-language media has not become more open and English-language media becoming more open is all about tricking foreigners into thinking their is progress.

    What I am getting from you is nothing but a series of deflections. In fact, I gave an example of a well-known Chinese-language paper that is notable for engaging in frequent criticism of the government.

    Your position is simply divorced from reality. To say that over the past decade China's human rights situation has only gotten worse is just absurd.

    By which treaty did France recognize Chinese sovereignty over the Spratleys? France administered those islands up until 1954. The ROC stated in 1928 that the Paracel Islands, NOT the Spratleys, were the southernmost portion of China's territory as it was preparing to engage in a survey of its territory. Furthermore, the Chinese law in which it claimed the entire basin of the South China Sea was passed in 1982. The other states have far stronger claims off their coastlines as well as for EEZs in accordance with the UNCLOS. China's claim to anything south of the Paracel Islands is spurious at best. Furthermore, those islets are not capable of independently sustaining a permanent human population.



    See above... there is a lot more...
    I'm really going to need more than your word. Honestly, I think you just refuse to accept anything that does not comply with your hatred towards the Chinese government. There was one mention I found of this 1928 thing on a site I'm not particularly sure is reliable, especially since it seems the ROC was making claims to the Spratly Islands as well before and after this. Also EEZs do not give a country territory, but follow from what is their territory.

    It is not regarded as a document by which sovereignty of territory can be transferred. It is not recognized by the United States, PRC, ROC, or Japan as a treaty.
    They do not call it a treaty, but their recognition of it as such is shown by the legal effect it was seen to have taken.

    If it didn't transfer territory, what was the LEGAL means by which soverengity over Taiwan was transferred to China?
    Actually, what it says is that Taiwan would be restored to China thus clearly recognizing it as rightful Chinese territory. In fact, if you look carefully you will see that is all I ever claimed it did.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #28
    User theunbubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    East Tennessee, USA
    Last Seen
    11-20-11 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    96

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Source: Reuters

    Sounds like good stuff to me.
    They are seeing that they will lose power anyway. They wish to leave power peacefully and be seen like Gorbachev.
    I have said for four years that there will be a revolution in China if they deny open elections.
    The reality of the suituation is that economic freedom breeds a need for personal liberty. If they do not have these elections by 2015, they won't get the chance.

    Liberals live their lives in fear, clinging to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photos singing Kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows

  9. #29
    User theunbubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    East Tennessee, USA
    Last Seen
    11-20-11 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    96

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    What reforms? China still has a disturbing lack of transparancy and human rights have DEGRADED in the past decade, NOT improved, and there is no movement forward on providing the people with democratic rights.
    This is why they are seeing a need for reform. They know that a revolution is brewing, and need a relief valve.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Actually, it looks very similar to what I saw when I lived in Shanghai in 1999 -- just a few months before the idiocy of China's response to the accidental bombing of the embassy in Yugoslavia and the horrendus crackdown on Falungong ... which is still ongoing...
    Did you see many personal vehicles then?

    Liberals live their lives in fear, clinging to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photos singing Kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows

  10. #30
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

    Quote Originally Posted by theunbubba View Post
    They are seeing that they will lose power anyway. They wish to leave power peacefully and be seen like Gorbachev.
    I have said for four years that there will be a revolution in China if they deny open elections.
    I get tired of people saying this kind of bull****. Sorry, but only in your Sinophobic wet dreams is there going to be a revolution in China any time soon. People who believe in such nonsense have a fundamental misunderstanding of China and its politics.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •