Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Athens was still pulling things together in the weeks leading up to the games, I think I heard that China had basically finished two years in advance. They've put a massive investment into the Olympics.
Well, perhaps I'm a little too cynical for my own good but I wonder if its much easier to push things through when you don't have to deal with any pesky political or media scrutiny or arse around with tiresome building, environmental or labour standards.
Well at least so far their "death of builders on Olympics site" stats are down below the 13 killed in Athens. And damn if those lax standards don't produce some beauuuuutiful buildings...
-
The more I read/hear about Tibet, the more the Dalai Lama's call for significant degrees of autonomy seems apt.
Yes, it seems the obvious solution. It would be messier in the adjacent provinces, which also have an ethnic mix, but are universally regarded as part of China proper.
True, seemingly innocent border lines are always the biggest fight-starters - especially with those Southern Tibetan areas claimed by India from when the British randomly drew lines on maps!
My take on it is that the Chinese have too many possibly errant provinces across the country (Taiwan being the obvious one) that to start to give up control/independence here becomes fuel for a much broader fire
-
The more I read/hear about Tibet, the more the Dalai Lama's call for significant degrees of autonomy seems apt. While the "tanks of '59"/Lhasa Uprising are in some camps held as the beginning of the occupation, Tibet has broadly been considered part of the empire for centuries - before the times of the Dalai Lamas even by some accounts (since the time of the Mongols).
But pre-the 1900's, the empire seemed generally to let Tibet sort itself out and that seems the most apt - the cultural/religious differences are enough that centralised Chinese control would seem unlikely to "gel" in the province, yet full independence seems a step too far...
-
Like I said - anti-smacking style of debate.
I was commenting solely on the way Locke worded his question - to imply that at a certain number of people tortured, Cullen would say "oh right, that 100th one really put the nail in that trade agreement. was happy with 99 though".
It was "ridiculous" Rich to respond with the implication that I support the linkage of prosperity to fascism when all I did was question the nature of his wording.It seems you all assume that I instantly disagree with Locke's position on China's human rights position, or even that we should ignore the nature of a countries human rights record when dealing with them on other matters. I don't. I think it's all valid. I just expect them to do it in a critical, balanced, grown-up manner which unfortunately seems to make me Mr Naive Innocence in the political world.
-
If Locke had asked "is the minister aware of the case of Ye Gozhou and does he wish to make comment on it" etc then all power to him. I would applaud any highlighting of such atrocities.
Equally, I would be interested in questions regarding what consideration of human rights abuse the government makes when entering into any deals with other countries, particularly free trade.But when he asks "what's the number of torture and illegal imprisonment cases before we stop the free trade deal", then that's insulting. It's clearly the case that no Govt or sane human being links them, yet here he is implying that Cullen is happy with one or two torture cases, but would draw the line at 10. Insulting.
Comments like "so it didn't happen" and "we silently link our propserity to fascism" are equally ridiculous. There are ways of arguing the merits of free trade with countries of poor human right records without emotional hyperbole. It's the anti-smacking style of argument all over again.
Maybe if politicians treated the debating chamber less like a sandpit, they'd get better questions.
Completely agree, and I hope it's clear I deplore the nature of response Cullen gave as well.
-
Oh and funny you link the Q&A transcript - started reading that yesterday but almost gave up on the "patsy" intra-party questions. Again, realise they're always there but sheesh they're nauseating!
Was impressed to see bFM make leaders questions though!
-
Listen to question time much?
Ha, no I don't. But that doesn't change the nature of either statement. I just think they both came across as insulting a$$holes (yes yes all politicians etc etc) and surprised at how 100% of the focus has been on Cullen's retort.
But I suppose the "seasoned political observers" are simply used to that type of rubbish and were only piqued when there was a different nature of rubbish in there... -
I'm not defending everything he's ever said or done, or even the Green's position on trade agreements - all I'm saying is that, best I can tell, he has a genuine and admirable commitment to human rights internationally. And I'm pretty sure that that is the motivation for his current actions.
Certainly the guy likes to "stand up strongly" for his principles but good lord, asking Cullen:
"How many cases like that of Ye Guozhu, sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for his opposition to forced evictions in Beijing associated with construction for the Olympic Games, and subsequently tortured while in detention, would it take for him to reconsider the April signing of a preferential trade agreement with China?
is one of the more facile and insulting questions I've come across. Cullen's response was equally insulting and deplorable but I don't blame the guy for getting his back up at insults like that. -
multicoloured dolphins swimming around
Woh, that's right. Thanks for that mildly disconcerting flashback... ;-)
-
Is that HDCP bizness included from source? i.e. does TVNZ, TV3 etc get the US/UK shows delivered with it embedded in the signal? Presumedly so...