OnPoint: Google to Embargo China
221 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
That was hours ago
-
And the potting shed escaped.
-
Lara,
Don't suppose you've been able to rustle up something, anything, supporting your argument that China is deliberately fostering communities of sympathetic nationalistic Chinese overseas? Honestly interested if so.
Hey Sam,
I do have some stuff on organization and fostering of these communities among overseas Chinese (I just have to find it.....). In the meantime, however, there is always the role played by the Chinese consulates in organizing rallies in support of the Beijing Olympics torch relay in 2008. Here are some links, and I will try and get the other sources up tomorrow.
Jesse McKinley, "Olympic Torch Route Changed in San Francisco," New York
Times, April 10, 2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/10torch.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=torch+protest&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Xue Fei, "Olympic Attitudes Split Amongst Overseas Chinese," April 14, 2008,
www.meyul.com/2008/04/13/olympic-attitudes-split-among-overseas-chinese/
[this is from the Epoch Times, which is backed by Falun Gong, so not neutral by any stretch]
"NZ Students 'Enticed by Free Food and Travel'," Stuff.co.nz, April 26,
2008, www.stuff.co.nz/print/4497123a10.htmlWRT whether I would rather have the US or China as my overlord....I think I'd take neither. Both are adept at exercising soft power in order to get their way. Having said that, I'd rather be in an American prison than a Chinese one.
Do we have to worry about an invasion by China? Of course not. BUT I do have concerns about the amount of power both the US and China have over our politicians.
-
Lara,
Here's some stuff on China's Overseas Chinese policy:
http://www.dga-ev.de/articles/Barabantseva96.pdf
and:
http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/chsliuh/New%20Migrants%20and%20Overseas%20Chinese%20Nationalism.pdf
-
The thing I don't get is what Google want to see happen.
Perhaps, just perhaps mind you. There is one company that lives up to its motto "Don't Be Evil"
I really really want that to be true.
(* Take note of the "spice" reference, may be used in later post ;-) ...) -
"Within the PRC government, the PLA maintains a semi-autonomous existence. The PLA reports not to the State Council of the People's Republic of China but rather to two Central Military Commissions, one belonging to the state and one belonging to the party. In practice, the two CMC's do not conflict because their membership is almost identical.
By convention the chairman and vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission are civilian members of the Communist Party of China, but they are not necessarily the heads of the civilian government. It was the case with both Jiang Zemin and Deng Xiaoping, that the retained the office of chairman even after relinquishing their other positions.
In contrast to other nations, the Minister of National Defense of the People's Republic of China is not the head of the military, and is in fact a rather low ranking official.
Branches: People's Liberation Army (PLA), which includes the Ground Forces; Navy (includes Naval Infantry (marines) and Naval Aviation); Air Force, Second Artillery Corps (the strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (internal security troops, nominally subordinate to Ministry of Public Security, but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA in wartime)"
...
"During the 1980s and 1990s, the PLA became extensively involved in creating a business empire including companies in areas not normally associated with the military (i.e., travel and real estate). Much of the motivation for this was to supplement the PLA's normal budget, whose growth was restricted. Chairman Mao's belief that people and groups should be self-sufficient also played a role in the PLA's varied business interests. In the early 1990s, the leadership of the Communist Party and the high command of the PLA became alarmed that these business transactions were in conflict with the PLA's military mission. The business interests of the PLA were eroding military discipline, and there were reports of corruption resulting from the PLA businesses. As a result, the PLA was ordered to spin off its companies. Typically, the actual management of the companies did not change, but the officers involved were retired from active duty within the PLA and the companies were given private boards of retired PLA officers. Military units were compensated for the loss of profitable businesses with increased state funding."http://www.fact-index.com/p/pe/people_s_liberation_army.html
real estate.
-
And the potting shed escaped.
Hey Sis, the potting shed is now a market garden.
Kosmik, init? -
Interesting post Chris.
However. The power structure of the US is hardly socialistic either. Haliburton and Dick Cheney anyone?
And now, before I got to bed, I would like to leave you with this soon to be well known phrase.
The beauty of socialism is not seen by those that seek its value.
Good night.
;-) -
You know what?
My neighbour said this evening, You got your box?
My what?
The parcel I collected for you.
Aue!*
But now I rejoice! Wonderful preserved lemons! Another plankton ring (that fits my right-hand ring finger!) Other glory goodies!
Stuff, including Great Barrier honey heading your way now(and hey, she's a lovely old dog eh?)
And -
whaddya mean, this doesnt mean anything in context?
Go bite yr bum-outsiders, when will they ever learn?
*It was in the garage -
Not the potting shed then?
;-)
Gnite K -
Sweet dreams, S, S, & S-
May I refer politically-interested parties back to my post about earthquakes?
Reguardless of how well you think you've planned a future, Papatuanuku - or a malign comet - will bugger your plans, big time.
-
However. The power structure of the US is hardly socialistic either. Haliburton and Dick Cheney anyone?
Replete with military invasions.
-
@Chris. The PLA's relationship to the state is not dissimilar to quite a few other Asian militaries' relationships to their respective governments...it's almost identical to the way the Indonesian TNI operates..a state within a state and largely autonomous, despite promises by successive civilian leaders to change the structure, which they, the army leadership, dealt with as the PLA did..exactly.
The same could more or less be said today of Pakistan, Vietnam, The Philippines and Thailand.
We think of it as unusual but historically Asian militaries have often worked as largely self sufficient businesses. As were most Western armies before the mid 19th Century, of course.
-
In this paper I demonstrate that the PRC's authorities make considerable efforts to win the loyalty of the overseas Chinese and to organise them in a strong and loyal ethnically con- scious and politically sympathetic pro-Beijing front of Chinese people who are concentrated outside the sovereignty of the PRC.
So? Frankly I didn't find anything in that paper that was particularly sinister, or certainly nothing to indicate they were planning to utilise their 'overseas Chinese' as a forward offensive for military invasion. Of course, in the event of War, that may be a different matter, but that seems so unrealistic I still can't even imagine it.
When the All Blacks play in London, we quite like our 'nationals' to go completely nuts too, and our Government supported PR campaign to this effect could be seen as subversive in this light. God help them if they go and support the Poms, or, and I'm prepared to go to war for this, the Australians!* And frankly, at least in my experience, a group of 'overseas Chinese nationals' parading during Chinese New Year is far more 'culturally enhancing', and 'nation-building', and altogether less sinister, than a bunch of Rugby heads on a bender.
*(Sorry, we love you all, but, ya know, it's Rugby)
overseas Chinese nationalism is essentially accommodating and inward-looking. Despite its similarity with the overseas nationalist movement in the pre-War decades in terms of its reactive nature, the new nationalism is unlikely to develop to the scale of its historical precedent and become a movement with a coherent regional/global following.
All seems pretty innocuous to me, but I'm just a stupid, delusional fool, according to various posts above, so I'll go get ready for the BDO. Whoops I mean 'work' ;-)
-
I’ve only just picked on this thread, so forgive me if I seem to be backtracking.
I don’t subscribe to the view expressed by Tom that China is a growing military threat. Such is the complexity of the global economic system that large military conflagrations are likely to be just too damaging for the big players. There will always be tensions, but China needs the US consumer market, and the US needs Chinese capital and labour. A major military event, even if “merely” using conventional weapons, would devastate both nations economically. The two are inextricably linked.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be tensions between the two states. I suspect, however, that both sides know they can’t afford to push too hard.
On the other hand, it intrigues me that a number of people on this thread have expressed the view that they would rather find themselves under Chinese rule than US. But if we had to decide, would we really choose rule by a one-party state that crushes dissent?
By all means we ought to criticise US actions in Iraq and elsewhere. But let us not forget some of the appalling things done by the Chinese government, to its own people and to others: Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square etc. These events should not be dismissed as being “in the past”. After all, Mao, a bloodthirsty monster every bit as bad as Stalin, is still revered by tens of millions in China.
It is to be hoped that increasing prosperity in China will gradually weaken the power and resolve of the Communist Party. And there is no question China is liberalising and joining the global community. These are good things. But if I had to choose my conqueror I’d still pick the US. I'd at least be able to watch the Daily Show.
-
When the All Blacks play in London, we quite like our 'nationals' to go completely nuts too, and our Government supported PR campaign to this effect could be seen as subversive in this light
That mega rugby ball of ours could be seen as well sinister, yes. If a big Lantern goes up in Auckland for Chinese new year, watch out, people. Rearm. Or something.
But if I had to choose my conqueror I’d still pick the US. I'd at least be able to watch the Daily Show.
This is the most depressing thought I've come across in a few months. The US are the largest global exporters of death and misery, not virtually and hypothetically but actually, at this very moment. The fact that we'll just laugh it off is a little dismaying.
Somebody alerted me to this earlier this morning - Things to remember while helping Haiti. Enjoy.
-
The fact that we'll just laugh it off is a little dismaying.
I don't think that's what Scott was saying, at all.
-
I'll try again: the US might have free speech and delightful critical shows like the Daily Show, but it's just circenses if it doesn't effect any sort of change in the policy and the political orientation of the country in relation to the rest of the world. "At least I'll be able to watch the Daily Show" won't help you as an attitude if you're house is a rubble. And to clarify I don't think ScottY was being an arsehole, just that I find what he said a depressing reflection of the way things work.
-
Gio: as one gem out of many at that link, note our 'public diplomacy' versus their 'propaganda'...
Sounds like they'll do a heck of a job.
-
Oh, and just in case it sounds like the screed of a conservative commentator. Who has any doubt that it's exactly what Obama meant when he said that the troops on the ground will help with security?
-
Can't I just welcome our new robot overlords instead? The other options are way too depressing.
-
Somebody alerted me to this earlier this morning - Things to remember while helping Haiti. Enjoy.
Holy cow, batman, that's a stinking pile of dog turd!
PS I used the word 'frankly' twice in a post! Surely there are rules against that sort of sanctimonious grandstanding. Frankly, who cares... D'oh!
-
This is the most depressing thought I've come across in a few months. The US are the largest global exporters of death and misery, not virtually and hypothetically but actually, at this very moment. The fact that we'll just laugh it off is a little dismaying.
The point I was making is that in the US dissent, debate and the mocking of the powers that be are the norm. In China? Not so much.
A good example of this is the "Teabagger" movement in the US. Could you imagine a similar protest in China? I suspect the military would be on the streets.
I'm no apologist for the US, and its Iraqi adventure is an appalling travesty. But China's no saint. It may not be engaged in active hostilities in other parts of the world at this time, but it props up and supplies weapons to some pretty nasty regimes. For example, it is hard to see how the regimes in North Korea and Burma could have survived this long, but for Chinese support.
I'm optimistic about the future of China and its relations with the rest of the world. But we need to remember China has a long way to go still. Happily, it seems they are moving slowly in the right direction.
-
Teabaggery is such a twisted concept it should be painful.
A sexual act or an act of humiliation against the unsuspecting.
Has the meaning really been hidden & considered to be the latterday Tea Party, or is this the level of nasty it appeals to in the GOP?[Tea Bags were invented by the British wanting to sell lose leaf tea in the USA and needing a convienent sample for their display.]
-
the US might have free speech...
With free speech there is at least the possibility of public debate wrt government policy. Whether this in the end leads to a policy that you or I may find acceptable is another story.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.