Where do you think all that stuff comes from?
HMM wonder if i could get a fake nobel from the spam guy?

Traitors, patriots politics -- the three distinct and discrete concepts seem to get jammed together into a blur. Whether one is a traitor or a patriot varies according to one's politics? Is that it? That's all? What state secrets did Liu Xiaobo pass on to the "enemy" and who would that "enemy" be? How is Liu a traitor by his speech or by some particular action(s)? What makes Ai Weiwei a patriot? Why aren't Liu and his supporters patriots? And how does politics interact or interface with your loose throwing around of these two words, traitor and patriot? One word in particular, traitor, is clearly defined in law -- at least it is where I come from.

"It's all political = It's all about money = It's all about power" -- these and similar declarative pronouncements equal and accumulate as awfully vacuous statements. As we see in Beijing, once distinctions and prudence are laid to waste dictators have a clear path and certain people go to prison.

"Guys like Obama and Liu had done absolutely jack shizz to contribute to world peace at the time they got their Nobel prizes. Heck, Liu is considered a traitor by the vast majority of Chinese people both at home and abroad."

Fantastic comment. Only the most naive cannot figure out that Liu is a traitor to many because he advocated his country to be colonized by a foreign power.

So long as we continue recklessly and irresponsibly to throw around the word 'traitor', give us Liu Xiaobo's quote and its source advocating the colonization of China, and by whom. Give us the complete statement and its source - false and specious accusations by the CCP are not a valid source.

As with many of us, Liu in balanced ways has discussed the results and consequences of the past period of colonization. He has spoken of Hong Kong in particular. Liu has stated the view of many of us that colonialism was an evil of history which simultaneously left a legacy of some respectable aspects. You may not like the instance of the United States, but as a former colony of Great Britain it is an example (perhaps Exhibit #1).

So give us the quote, complete statement you have read/heard, its source, in which Liu Xiaobo said that had he been alive during the period of colonization he would have advocated the colonization of China. Provide us with the full complete statement and its source.

"give us Liu Xiaobo's quote and its source advocating the colonization of China, and by whom."

Why do people bother to comment here if they don't even know how to use google to conduct the most basic research?

In 1988 Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. Liu replied in this way: "(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would take 300 years of colonialism for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today."

You can read Liu Xiaobo's own writing on this subject with Hong Kong's Open Magazine (the same magazine which interviewed him in 1988) in 2006.

http://www.open.com.hk/0701p26.html

There Liu confirmed the colonization comment and said he don't want to take the statement back although many "angry youth" in china are calling him a traitor over this comment.

He's a member of a human rights NGO. Even if the premier human rights prize is sometimes politicized, it's part of the mission of such groups to nudge it back towards relevance and high-minded purpose.

In other news, I am genuinely curious about what makes you see Ai Weiwei as a patriot, but Liu Xiaobo as a traitor. As others have said, please state specific evidence from his own writings, not generalized allegations made by the CCP. No "little clowns" or "jackals in monk's clothing" or similar ad hominems of little value, thank you.

In my own view--and you can feel free to disagree--they are both patriots. Even members of the CCP can be patriots, as Wen Jiabao has demonstrated with his (censored) speeches on the necessity of reforms and the impossibility of stopping the laobaixing from eventually demanding all that and more. Now you will certainly take umbrage (if you are a hardliner, or an apologist for their acts) when I state that *even* a member of the CCP can be a patriot. Perhaps that is because that word, "patriot", can be defined in so many different ways.

I happen to believe that a person who recognizes the illnesses within his own country and speaks out against it can very well be defined as the act of a patriot. Indeed, many people within my own homeland did so during the Bush presidency, and many continue to do so during this presidency. To my knowledge, all three Chinese citizens I've just mentioned have also done just that.

Thanks XTIANGODLOKI for your ordinary work as my research assistant, but I'd read the quote and had expected you to cite it exactly.

I take it you'd disagree with Dr. Liu's central point.

Dr Liu's point is that the Chinese are incapable of self changing their deeply institutionalized 5000 years old authoritarian and dictatorial ways without yet another bloody series of insurrections and violent revolution, counter revolution etc etc ad infinitum. The predicate is that the Jung Gwo need to radically change their reactionary Middle Kingdom mentality of the past 5000 years, which they alone are wholly and utterly incapable of doing, or of even considering. The fierce resistance to leaving the past behind is lead by the Fenqing to whom you refer especially when you speak of Chinese youth who brand Dr. Liu a "traitor." The fanatical warmongering extremism of the Fenqing is well known to the United States and to the West broadly, comprehensively

Viewing history, had the Western Powers which 100 years ago sliced and slivered the pathetically decrepit China into zones of control remained, China long ago would have become a prosperous and democratic country, a responsible participant in the international system and would have been living under advanced conditions which would have precluded the chaos of the May 4th Movement, the Japanese invasion of the 1930s and their at will brutality up until 1945, and would have precluded the civil war and the post 1949 grudge, revenge and vengeance mentality that drives the CCP/PRC today towards the eventual war they are certain they can win in near orbital space, in cyberspace and on the seas.

Instead, the CCP controlled Jung Gwo remain a reactionary and static people who are incapable of remaking and transforming themselves into citizens of the global modern world. If advocating that this decrepit culture be fundamentally changed, as does Dr Liu Xiaobo, means reactionary China has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the forever changed and always changing modern world, then so be it.

Personally I don't agree or disagree with Liu's points on colonization, except to point out the reason WHY a lot of Chinese people think he is a traitor. I am pretty sure most Americans would agree that any American who takes in foreign money and advocating foreign powers to take over America would be considered a traitor, even when the American government is poorly run like that under W. Bush.

Your arguments supporting colonization flies in the face of your advocacy for Human Rights and self determination. However pointing out other people's hypocrisies is boring. You did raise a very interesting question though: Could China be a better place today had the Western nations retained control? That is like asking could Africa be a better place today had the apartheid remained. I disagree with your prediction that a broken up China would become "prosperous and democratic", had the Western nations kept the colonization efforts from the 1900s. For one, if you colonize a place you can't make it democratic unless you wiped out a significant amount of the local population or bring in a large amount of your own population. If you look at the other places which Western nations have colonized, most of them became failed states. The most glaring would be that of Iraq and Afghanistan. The geographical distance and different races/culture would be too much of a challenge for Western nations to both colonize and assimilate China.

You can disagree with me at this forum XTIANGODLOKI but if you were in the PRC maybe it would be you who'd be in a CCP prison and you who would be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. But then again I doubt it.

The Beijing controlled global Confucious Institute which propagandizes the Party line, and gives money to people it likes in foreign countries, awarded its own brand new just invented 'peace prize' to a former vice president of Taiwan but he wasn't present either. The sham of a CI Beijing organized 'peace prize' was thrown together so hastily and frantically that the recipient himself wasn't directly informed or invited.

The Nobel Peace Prize to the imprisoned Laureate Dr Liu Xiaobo has thrown the reactionaries in Beijing onto the permanent defensive of their aggressive censoring dictatorship and oligarchy.

As one currently living in China, your suggestion that we (Americans, I guess?) look into how we can make our students more like Chinese students, and our economy more like the Chinese economy just have to make me laugh. You are at least right in suggesting (with regards to the US) that it is easier to mistake the neighbor's lawn as being greener when you aren't actually standing atop its piebald surface. That, at least, is something which applies equally to the US and China.

As for the positivity surveys, there's an easy answer: The Chinese are on the upswing of a boom-time, and the US is in the midst of a painful reassessment. That, however, does not contradict the tendency of things that go up to come down, nor the possibility that painful reassessment can be a very healthy thing. I believe the matter under discussion in this article is the absurd lengths the Chinese government goes to in making sure that any painful but necessary reassessments of their system are nigh on impossible.

The concept was developed to boost the moral of the folks in the Western countries and to justify their own aggressions in the foreign policy department. Today it is used as a bargaining chip for trade concessions against countries like China.

The definitions of the term "human rights" is muddled. You can easily argue that Iraq has a better human rights record than China for example, although the lives of Iraqis are extremely miserable compared to anyone on this planet. The term is also often used by Democratic nations to distract attention when called on by their own abuses. Since this website is mostly about foreign policy, if you look at the actual foreign policies of western nations, they will gladly deal with countries absent of "human rights" if there is enough national interest. At the end of the day, national self interest still dominates how a nation acts. The biggest irony being that Human rights has been used time after time again to start wars in the mid east, which result in the death of hundreds of thousands if not more.

People deserve whatever government they currently have. If Chinese people think Human Rights are imperative to their daily lives they would have rebelled long ago. If the average Chinese choose stability over personal rights, then let them be because they totally deserve it.

GB and the western world has been stable for the last few hundred years not just because of the form of government they have, but more because of industrialization. The British people have not rebelled because they've been in the top echelon of living standards for the past few hundred years, and if that changes, their government will crumble just the same. Over the past few hundred years, long-lasting prosperity and democracy have gone hand in hand, and it's been difficult for the common man to see the cause and effect. However, the current progress in China is now serving as a definitive alternative model, a proof for whether the chicken or the egg came first. THAT, is what the Western world fears the most, and that's why the push by them for China to become like them, so the self-fulfilling cycle may continue.

The British has been stable for the last few hundred years not just because of industrialization. It was Richard Cromwell who had back down and made the concession the people wanted for stepping toward democracy and human right protection. Whereas the French had lost the touch with the populace and did not make any concession, as a result, there was a revolution in which Louise got head decapitated. In China's case, no authority had back down to allow the populace to have certain freedom and protection. And in every case, there was a revolution or a mass crack down depending on who had the upper hand. China needs the outside world to change its internal politics, or at least someone who had seen the outside world like Deng. And at every change for the better, it was initiated by someone who had been abroad or educated at abroad. For examples: Deng, Zhou, & Dr. Sun Yat Sin.

DIE ZAUBERFLOTE you say you are for democracy in the PRC then claim that, uh, democracy would have (radically) arrived by now except for the uncertainly among the population that with democracy they could retain the (sharply uneven) economic gains of the past 30 years. Your statement is incredulous in the absolute. Nothing that has happened during the past 30 year post Dung directed period could have brought democracy of any kind to the PRC. There isn't anything whatsoever that possibly or potentially could have happened during the past 30 years to suddenly, radically bring democracy to the PRC.

Moreover, your claim that the 1989 demonstrators in Tienaman Square "blew it" is also incredulous and moreover astoundingly outlandish. Dung [sic] designed the present CCP/PRC and Dung gave the order to the People's 'Liberation' Army to massacre the demonstrators of Tienaman and their citizen supporters of Beijing. In fact it was the report to Dung by the mayor of Beijing that Beijing itself was on the verge of a wholesale insurrection that triggered little Dung's order to kill everyone in sight in or near the Square.

Dung's plan and design has produced the CCP/PRC the world has today, and nowhere in the Grand Design is there any provision to introduce democracy, much less ever to implement it. Who do you think your are kidding by making such blatantly inconsistent claims that the PRC would have democracy now except for, well, democracy itself. We're not Chinese school children here, nor are we Chinese peasants, so you need immediately to recognize that, adjust, and radically improve the quality of any further posts you may make.

Your messiah complex Mao never claimed or pretended to be a democrat, nor could Mao ever credibly have been able to make any such statement. Mao was not a messiah, he was a newfangled emperor. Liu Xiaobo advocates democracy in China by peaceful, gradual, measured means and more realistically speaks of a time frame of some 300 years for democracy to develop even tentatively throughout all of the mainland, not during the post Dung 30 year timeframe you say it already would have been realized were it not for, well, the prospect of democracy. Your absurd position is that, whether realized in 300 years or 30 years, democracy threatens China. I reiterate that you are not speaking here to eight year olds in a Chinese school or to peasants.

You say in the first sentence of your post that you are for democracy in China. After reading your full post, I fear that you are for democracy in China, i.e. democracy with Chinese characteristics. That is, CCP one party democracy. Egypt just had an election like that. Iran recently had a same one too.

You state and I quote:

"It seems as if for China to adopt democracy, we must also 'give back' Tibet, give up Taiwan, and get some colonial rule over us because we, Chinese, are just not capable of getting there ourselves.

This is a preposterous notion. Chinese Democracy would have arrived by now if the ordinary Chinese have reassurance that democracy won't suddenly derail what we have achieved in the last 30 years."

So, you say you are indeed and surely capable and competent to independently realize democracy except that you could not adapt, adjust or manage democracy coming to China. Say again? Ahh, you say you could bring democracy to the PRC now except for the fact that the reality of democracy in China would be prohibitively beyond your capabilities to introduce it, manage it, develop it. Really, who do you CCP guys think and believe you are talking to here???

Further, given that you (of course) mention Tibet and Taiwan, I must advise you there's nothing for you to "give up" in respect to either were democracy ever to arrive in China. Taiwan hasn't ever been a part of the PRC; doesn't want to be a part of the PRC. Taiwan is a sovereign government with its own military, its own currency, makes its own laws and conducts elections entirely under its own authority and legitimacy. It's long past time for you to give IT up. Tibet is a place you seized by a blatant and brutal invasion of conquest. Your 1959 invasion and occupation of Tibet hasn't ever had any UN mandate or endorsement, whether by the UN Security Council or by the General Assembly itself.

You really need to give it up.

However, as we see by Beijing's clamorous, strident and bullying campaign against attendance by governments at the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony, the CCP/PRC are going to change the UN and the world to suit its censoring dictatorship. Well, remember, only 66 countries merited a Committee invitation to the ceremony, there always are no-shows, that this year despite Beijing's fiercely aggressive pressures not to attend, the no-shows amounted to only one-third of those governments invited. Beijing is rather like the ancient mariner who stoppeth one in three.

"Democracy with Chinese Characteristics"... I quite like the phrase. It has a ring to it.

It's abundantly clear to me, perhaps not to you, that Western-style Liberal Democracy has a fatal flaw. The system, whether the American one or the British one or even ones on continental Europe suffers from the problem of politicians putting their interests high above the nation's. In fact, this is the problem with Taiwanese democracy. It is an immature, juvenile thing. Yet, it is nominally a democracy. Sadly, "democracy" allows them to hide behind their selfish interests.

Mitch McConnell recently said, in the run-up to this past election, that his number one goal if he became Senate Mjority Leader was to ensure that President Obama became a one term president. That was his number one goal. It wasn't to fix the economy, or do good things for America. It was to defeat Mr. Obama. This is absolutely f*cked up. Implicitly, he could care less about America, as long as Mr. Obama does not serve another term. This is not an isolated sentiment amongst politicians in the West.

I want democracy with Chinese characteristics to fix that aspect of democracy. I do not want Chinese Democracy to be a mere copy of what exists in the West with all its failings (successes, are OK to copy, I should be explicit about this). I want Chinese Democracy to be a more competent, more coherent, and highly efficient system that works, now and two hundred years or many more centuries into the future. I want Chinese Democracy to be successful not just in terms of human rights, civil rights, freedom of expression, and environmental protection but also economically without a jumpstart from slavery and colonial exploitation or foreign aid.

I could care less about Taiwan. It has nothing to do with Chinese Democracy. I just don't want it mentioned in the same breath as Chinese Democracy. Ditto Tibet. But the "mainstream" democracy advocates in China seem almost always thin it's a necessity to link these policy issues with Chinese Democracy. I have a feeling a democratic China would basically have the same policy posture over Tibet or Taiwan, i.e. hang on to Tibet and work towards Taiwanese integration.

Just as you may think that it's disrespectful of Beijing to interfere with Taiwan's domestic politics, I feel that the Nobel Committee has clearly chosen to interfere with China's internal affairs by selecting a traitor to China for the peace prize. It's an insult. There are many more advocates for Chinese Democracy who have never said that China needs to be enslaved under colonial rule -- why not choose any one of them instead? I believe Taiwan doesn't have that problem. So many older Taiwanese bear a slavish longing for Japanese colonial rule. I never can understand this perhaps the Nobel Committee can explain this to me?

Democracy or not, it is just a tool to govern the society. However, for the last 30 years, it has been promised that China should change slowly to a democracy with Chinese characteristics. So what has been changed for the last 30 years. Chairman Hu, like all its predecessors, had not tried to implement a just and fair society. What he called for is a harmonious society. The difference between a just and fair society to an harmonious society is that people in the society with different views will be muted with some oppressive means even if that person is correct. Whereas a just and fair society can tolerate many dissenting views as long as it does not pose a threat to the society. A just and fair society is usually preferable than a harmonious society in which dissenting views are muted and people are in harmony. A just society will call for act of misconduct to have "justice to be done". So if such definition applies, than China has not improve in any bit, at least not toward a just and fair society. Although democracy is not necessary a just society. however, it usually contains some degree of just in the society by having officials to be monitored by the populace. For the last 30 years, the Chinese society has not become just and fair. Actually, it had became injustice and unfair with so many corrupt officials. What had Jiao Xiao-Hai, Liu Xiaobo, etc had done that contradicts the society? And for Jiao Xiao Hai, he merely help people and himself whose kids had been poisoned by the milk. What wrong is that? It is natural justice to seek compensation. What did the Chinese government do? They gave him a sentence for 11 years. So after 30 years, where is this democracy with Chinese characteristics? It is not going to happen. It will not happen in another 100 years. And it is not going to happen one day after 100 years unless a revolution takes place. The communist government which the peasants welcome at the eviction of the Guo Min Tang has now replace the Guo Min Tang. The Chinese government is just as corrupt and unfair like the Guo Min Tang. However, the Guo Min Tang at least had freedom of the press.

DIE ZAUBERFLOTE you speak as if democracy per se were an unproved form of government which moreover hasn't any central core of values.

The fact is the world has prospered under the confluence of democracy, technology, urbanization, gender equality; sincere efforts to attain equal justice under law even if it is bourgeoise law (or, especially because it is bourgeoise law). The synergy of the marketplace of ideas has created a new vitality to human life that has marked an irreversable launch from the static and inert agrarian only past. In direct contrast, however, eternal authoritarianism and recurring chameleon dictatorships have produced absolutely nothing of human value or meritorious consequence. Your CCP forever mentality merges with the mentality of the fenqing in the syllogism that 5000 years of authoritarian rule by the elite of the Middle Kingdom inevitably translates into another 5000 years of authoritarian rule by the Middle Kingdom, this time over the world.

Flexibility causes democracy to be dynamic. You can point to Mitch McConnell and his fixation to defeat Pres Obama and try to cite it as an indicator of an inherent flaw to a democratic system. If Sen McConnell, the Republican party leader in the US Senate scares you in your own way, he doesn't scare me nor does he scare Pres Obama. In between his rhetorical flares Sen McConnell will be conducting Senate business as usual. Sen McConnell will be doing his business far more openly than the CCP does its corrupt and cloaked business in Beijing and in the provincial capitals.

In the US the dynamism of democracy is evident by the newest development to the political landscape, which is the posture assumed by the electorate to 'throw the bums out' indefinitely in regularly scheduled elections every other year until the 'bums' get the point that serious business needs to be done. The people of the People's Republic haven't any such recourse, never have, probably never will. The voters of the former East Germany are enjoying this recent right and privilege under the unified Germany which is led by a chancellor from the East. The hard core communist party ideologues that still linger in the eastern areas of the new unified Germany are ageing apparatchics, communist internationale nostalgia cases who as such are dead on their feet.

It's the CCP that has inextricably intertwined Taiwan to the PRC, not democracy itself. Democracy itself says that imperialism is dead period, long since buried - no emperor ever would say this at anytime anywhere. The CCP emperors decided to justify themselves by making Taiwan a litmus test of being PRChinese. The CCP connected being PRChinese to being the eternal Chinese. The connection sets in concrete that the CCP and the eternal Chinese are one and the same, that the CCP is truly Chinese because it wants Chinese Taiwan back. Ergo, the CCP establishes that all mainland Chinese are loyal and unified Chinese because they want Chinese Taiwan back - under the leadership of none other than the CCP. Because of this CCP cynicism, I myself will begin to see hope of some democracy on the mainland only if and when the CCP will accept and recognize democracy by Chinese people on Taiwan. If the CCP can make peace with Chinese people having democracy on Taiwan, then I will gain a significant first hope that the CCP could possibly accept democracy by Chinese people on the mainland. Nevermind for the moment Tibet or XinJiang, this prerequisite in respect to the CCP attitude towards Taiwan is absolute.

So basically the choice is clear. Build democracy as an enduring value and practice, or preserve authoritarianism and dictatorship for the next 5000 years also. Because the totalitarian mind and mindset is win-lose rather than win-win, it necessarily must be one or the other.

There are injustices in China. But that is not the whole story. There are also many things that are simply wonderful about China. China is awesome for the most part. I just don't understand why when you read of the injustices in the news that you conclude the whole thing is rotten.

There are also injustices in America. May of them perpetrated by the judicial system itself. Just the other day, I heard on the radio that an innocent man was finally set free after 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit and was framed by the police and the judge. The radio commentator interviewed a professor who claimed there miscarriages of justice isn't rare in America. When you read of the shooting at Columbine, and a few of the other ones, did you conclude that America was broken? Did America need a new form of government? Did you think that Americans ought to take to the streets to protest? Did you still think that for all the imperfection, American style demcoracy is still a good thing for China? If democracy in America is so perfect, why were we reading about its imperfections?

Why then do we think that China needs a revolutionary new system? I believe China can adopt democracy via a gradual shift towards it. For all the flaws in the American system, I think China should think of ways to fix them. We all think that China's system is a form of kleptocracy. True, some leaders, especially some local ones, behave little better than bandits.

America isn't really that much better when you think about it. America's problem is that they have devised ways to steal and rob from the common man in a completely legal way. Taxpayers in America are financing the rescue of the banks and the economy but homes are still being foreclosed upon on a large scale. This is a systemic problem, not a minor, isolated case. Bankers and politicians beholden to them have exploited the very heart of the democratic system to steal from ordinary citizens, twice -- first by the rescue from taxpayers and second by foreclosures of the homes anyway. Is America fair and just?

Don't get me wrong. I love living in a democracy. But democracy isn't magic. It still cannot deliver justice and fairness if there are people out there intent on causing harm to the nation for their own benefit. It's worse, if the people being exploited just roll over and think that since they live in a democracy, everything is fair.

I think China isn't as broken as people make it out to be. I'd like China's leaders to relax a little and allow more dissent without jailing dissidents. I'd like political dissenters in China to criticize in a more constructive way. Half of them (this ais a figure of speech... it's probably not exactly half) are simply angry complainers who perhaps get nothing more than some gratification from bad-mouthing leaders and China's ancient culture. They also contribute precious little else.

The other half get blind-sided by the first half's strident complaining -- the real victim is Chinese Demcoracy. Harmony or not, rancorous complaining isn't necessarily that great for mapping out what to do for the future. Both sides, the government AS WELL AS THE DISSENTERS have a lot of work to do. If dissenters truly are patriots then perhaps they can subsume their egos and work with the leadership and nudge them towards a meaningful reform.

“you speak as if democracy per se were an unproved form of government which moreover hasn't any central core of values. “
Democracy has many fine features but as to whether it is a proven system or not is still inconclusive. A clear definition of success notwithstanding, I would have guessed that capitalism, not democracy, was a far more influential factor in the “success” of a society. Even if there is a higher correlation of democracies that are also rich versus dictatorships that are also poor, doesn’t *prove* causality.
For instance, I’ve noticed that highly successful democracies are also quite exploitative of foreign nations. Even in the case of Republican Rome we cannot control for its success beyond its expansion. In other words, how do we know that Republican Rome didn’t grow rich in part fueled by its territorial expansion? By the same token, how do we know that the British Empire could have such a great influence on the world just because it’s a democracy?
Liu Xiaobo admired British rule in Hong Kong. How do we know that Hong Kong was possible had it not been financed by drug money? Could Hong Kong have been possible without money made by companies like Jardine Matheson who sold opium into China (and when Beijing tried to stop it, the British went to war and forced the trafficking of opium back into the open)? Give me a few decades with easy money and I, too can build a great city. In effect, British drug money was like a giant, decades long, economic stimulus plan. [and Liu Xiaobo wants China to go back on opium? That’s pretty f*cked up.]
The last time I looked, wars have not been the exclusive domain of dictatorships. A good portion of wars were started by Western democracies. This is another thing that bothers me about democracies. Their citizens don’t seem to mind bombing others into the Stone Age. In America we call it “defense” when we fly thousands of miles to Iraq and drop bombs.
I’m sorry but I just don’t think democracy is beyond criticism. You speak of democracy in the same terms as the communists nearly a century ago, when they thought that communism would finally usher in an und-ending era of good life in a global communist utopia. We all know how that turned out.
The fact that democracy isn’t perfect doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the inability of many, perhaps including you, to examine the shortcomings of democracy in an honest way and entertain the possibility that the West may in turn have some things they can learn from present day China. It’s the sort of blind faith that is most dangerous. This sort of blind faith often leads to a justification to invade, kill, and occupy, simply because of this feeling of absolute superiority to the alternative systems. When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, regime change into a democratic system was found to be just as good a reason for invasion.

I like living in a democracy but it doesn’t mean I have to like its ugly parts. It certainly is very unsettling when too many people treat it like the next high religion. I only think of the self-righteousness of the Communists back so many decades ago when I look at the current crop of fanatics. Only they are not called Communists.

As anyone knows democracy has its warts, shortcomings and is imperfect, always in need of improvement and further development. And because democracy is organic, ontological and inherently self critical, it does improve with age. The CCP is a dictatorship and dictatorships only get worse with age - look at the past 5000 years of China as vivid proof of the fact.

The thread is about the newly expansive suppression and repression of dissent in the PRC since Dr Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. This thread topic is welcome and good for democracy in general because while the CCP is cracking down on democracy advocates in the PRC, the world watches and is witness to the eternal evils of dictatorship. The world sees Beijing lashing out at serious people who are democrats that value the Liberal Idea by calling them "little clowns" and other schoolyard epithets (barnyard epithets in private).

The CCP are thus exposed for all the world to see. The PRC is the only country to have a Nobel Peace Laureate imprisoned. Liu is imprisoned because he dissents peacefully from the established system of government. One man and his peaceful speech/writings have terrorized an entire one party state and its trillion dollar apparatus of dictatorship for all to see.

The little men in Beijing.

Of course the last sentence of the last paragraph should read, "One man and his speech/writings has terrified an entire one party state and its trillion dollar apparatus of dictatorship."

The little men in Beijing.

Your brain is not well. You need to see a psychiatrist. You are having delusions and hallucinations.

Has the 1989 Tiananmen protest advanced Chinese Democracy? I mean in real terms, not in some fuzzy "the West approves of our protest" bullcrap. As I said, Chinese Democracy is for us Chinese, not for approval of the West. In terms of Chinese Democracy and advancement towards it, I could care less what the West thinks of us.

Just like the Nobel Committee's award to Liu Xaiobo, Tiananmen 1989 has in fact had a negative effect on Chinese Democracy. Rightly or wrongly, it reinforced our worst fears, collectively, not only about the pointlessness of democracy as advocated by the likes of Liu Xiaobo but also the idea that China would descend into a chaotic sea of endless protests.

What was the end game of the Tiananmen protestors? Did we have one? Was it realistic to sit in the square indefintely? Were there any tangible goals that could tell us OK our aim has been achieved? All we did was antagonize the people who held power. Mind you, a great majority of citizens were sitting on the fence. They wanted more freedom, I'm sure but they were certainly not sure occupying the Square indefinitely was the way to do it. We did not necessarily represent democracy. We only represented protest.

Perhaps Liu Xiaobo had a good thing going for him. AFAIK he was one of few voices who urged the kids to go home. He felt that the protest had made its point loud and clear to the government. (In your estimation ws he actually against democracy then?)

In the end, we cornered our liberal allies in government and gave them no room to maneuver in democracy's favor. It was an immature and strategically stupid move. We were, as the saying goes, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

On the other hand, I do not approve of the use of force to break up the sit-in. In fact using the PLA against the students was simply stupid. Decades later, the PLA involvement is still distracting us from the real debate -- how, when, and in what form Chinese Democracy should look.

I say to all China's democracy advocates, "yes, yes, using the PLA was wrong. Let's move on, shall we? How do we achieve Chinese Democracy, a mature, good-for-China Chinese Demcoracy?"

When I got to Hong Kong, my first instinct was that Martin Lee and his pro-democracy party and supporters were our natural allies. But, to me, he increasingly sounded like a sell-out colonialist -- he had morphed into yet another guy with a messiah complex.

I found myself in the absolute minority. I was a party of one. I was a very rare pro-China, pro-democracy advocate. The rest of the "mainstream" Chinese Democracy advocates were simply anti-China. I feel exhausted trying to tell them that anti-China isn't the same thing as anti-CCP. Selling-out China and her people (to colonial masters? How f*cked up is that?) most certainly isn't pro-democracy. No one wants to listen to me. This traitorous attitude amongst the pro-democracy "mainstream" is just as much at fault for stunting Chinese Democracy as the hardliners in the CCP government is.

You said that the politburo was not handling things. Of course not, they were very much distracted with the protest. Were they even given the time to think about introducing more freedom? Something as important as Chinese Democracy cannot be switched on overnight. It's easy to protest. It is infinitely harder to come up with a coherent plan and lead. Liu Xiaobo and his ilk have done precious little but protest. I know he is angry. That's why he complains about everything Chinese in sight (and article in a recent issue of the New Yorker affirms this view) . How do you think that looks to the ordinary Chinese citizen and his association with democracy?

I believe that the CCP's top leadership are genuine Chinese patriots. This is a key point of support amongst the citizens. Given a proven track record of economic achievement (true that's not everything but for now, it seems the citizens want proportionately more of economic growth than other things, right or wrong) and demonstrated pro-China thinking, how do you sell democracy as a clearly better alternative to the current system in place?

Remember the adage that a bird in one hand is worth two in the bushes. But the "mainstream" Chinese Democracy advocates have in fact not been able to show that they even have the metaphorical two birds in the democratic bush. They have instead shown that democracy is ony half a bird in the bush ("return" Tibet, give up Taiwan, "free up" Xinjian, and enjoy potentially more protests and oh, by the way, the economiy could get sh*t on the way demcoracies all over the world have messed up their own).

At this point, it's difficult enough to sell the people on more freedom as a substitute for all the other things. I just don't see how Chinese Democracy can advance in any significant way, not even with awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to someone who is seen as a heroic dissident to the West but whose loyalty to China is suspect. I cannot, in my conscience support the idea that China must go through yet another revolution to achieve democracy. I advocate evolution towards democracy.

On the other hand, if the CCP was astute enough it would have noticed that its general popularity amongst the citizens (which include more than just the demcoracy advocates and activists, who obviously has a rabid hae for the CCP) is at or near a peak. It is also a common thing for a newly democratized country to elect an opposition party to power at the first opportunity. Even more common, is the incompetence of the opposition party in running the place.

A party enjoying a monopoly on power has never given up that hold on power. You're right, it's never been done. But if the CCP is smart enough to think ahead, it would have realized that is a very good gamble -- introduce democracy in China without being pushed to do so, look magnanimous. Let the opposition party gain power and show how unwieldy the nation can be. And then return to power as the most competent party (with a few changes, as a gentler CCP) under the aegis of being democratically elected.

It's a scary gamble. No one can guarantee that China won't be run to the ground under a mickey mouse opposition (if you think about it, Mao's only competency was violence in opposition, when given actual power, his rule was just horrifically bad. Unfortunately he was a messianic figure... ) but it's a gamble the CCP should take.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your post addressed to me.

I was listening to Mozart's magic Flute when I had to think of a nickname to post here... but I especially like 70's/80's Heavy Metal stuff and I'm just starting to dig rap and hip hop. I'm slightly older for that scene. ;P

Anyway, my main concern on the subject is how to achieve the *real* objective of ushering in genuine democracy to China, one that is done not for vengeful purposes (for those who would just hitch their ride on the democracy band wagon when they are really only interested in hating the CCP), to curry favor from the West (such as claiming a political asylum status), or just simply going for the greener grass because it's on the other side of the fence.

For one thing, nothing I've seen so far has any chance of success in bringing democracy to China. Not one iota. All it is, is a series of angry insect bites. There is no real purpose except to anger the people who obviously also wield power, nothing more. I think that the Nobel Committee has done serious damage to the progress towards Chinese democracy, they are in fact, perhaps unwitting, agents of the state security apparatus. Did the Nobel Committee think they can shame China into adopting democracy by this? Aren't they a little too enchanted with themselves? Do they walk around with mirrors carried in front of them so they can see how handsome or pretty they are? Give me a break. If so, the Nobel Committee is dreadfully narcissistic.

One interview I heard on radio is quite illustrative of the intellectual gap between East and West. During an interview with a high-ranking Chinese Foreign Ministry official, an American reporter asked why hadn't China signed on to sanctions against Iran. The Chinese official answered that China didn't believe that sanctions work. All sanctions would do was to hurt the ordinary citizens of Iran and drive popular support in favor the regime in power (remember the Tibetan Freedom anti-Olympic Torch protest anyone?) . It was far more effective, he said, to (act more maturely and) work with the people in power in a respectful way.

It's eye opening to suddenly understand what's been staring at us all this time. So many of what we've seen and heard have never been for the actual benefit of the people we talk about. So much of what politicians in the West talk about is for domestic consumption, perhaps to improve their own standings amongst the electorate. Nothing more. If the world could be fixed with a series of ten second scoldings by insignificant minor politicians who probably couldn't care less about China or Russia, we'd be all very very happy by now.

So yes, I'm for democracy, better human rights and all that. Except I don't think shaming the politburo and, by proxy, the whole country is going to get results. Perhaps it's smarter to show the leadership that better treatment of political dissenters can actually be a more effective way of dealing with political dissent. They could even turn the dissenters by surprising the latter with decidely friendly treatment.

The anti-terrorist squad in Indonesa did exactly that -- they prayed with captured members of terrorist organizations, gave them good food, arranged meeting with wives, guarantee the terrorists' children's education, etc -- and turned many of them and smashed the terror network. They got the big fish by turning the little ones. China could learn from that.

Human Rights organizations should think of ways to improve China's security while advocating for better human rights in China. If you went to Beijing and said "I don't care how many people got hurt by the rioters, just treat those Tibetan rioters with love, and relax even if it can invite another riot" and you expect it to work, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for cheap.

Work with the powers instead of just criticizing them. It makes for a better world.

You can't hear yourself very well at all - if at all.

You keep reciting the same absurd proposition: Advocates of democracy defeat their cause when they advocate democracy. I hope you are better at hearing Mozart than you are at hearing yourself argue specious propositions. The only time Dr Liu Xiaobo has lifted a finger is to tap the keyboard to advocate democracy. Liu was in Tienaman Square in 1989 when he found himself staring down the barrel of a tank cannon.

CCP ideology is anti-democracy. The CCP isn't going to allow democracy no matter who advocates it to them. Whether it is Tienaman in 1989, Liu from Tienaman to the present and into the future, or the Nobel Committee of serious people, democracy advocates in China will be killed, locked away, or called traitors. Correct, the Nobel Committee isn't going to cause democracy and human rights to occur in the PRC whether suddenly or eventually. The Nobel Committee has succeeded in focusing the world on how oppressive, suppressive, repressive and intransigent the CCP is. There's an old truth the CCP could learn from Lao Tzu and others: That it isn't necessarily what happens to you, it's how you respond or react to vicissitudes. Fortunately for the world, no one in the CCP has read Lao Tsu.

Your automated recurring statements that advocates of democracy are their own worst enemies because they advocate democracy are vacuous, vapid.

“You can't hear yourself very well at all - if at all.
You keep reciting the same absurd proposition: Advocates of democracy defeat their cause when they advocate democracy.”

Publicus, I can’t help thinking that you’re exactly the kind of self-righteous, and self-serving “democracy advocates” out there who cannot accept criticisms while at the same time think that the CCP is incapable of the same thing.

I can’t be sure if your conflation of my ideas is simple confusion (perhaps your self-righteous anger is clouding your comprehension?) or deliberate. I have never said that “advocates of democracy defeat their cause when they advocate democracy”. That was your own miscomprehension (I hope), or misrepresentation of my statements or both. I merely said democracy advocates have been using the wrong tactics, tactics that have nothing to do with achieving the actual goal of democracy but has everything to do with self-aggrandizement and narcissism. As a consequence democracy has been regressed, not progressed in China.

If you think that self-righteous, gratuitous scolding of the CCP at every turn is going to work then go ahead. I have never thought such childish tactic would ever work. Unless you are prepared to put your own life on the line (you cannot “volunteer” the ordinary citizen’s life for this struggle, it’s not yours to so self-righteously offer), and defeat the CCP in a war, I would venture to say that talking, not scolding, with the CCP is going to be the primary means of making any meaningful progress towards democracy. But first you need to get your brain unclouded by your rabid hatred of the CCP. For those of us who don’t think it’s necessary to scold the CCP as part of the package for democracy, we have our own ways, and we we'll even take your unhelpful lecturing into consideration.

I have to say that the sovereign independent country of Taiwan is an exemplary democracy to Chinese people throughout the world. South Korea is another instance of a highly successful democratic political economy and, moreover, stands head and shoulders above its brethren only a few kilometers to the North.

But the Chinese on Taiwan have demonstrated that the Chinese people, which are not a diverse people, none the less can enter the modern world of political economy with great success and modesty. Japan too is another exemplar of democratic political economy.

All three of the countries mentioned have given a model to the CCP/PRC of democratic political economy. None of the three have thrown anyone in jail because he advocates democracy or vital matters such as freedom of speech, assembly, human rights and the like. In fact, last week the national legislature of Taiwan voted unanimously to prohibit entry to any CCP official who is "suspected" of serious human rights violations or is in fact being sued for human rights violations.

Yeah, yeah, I know the line of the Beijing crowd, i.e., with economic integration between Taiwan and the mainland, the CCP will take complete control of Taiwan without ever firing a shot. That might be so if Lao Tzu were presently in charge in Beijing --might be so -- but he's not in charge there. In charge in Beijing is the ham-fisted, heavy and big footed klutzes of the CCP. So forget about that old rouse.

Your criticisms of those in the CCP/PRC or abroad who advocate gradual and peaceful democratic change to the government in China is always that those who advocate democracy in the CCP/PRC are defeating their own cause by advocating democracy in China.

You always say this in any number of words in any number of ways. If you truly think you are kidding anyone in this regard, you definitely need to think again. In making this absurd and assinine [sic] proposition, you only argue against yourself and expose your cynical fraudulent CCP claims. You claim to be a democrat so you need to argue for democracy in the PRC, not how and why 99.9% of those democrats who do make the argument are taking the 'wrong approach' by pissing off the CCP tyrants and dictators of Beijing. Aggravating and exposing dictators is a good thing, not something to be criticized or suppressed by throwing out such terms as traitor. Have you no loyal opposition in the PRC? It appears not, as the opposition to PRC authoritarianism can only be disloyal -- traitors.

Liu Xiaobl is imprisoned for something he said, not for anything he did. That's the textbook definition of tyranny.

“Your criticisms of those in the CCP/PRC or abroad who advocate gradual and peaceful democratic change to the government in China is always that those who advocate democracy in the CCP/PRC are defeating their own cause by advocating democracy in China. “

Publicus, I don’t know why I keep having to correct your conflation. Look at what you wrote, you claim that I said this: that those who advocate democracy in the CCP/PRC are defeating their own cause by advocating democracy in China.
That’s exactly what I did not say. Maybe you are not smart enough to understand my last post to you. Let me try and make it easier for you: scolding the CCP is not the equivalent of advocating for democracy. It’s just not. I just don’t find it necessary. Show me a definition of democracy where this is part of it. Vacuous arrogance coupled with simple brutish anger is just shallow, not democracy. I think you have a lack of intellectual sophistication.

You live in a comic book world far removed from reality. Perhaps in your comic book world, you, your fellow boy scouts, the Nobel Committee and your League of Justice reserve the right to maim, embarrass, humiliate, and destroy because you believe you have justice on your side. I however, don’t live in that Matrix world of yours. Neither does the CCP, and the citizens of China.

Perhaps you think fist-fights in the Taiwanese legislature is sign of a good democracy. I don’t. It’s just juvenile and a a colossal squandering of opportunities. Has Taiwan been well served by this sort of anger? Really? Go on deluding yourself then. That’s the difference between you and me. I happen to think civil discourse, ironically a hoped-for feature of any democracy, even if the discourse is about disagreements, is the path to getting your “enemies” to give you what you seek. Compromise, and give and take is the democratic way. Yet, your brain is stuck way up in some cranny to even be flexible about it.

“Aggravating and exposing dictators is a good thing”
OK, good for what? In the context of China, it’s good for what? Tell me? Are we much closer to democracy because of your aggravation? Are we? What dreadful arrogance!
Show me a credible roadmap towards democracy for China where aggravating the powers that be is an effective tool. A credible plan is one in which we don’t employ Wile E. Coyote and mail order rocket-powered gadgets from the ACME company. You don’t even have a cartoonish plan, do you?

Liu Xiaobo shouldn't be in prison. He doesn't deserve to be, at least on the facts that are known to the West. On the other hand, he doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize. Liu Xiaobo's winning of the Nobel Prize is an insult to all Chinese people and humanity, especially for those who have worked so hard to end colonialism. In trying to aggravate the CCP, the Nobel Committee has now technically taken a position in favor of colonialism. See what aggravating your enemies can do for your own soul?

Now that I have your full attention - at FP anyway - I'm sure it's time to move on to bigger and better things. I say this because it is clear you just can't stand advocates of democracy or human rights. We enrage you. With each post you make you feverishly escalate your scolding attacks on democracy advocates. We outrage you. You most recently have refocused your attack posts on me myself as another advocate of democracy and human rights. To you, we all are wicked - either traitors or intellectually defective. In your worship of elites and their greed for sovereign authority, you pander to the CCP tyrants and demand that we do the same. In your world it is we, not the CCP that are intolerant, overbearing and intransigent. You are wrong.

You posted further above that you (cynically) would have the CCP "magnanimously" step out of government so that those democrats in opposition whom you see as incompetent (and idiots) could prove their incompetence thereby assuring, as you would see it, the return of the omniscient CCP to government. Your CCP then would resume its rightful one party government but with a compassionate face. That one still has me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off. You really do think you are talking to a bunch of saps here. When we barbarian democrats argue back at you, you get rather incensed; infuriated. You lash out, in the same manner as the CCP in its response to the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo.

There's the old adage that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging. Since you in your infinite wisdom can't do that, I'm going to fill in the hole - auf wiedersehen.

Publicus, it’s too bad you’re running for the hills so soon. I was just having fun with you. Here are my answers to your last post.

You said “You posted further above that you (cynically) would have the CCP "magnanimously" step out of government so that those democrats in opposition whom you see as incompetent (and idiots) could prove their incompetence thereby assuring, as you would see it, the return of the omniscient CCP to government. Your CCP then would resume its rightful one party government but with a compassionate face. That one still has me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off.”

I’m glad it was amusing to you but I mean it. No one believes that the CCP can introduce democracy without being forced to do so but I disagree and I present a way, likely not the only way, they can be persuaded to do so. If they do, they would be magnanimous. No one else would have done it.

Besides, it’s not cynical. A basic tenet of democracy, if you’re not familiar, is to allow all parties to participate in elections, even ones you disagree with, or rabidly hate. In the Westminster System (the system in place in the UK and most British Commonwealth countries), parliament can be dissolved at any time before the maximum term – 5 years in the UK – and an election called for. Tactically, the party in power can time this when its popularity is at a height. Qualitatively, it’s desirable to incorporate such a feature – the party will always try to stay popular, in other words they need to please the public at least once every five years. (In fact, I like the Westminster System for China more than the American one for several reasons including this.)

Yet, you think it’s cynical. In your hatred of the CCP, you will betray basic tenets of democracy, just so you can “aggravate” the CCP. In a debate about democracy, you cannot even contain yourself within the confines of staying true to democracy. Come to think of it, yeah, it’s outrageous yet strangely satisfying to me. In any case I agree with you on one point, you should stop digging.

I suggest, once again, you go and separate your hate of the CCP and actual democracy. Then examine what’s left of your program for democracy. If there is anything left, I’d be glad you debate you on the subject or even Liu Xiaobo and his Nobel Prize. Just a reminder just because you hate the CCP doesn’t mean you’re for democracy. It’s just not so simplistic. Someday maybe, you might even turn into a true advocate for democracy, of course by then you'd have cleared your mind of all that hatred.

One more thing I forogot to mention, although it's quite obvious to everyone, perhaps not you and the Nobel Committee: Liu Xiaobo's advocacy for colonialism is just what it is, let's not try and explain it away. How can Liu think colonialism is good for China while at the same time claim he's for democracy? The truth is, you're his disciple. You're not for democracy, just hate, and it makes for contradictory thinking.

The following is simply a sampling of your contradictory statements in posts you made above and your too clever by a half statements in support of the Politboro in Beijing.

Your quoted statements below include the absurd proposition the Nobel Committee are, and I quote you, "unwitting agents of the [CCP] state security apparatus." You say the principal advocate of democracy in Hong Kong Martin Lee is a political opportunist, that Liu Xiaobo is a "traitor" (whom suddenly in later posts you say should not be imprisoned - why not?), that I lack intellectual sophistication, that I live in a comic book world, and so much more drivel and tripe. Indeed, while you assert I live in a comic book world, the CCP Politboro calls the Nobel Peace Prize Committee a bunch of "little clowns." This gets boring fast because it is patently obvious as to your direct ideological connections.

I quote a sampling of your hyperbole from your posts above:

"I think that the Nobel Committee has done serious damage to the progress towards Chinese democracy, they are in fact, perhaps unwitting, agents of the state security apparatus. Did the Nobel Committee think they can shame China into adopting democracy by this? Aren't they a little too enchanted with themselves? Do they walk around with mirrors carried in front of them so they can see how handsome or pretty they are? Give me a break. If so, the Nobel Committee is dreadfully narcissistic."

I similarly quote you again:

"When I got to Hong Kong, my first instinct was that Martin Lee and his pro-democracy party and supporters were our natural allies. But, to me, he increasingly sounded like a sell-out colonialist -- he had morphed into yet another guy with a messiah complex."

I continue to quote some more of your assinine [sic] statements taken from your posts above:

"Liu Xiaobo thinks China can only be straightened out by 300 years of colonial rule. When given an opportunity to retract that statemnt [sic] years later, he refused and reaffirmed his stance. There is simply no other way to think of such a statement. He is a traitor who has a messiah complex."

"Publicus, I don’t know why I keep having to correct your conflation. Look at what you wrote, you claim that I said this: that those who advocate democracy in the CCP/PRC are defeating their own cause by advocating democracy in China.
That’s exactly what I did not say. Maybe you are not smart enough to understand my last post to you. Let me try and make it easier for you: scolding the CCP is not the equivalent of advocating for democracy. It’s just not. I just don’t find it necessary. Show me a definition of democracy where this is part of it. Vacuous arrogance coupled with simple brutish anger is just shallow, not democracy. I think you have a lack of intellectual sophistication.

"You live in a comic book world far removed from reality. Perhaps in your comic book world, you, your fellow boy scouts, the Nobel Committee and your League of Justice reserve the right to maim, embarrass, humiliate, and destroy because you believe you have justice on your side. I however, don’t live in that Matrix world of yours. Neither does the CCP, and the citizens of China.

"I believe that the CCP's top leadership are genuine Chinese patriots."

* * * * * *

Those are but a few of your quotes that reveal the common ideological fantasies shared by you and the CCP Politboro .

Right now I'm picturing you meeting your heroes, the Politboro in Zhongnanhai. You enter the great secret meeting chamber and are introduced to Chairman Hu Jintao. Chairman Hu turns around and he bends over. You lean forward. Smmoooooch! Vice Chairman Xi Jinpeng is introduced to you. Xi turns around, bends over and you lean forward: Smmoooooch! Then comes PM Wen Jaibao. Repeat in turn for each member of the CCP Politboro and Council of State in Beijing. That's where you are in your posts.

You are welcome to it, I support your right to post and to present your forward position, er, your point of view, er, your statements, and I haven't any problem with you presenting your point of view from your preferred position and stance. I've responded to your sophomoric sophistry many times. I'm not going to continue to waste my time going over the same-same territory. No one else considers you worth their attention either.

Hi Publicus,

I knew you’d be back. Happy days :)

“Right now I'm picturing you meeting your heroes, the Politboro in Zhongnanhai. You enter the great secret meeting chamber and are introduced to Chairman Hu Jintao. Chairman Hu turns around and he bends over. You lean forward. Smmoooooch! Vice Chairman Xi Jinpeng is introduced to you. Xi turns around, bends over and you lean forward: Smmoooooch! Then comes PM Wen Jaibao. Repeat in turn for each member of the CCP Politboro and Council of State in Beijing. That's where you are in your posts”

Are we a bit paranoid?

Anyway, I stand by all my comments. I don’t find any material inconsistencies – imagined ones, maybe. Let me just help you with a few.

When the 2008 Olympic Torch protest turned ugly and when inside Tibet itself the peaceful protest turned violent, people in the “Justice League” thought they had scored a major victory. But the result was to harden support by (most) Chinese all around the world for Beijing, even ones who were apathetic about the issue before the protests. Who cares if Chinese support for Beijing grew? Well, these are the people that matter most to the Tibetan cause, not Hollywood stars, these are the people that could directly affect Tibet policies. In fact, I was on the fence about Tibet before this happened but after that I stood firmly behind Beijing’s policy in Tibet (except for the way law enforcement may have violated the rights of some criminally behaved rioters).

The protestors had scored a pyrrhic victory because the reality in Tibet got exponentially worse for their cause as a direct result of those protests. Beijing’s popularity amongst Chinese citizens soared on the issue of staying firm with their policies in Tibet. By November 2008, the Dalai Lama had pretty much acknowledged that the Tibetan cause was almost certainly finished in his lifetime during a meeting he called for politically powerful exiled Tibetans. It’s a bit like the argument that the War in Iraq was a great recruitment thing for Islamic terrorists. This is the same with the Nobel Committee vis a vis Chinese Democracy and Liu Xiaobo. So yes, the Nobel Committee has ironically given support to those who are against democracy in China by looking like it is browbeating China.

"I believe that the CCP's top leadership are genuine Chinese patriots."

They’ve done well for China. There are many uneven results but in general, they’ve done spectacularly well for the country. Because of the way the system is set up, they are not dictators in the conventional sense. Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji retired and handed power to Hu/Wen. By 2012-2013 Hu/Wen will hand over power to Xi/Li (probably these two). Most despotic dictator hold on to power for life, I think you mentioned Egypt and their sham democracy. In Egypt, Mubarak has been in power for 29 years.

In the final analysis, Chinese leaders have no motivation to rule for their own personal power. They are term limited to two five year terms. They are more likely concerned about their place in Chinese history and that’s good thing because it is an incentive to govern well. All of their security concerns are thus much more likely driven by genuine patriotism, not for the perpetuation of their own power or the party’s power. However, I believe some form of democracy is still a positive thing for CHina. THe ordinary citizens need to have a more direct way to participate in governance. At the very least, they can protest less... I think.

That I think the CCP has done well for China is not to say that I agree with all of their tactics (lest you try to draw imaginary connections to conclude that I am in favor of torture or something like that, let me just save you time and say I am against torture). I think their methods are outdated, ineffective, and often generate outcomes that are opposite of their goals. But who am I to say? Even the United States have found it necessary to torture in the name of US security. It’s probably still going on – even if we massage the definition of torture, it is still torture -- and of course we outsource the torturing too via “rendition”. No doubt, many of the people who authorize these torturing of America’s enemies are American patriots too but I can’t rule out that some of them are sadists… Neither America or China should torture anyone for any reason.

One last thing: Mao followed up the dismal failure of the Great Leap Forward with the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution. He felt that his Great Leap program would have worked (what delusion!) had it not been for the entrenched cultural limitations of the Chinese people themselves. The Cultural Revolution was meant to sweep away those entrenched attitudes (while at the same time eliminate his political enemies). Liu Xiaobo feels pretty much the same way too. It’s apparent he thinks that way with the explanation of what he meant by the 300 years of colonial rule being necessary to sweep away ancient habits the Chinese people have. Mao thought a cultural revolution would do it, Liu thinks foreign rule will do it.

I think it’s bullsh*t. Plain and simple. Even if this bullsh*t is stamped with “democracy” it still stinks – colonialism isn’t democracy and often it’s the exact opposite. Again, there are so many other democracy advocates who don’t find it necessary to offer enslavement of the Chinese people. Why did the Nobel Committee choose Liu? I think they know what they’re doing and it stinks pretty badly.

PARTICIPANT SCORE
========== ======

DIE ZAUBERFLOTE 1

PUBLICUS 0

BILL888,

thanks for the vote... :)

Yes, having regrouped they're back because they don't know when or why to quit. When someone other than Herr Die Flote and Comrade Mr. BILL888 makes a post, then I might consider doing so myself. However, as I'd stated, I'm tired of your Sophomore Sophistry and take the view that he who argues with idiots takes the great risk of, you know........

Auf Wiedersehen.

The reason you don't know Liu Xiaobo is because the Central government keep you away from the news about him. He promoted that Central government should follow the institution and give people freedom and justice. Then do you know Jiao Lian-Hai, the person who helped himself and others to get compensation for their children who drank poison milk. I am sure you heard of the milk incidence which the poison milk which cause kidney stone in several hundred infants. What wrong did he do? He got a prison sentence of 11 years. And the company CEO who knew of the problem for some time only got 15 years. Never mind about this democracy or peace prize, why did the Central Government and Chairman Hu allowed this injustice to go on. The Chinese Communist Party is now worse than the Guo Min Tang that they had replaced.

??????????

Juicy couture