• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China Premier Wen calls for political reform: report

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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?
 
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.
 
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.



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.

Would you care to cite another case in which territory was transferred from one state to another state via an UNRATIFIED armistice?

Also, if the case were so open and shut, why did President Truman, the delegates at the San Francisco Peace Conference, and Secretary of State Dulles seem to disagree with your opinion through their actions and words?
 
Oh, and by the way... Governor Chen Yi stated in 1947 that the new ROC Constitution would not apply in Taiwan because it was still under "military occupation". And the legislature never passed a law declaring Taiwan part of the national territory of the ROC as per the ROC Constitution...

...darn, those crickets are loud in here Demon...

cat got your tongue???
 
One should be careful not to assume revolutionary-type political reform. Both President Hu and Premier Wen are incrementalists; sustaining economic growth remains the overriding goal. They will likely seek modest reforms targeted at immediate/near-term specific problems that could pose a threat to China's economic growth e.g., corruption. Barring a crisis, they are not likely to propose anything that resembles dramatic changes to the nation's political system. In other words, they will seek to refine things. They won't take big risks that would have uncertain payoffs, much less pose new risks to China's growth, etc. For now, the overriding political calculation is that the net benefits of general continuity (which allows for some refinement e.g., targeting narrower, specific problem areas) outweigh those associated with more fundamental change and the uncertainty that would pervade that change.
 
Last edited:
One should be careful not to assume revolutionary-type political reform. Both President Hu and Premier Wen are incrementalists; sustaining economic growth remains the overriding goal. They will likely seek modest reforms targeted at immediate/near-term specific problems that could pose a threat to China's economic growth e.g., corruption. Barring a crisis, they are not likely to propose anything that resembles dramatic changes to the nation's political system. In other words, they will seek to refine things. They won't take big risks that would have uncertain payoffs, much less pose new risks to China's growth, etc. For now, the overriding political calculation is that the net benefits of general continuity (which allows for some refinement e.g., targeting narrower, specific problem areas) outweigh those associated with more fundamental change and the uncertainty that would pervade that change.

I don't expect ANY kind of meaningful reform so long as the Communist Party of China remains in sole control of the country...
 
I don't expect ANY kind of meaningful reform so long as the Communist Party of China remains in sole control of the country...

I would argue that the economic reforms that began under Deng Xiao Ping were meaningful. However, on the political front, I believe prospects of significant political moves that would allow for multi-party government are currently remote. That's the fundamental reality of any system in which a single party enjoys near monopoly (or greater) rule and also views such an exclusive role as a basic governing principle.
 
I would argue that the economic reforms that began under Deng Xiao Ping were meaningful. However, on the political front, I believe prospects of significant political moves that would allow for multi-party government are currently remote. That's the fundamental reality of any system in which a single party enjoys near monopoly (or greater) rule and also views such an exclusive role as a basic governing principle.

I think there is a fundamental problem with how the West evaluates China because it presumes multi-party representative electoral democracy is the only kind of democracy that can exist. So if China does not adopt that system it must mean it is not a democracy. However, multiple political parties are not essential to a democratic system or political parties in general. Political parties emerged from the disputes amongst the elites and have always served as a means by which they can maintain their control over a government's affairs.

The theoretical democratic essentiality of multiple political parties is rooted in a false premise of social Darwinism. It is a notion that when you have political groups competing with each other they will naturally trend towards the best solutions for the country and the people. However, the reality is that the political parties will employ any means at their disposal in order to achieve power and maintain it simply due to a thirst for power. At the same time groups outside the political parties will look for ways to play both parties so as to achieve their own advantage regardless of the result.

So we should not be so insistent on the notion of multiple political parties. China has employed and experimented with a number of other measures that allow the people to check the power of government and offer up their voice on political matters as well as measures to prevent a single group or individual from dominating the power structure. I believe political reform in China is most likely going to take the path of expanding these measures and improving their effectiveness.
 
I would argue that the economic reforms that began under Deng Xiao Ping were meaningful. However, on the political front, I believe prospects of significant political moves that would allow for multi-party government are currently remote. That's the fundamental reality of any system in which a single party enjoys near monopoly (or greater) rule and also views such an exclusive role as a basic governing principle.

Sorry... I should have qualified that by saying 'political reforms'... sorry for being unclear
 
I think there is a fundamental problem with how the West evaluates China because it presumes multi-party representative electoral democracy is the only kind of democracy that can exist. So if China does not adopt that system it must mean it is not a democracy. However, multiple political parties are not essential to a democratic system or political parties in general. Political parties emerged from the disputes amongst the elites and have always served as a means by which they can maintain their control over a government's affairs.

The theoretical democratic essentiality of multiple political parties is rooted in a false premise of social Darwinism. It is a notion that when you have political groups competing with each other they will naturally trend towards the best solutions for the country and the people. However, the reality is that the political parties will employ any means at their disposal in order to achieve power and maintain it simply due to a thirst for power. At the same time groups outside the political parties will look for ways to play both parties so as to achieve their own advantage regardless of the result.

So we should not be so insistent on the notion of multiple political parties. China has employed and experimented with a number of other measures that allow the people to check the power of government and offer up their voice on political matters as well as measures to prevent a single group or individual from dominating the power structure. I believe political reform in China is most likely going to take the path of expanding these measures and improving their effectiveness.

Problem is, so long as the CPC is the sole arbiter on who can and can't run for office, you won't have any true democratic system, whether western-style or not. And as it is now, the people have no real check on the power of the government and human, civil, and political rights are not well protected in the country for most people.

Still crickets on your treaty claims I see....
 
Oh, and by the way... Governor Chen Yi stated in 1947 that the new ROC Constitution would not apply in Taiwan because it was still under "military occupation". And the legislature never passed a law declaring Taiwan part of the national territory of the ROC as per the ROC Constitution...

...darn, those crickets are loud in here Demon...

cat got your tongue???

Wow... pro-China types always cut and run when confronted with a truth they can't counter...
 
Back
Top Bottom