PDA

View Full Version : (Beijing) The 'Genocide Olympics'


Paneru
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Published in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2007

The 'Genocide Olympics'

By RONAN FARROW and MIA FARROW


"One World, One Dream" is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.

That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg -- who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies -- to sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994 founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling Darfur's genocide?

China is pouring billions of dollars into Sudan. Beijing purchases an overwhelming majority of Sudan's annual oil exports and state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. -- an official partner of the upcoming Olympic Games -- owns the largest shares in each of Sudan's two major oil consortia. The Sudanese government uses as much as 80% of proceeds from those sales to fund its brutal Janjaweed ***** militia and purchase their instruments of destruction: bombers, assault helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of them of Chinese manufacture. Airstrips constructed and operated by the Chinese have been used to launch bombing campaigns on villages. And China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter.

As one of the few players whose support is indispensable to Sudan, China has the power to, at the very least, insist that Khartoum accept a robust international peacekeeping force to protect defenseless civilians in Darfur. Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.

But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. That desire may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has otherwise been impervious to all criticism.

Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games. Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr. Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst advocacy groups; rather than "One World, One Dream," people are beginning to speak of the coming "Genocide Olympics."

Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various television sponsors around the world want to share in that shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.

Imagine if such calls were to succeed in pushing the Chinese government to use its leverage over Sudan to protect civilians in Darfur. The 2008 Beijing Olympics really could become an occasion for pride and celebration, a truly international honoring of the authentic spirit of "one world" and "one dream."

Mr. Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, traveled to Darfur as a UNICEF spokesperson in 2004 and 2006. Ms. Farrow, an actor, has traveled twice to Darfur and twice to neighboring Chad. She has recently returned from Darfur's border with the Central African Republic.

http://www.miafarrow.org/editorials.html



Darfur collides with Olympics, and China yields

By Helene Cooper Published: April 12, 2007

WASHINGTON: For the past two years, China has protected the Sudanese government as the United States and Britain have pushed for United Nations Security Council sanctions against Sudan for the violence in Darfur.

But in the past week, strange things have happened. A senior Chinese official, Zhai Jun, traveled to Sudan to push the Sudanese government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. Zhai even went all the way to Darfur and toured three refugee camps, a rare event for a high-ranking official from China, which has extensive business and oil ties to Sudan and generally avoids telling other countries how to conduct their internal affairs.

So what gives? Credit goes to Hollywood — Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg in particular. Just when it seemed safe to buy a plane ticket to Beijing for the 2008 Olympic Games, nongovernmental organizations and other groups appear to have scored a surprising success in an effort to link the Olympics, which the Chinese government holds very dear, to the killings in Darfur, which, until recently, Beijing had not seemed too concerned about.

Farrow, a good-will ambassador for the United Nations Children's Fund, has played a crucial role, starting a campaign last month to label the Games in Beijing the "Genocide Olympics" and calling on corporate sponsors and even Spielberg, who is an artistic adviser to China for the Games, to publicly exhort China to do something about Darfur. In a March 28 Op-Ed article in The Wall Street Journal, she warned Spielberg that he could "go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games," a reference to a German filmmaker who made Nazi propaganda films.

Four days later, Spielberg sent a letter to President Hu Jintao of China, condemning the killings in Darfur and asking the Chinese government to use its influence in the region "to bring an end to the human suffering there," according to Spielberg's spokesman, Marvin Levy.

China soon dispatched Zhai to Darfur, a turnaround that served as a classic study of how a pressure campaign, aimed to strike Beijing in a vulnerable spot at a vulnerable time, could accomplish what years of diplomacy could not.

Groups focusing on many issues, including Tibet and human rights, have called for boycotts of the Games next year. But none of those issues have packed the punch of Darfur, where at least 200,000 people — some say as many as 400,000 — mostly non-Arab men, women and children, have died and 2.5 million have been displaced, as government-backed Arab militias called the janjaweed have attacked the local population.

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan has repeatedly refused American, African and European demands that he allow a United Nations peacekeeping force to supplement an underequipped and besieged African Union force of 7,000 soldiers who have been trying, with dwindling success, to restore order in the Darfur region.

"Whatever ingredient went into the decision for him to go, I'm so pleased that he went," Farrow said in a phone interview about Zhai's trip. She called the response from Beijing "extraordinary."

In describing Spielberg's decision to write to the Chinese leader, the filmmaker's spokesman said that while Spielberg "certainly has been aware of the situation in Darfur" it was "only recently that he became aware of China's involvement there."

During a news conference on Wednesday, Zhai called activists who want to boycott the Games "either ignorant or ill natured." But he added, "We suggest the Sudan side show flexibility and accept" the United Nations peacekeepers.

During closed-door diplomatic meetings, Chinese officials have said they do not want any of their Darfur overtures linked to the Olympics, American and European officials said.

In an e-mail message on Thursday, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington warned anew against such a linkage. "If someone wants to pin Olympic Games and Darfur issue together to raise his/her fame, he/she is playing a futile trick," the spokesman, Chu Maoming, wrote.

National pride in China has been surging over the coming Olympics, with a gigantic clock in Tiananmen Square counting down the minutes to the Games, and Olympic souvenir stores sprouting all over with the "One World, One Dream" Beijing Olympics motto.

In public, Bush administration officials have been relatively restrained in welcoming China's new diplomatic zeal.

"We have indications at this point that the Chinese are now taking even a more aggressive role than they have in the past," Andrew Natsios, the Bush administration's special envoy to Sudan, told a Senate panel on Wednesday. "I think they may be the crucial actors."

J. Stephen Morrison, a Sudan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he had been warning Chinese officials that Darfur and the Olympics could collide, to no avail.

"I've been talking to them and telling them this is coming, this is coming," Morrison said. "I told them, there's an infrastructure out there, they need to feed the beast, and you're in their sight." Before, he said, "they kind of shrugged."

But there is growing concern inside China that Darfur is hurting Beijing's image.

"Their equity is to be seen as an ethical, rising global power — that's their goal," Morrison said. "Their goal is not to get in bed with every sleazy government that comes up with a little oil."

It remains unclear if the Hollywood campaign will work — China has not agreed to sanctions yet. But there is also plenty of time between now and the opening ceremony of the Olympics Games in Beijing next year, and more plans are afoot in the activist camp.

On Feb. 10, in an open letter on his Web site addressed to "Darfur activists and advocates," (translations of the letter are available in Chinese, Arabic, Swahili, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Italian, according to the Web site), a Darfur activist, Eric Reeves, promised what he called the "full-scale launch of a large, organized campaign to highlight China's complicity in the Darfur genocide."

"It's time now, to begin shaming China — demanding that if the Beijing government is going to host the Summer Olympic Games of 2008, they must be responsible partners," Reeves wrote.

One possibility that activists are weighing: trying to get Olympic athletes to carry a replica of the Olympic torch from Darfur to the Chinese border.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/13/america/web-0413diplo.php?page=2

kiwifan
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Oh its okay if China does whatever it wants. :)

Politically
Culturally
Athletically
Criminally
Enviornmentally
Legally
Finacially

its all good. ;)

samsung101
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:32 PM
The world has been so busy hating Bush, that it willingly has ignored
the dangerous growth and realm of China.

China backs Iran and Syria and North Korea and Venezuela, as well
as Cuba. They like to do this because it spreads their power. But, also
because it makes the USA have to deal with other nations and issues,
and leave them alone.

The Sudan, Darfur, the suffering all has links to China. The spread of
fanatical Islam has been greatly assisted by a compliant and wealthy
China. A nation that kills any attempt to spread it w/i its borders -
by any means.

Why doesn't CNN or the BBC cover that much?

They never will.

The same Congress that wants to have a defeat in Iraq is actually
encouraging the same mindset terrorists in Darfur and Somalia and elsewhere.
They got the forumla down pat. Just do enough damage to get the
US Congress to bail out fast. It's working in Iraq. Why send troops to
Darfur to fight Chinese backed Islamic militants? We've shown as a nation
we have no stomach for a battle. They got the message down pat.

The 2008 Olympics are a shameful enterprise. The world will ignore
the evil China creates and assists in....around the world and in China.

Paneru
Apr 25th, 2007, 10:05 PM
Sorry, but IMO it's like trying to choose
the lessor of two evil's.

Bush's Administration does have blood
on it's hands just as much.

My point with him and his people is that they lied about
why we went to war. That is the basis of my extreme
dislike for this current US President. It was a War perpetrated
on a lie that has cost over 100,000 lives of innocent civilians
and troops from around the globe that lent their support to
the US when the US's credibility was at a much better place
in the world's and even in many of it's own countrymen.

So, I cannot support your words as though Bush has somehow be
falsely vilified and is any better than China at this point. One's
actions wheather more or less greivous does not negate the others.


Back on Topic,

IMO is really will come down to the sponsors like Coca Cola, McDonald's,
Kodak, GE, Samsung, Panasonic, & others to use their monitary muscle
to force China's hand or have their Games fall apart which will sadly
seemingly shame the government more than stoping a genocide.


JMO.

Lord Nelson
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Sorry, but IMO it's like trying to choose
the lessor of two evil's.

Bush's Administration does have blood
on it's hands just as much.

My point with him and his people is that they lied about
why we went to war. That is the basis of my extreme
dislike for this current US President. It was a War perpetrated
on a lie that has cost over 100,000 lives of innocent civilians
and troops from around the globe that lent their support to
the US when the US's credibility was at a much better place
in the world's and even in many of it's own countrymen.

So, I cannot support your words as though Bush has somehow be
falsely vilified and is any better than China at this point. One's
actions wheather more or less greivous does not negate the others.


Back on Topic,

IMO is really will come down to the sponsors like Coca Cola, McDonald's,
Kodak, GE, Samsung, Panasonic, & others to use their monitary muscle
to force China's hand or have their Games fall apart which will sadly
seemingly shame the government more than stoping a genocide.


JMO.

Clinton and UN also thought that Saddam had those weapons. Were they also lying?
Anyway I fail to see what the U.S. has to do with this topic. I am pro American but I am also pro Chinese. I like strong governments. India could lear from you but it won't hppen anytime soon. :sad:
If China had remained Maoist I would have been anti-Chinese. But they are into capitalism though I feel that Russians are actually doing better then them. Chinese are damaging the environment more then Russians. In Russia a pipeline was carefully constructed as so to avoid the shores of Baikoa (sp?) Lake which could damage ecosystem if there is a leakage in pipeline. I don't think that if this was China they would have reacted the same way.

Paneru
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Clinton and UN also thought that Saddam had those weapons. Were they also lying?

Anyway I fail to see what the U.S. has to do with this topic.


Their is a difference between thought and invading a country
having falsified or ignored info. they had to the contrary
before selling the war to the people of their country and
the world. So, let's not play that game.

And if you had read or noticed that I was responding to
samsung101, then you'd not have asked the question.

Chinese are damaging the environment more then Russians.

And?

Being the lesser of two wrongs doesn't make
something or anything less wrong by default.

Sam L
Apr 26th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Boo!! What a horrible country. Genocide games!! :mad:

RenaSlam.
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Booo!!!

Paneru
Sep 7th, 2007, 10:49 AM
Bump

Just Do It
Sep 7th, 2007, 10:58 AM
Shut the hell up, haters !

Goai
Sep 7th, 2007, 11:14 AM
Can't people just enjoy the Olympics?

samsung101
Sep 7th, 2007, 04:54 PM
I love how the criticism of The Olympics and the choice of
China, is somehow equated to the Iraq War, based on over 10 years
of international information and actions - supported by the UN,
and two votes in a bi-partisan Congress - and that the idea of
deposing a dictator is equal to what China does around the world
overtly and covertly.

China is not our pal.
China is supporting financially genocide in Africa, terrorism in
other parts of the world, North Korea's govt., Venezuela's actions,
helping fund Castro's regime, and keeping Tibet and Taiwan on pins
and needles.
Do you really think the powerful Chinese military will be a force
of good in the world in your lifetime? If so, you're blind.


The Olympic Committee can be bought.
They were.
They picked China regardless of the international pleas of activists
and peace and human rights groups not to choose China.
The Olympic Committee operates much like the UN Security Council -
they can be paid off for votes.




Please do once in a while read the words of Bill Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Feinstein, Albright, Kerry, Gore, Clark, Tony Blair,
and other world leaders for 10 years prior to the Iraq War -
and they will sound more hawkish, more deliberate, and more
intent on conflict than anything Bush said in trying to
get Congressional and UN approval for moving on Iraq for
not complying with 10 years of UN mandates.

All per the Gulf War 'truce'....ending the military action only
because Saddam promised to comply and verify fully - quickly.
He never did.


Hating George W. Bush is exactly the blind spot the Chinese
have enjoyed to expand their manufacturing empire, which funds
the largest military in the world.

Ask Taiwan and Tibet just how great the Chinese have been to them.
Please get a clue, and put things into perspeective. China grew
only because hundreds of millions of Chinese were butchered by
Mao and his gang, just as Stalin did in Russia, to impose Communism,
to impose the will of the grand leader only. That has changed
in Russia, and it will hopefully change one day in China.

Paneru
Sep 7th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Just a question: "If you were the people of the Darfur living
in fear of being raped, murdered, and tourtured every day
of your life, would you want people to know this?"

Sam L
Sep 7th, 2007, 05:37 PM
I love how the criticism of The Olympics and the choice of
China, is somehow equated to the Iraq War, based on over 10 years
of international information and actions - supported by the UN,
and two votes in a bi-partisan Congress - and that the idea of
deposing a dictator is equal to what China does around the world
overtly and covertly.

China is not our pal.
China is supporting financially genocide in Africa, terrorism in
other parts of the world, North Korea's govt., Venezuela's actions,
helping fund Castro's regime, and keeping Tibet and Taiwan on pins
and needles.
Do you really think the powerful Chinese military will be a force
of good in the world in your lifetime? If so, you're blind.


The Olympic Committee can be bought.
They were.
They picked China regardless of the international pleas of activists
and peace and human rights groups not to choose China.
The Olympic Committee operates much like the UN Security Council -
they can be paid off for votes.




Please do once in a while read the words of Bill Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Feinstein, Albright, Kerry, Gore, Clark, Tony Blair,
and other world leaders for 10 years prior to the Iraq War -
and they will sound more hawkish, more deliberate, and more
intent on conflict than anything Bush said in trying to
get Congressional and UN approval for moving on Iraq for
not complying with 10 years of UN mandates.

All per the Gulf War 'truce'....ending the military action only
because Saddam promised to comply and verify fully - quickly.
He never did.


Hating George W. Bush is exactly the blind spot the Chinese
have enjoyed to expand their manufacturing empire, which funds
the largest military in the world.

Ask Taiwan and Tibet just how great the Chinese have been to them.
Please get a clue, and put things into perspeective. China grew
only because hundreds of millions of Chinese were butchered by
Mao and his gang, just as Stalin did in Russia, to impose Communism,
to impose the will of the grand leader only. That has changed
in Russia, and it will hopefully change one day in China.

I agree. It's a useless country. And I'm going to hate these Olympics. I hope they fail and I hope it's an embarrassment for them.

Ellery
Sep 7th, 2007, 07:53 PM
I wish I could have volunteered :sad: Only 436 days to go :bounce:

njnetswill
Sep 7th, 2007, 11:03 PM
The Chinese way of working with other countries is strictly business. They don't make judgments on the people they work with. The Chinese government is not making an exception in their policies just for Sudan. You cannot fault the CCP for remaining consistent, especially since their human rights record domestically is pretty mediocre as well. This isn't to say that the CCP is right, it is simply how they approach diplomacy.

Veritas
Sep 8th, 2007, 03:04 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3847

Why China Won’t Save Darfur

By Morton Abramowitz, Jonathan Kolieb

Posted June 2007

Frustrated by the West’s failure to halt the slaughter in Sudan, Darfur advocacy groups are pinning their hopes on a country they see as genocide’s enabler in chief: China. But in pressuring an indifferent Beijing, activists are merely helping Western governments evade responsibility for a humanitarian crisis that they could do far more to stop.

After four years of tireless efforts, Darfur advocacy groups have had little success in pressuring the Bush administration or any other Western government to move decisively against the Sudanese government for its atrocities in Darfur. These groups are right to dismiss the Bush administration’s latest sanctions initiative as mere posturing; like all of the president’s efforts to date, it’s too limited in scope and lacks a wider, more holistic diplomatic strategy. These groups are focusing instead on the two C’s of humanitarian advocacy—China and celebrities—as a remedy for a crisis that has killed over 200,000 people and displaced more than 2.5 million. But in pointing the finger at China, proponents of stronger action on Darfur are merely helping the White House evade moral responsibility for a humanitarian disaster that it labels a “genocide.”

With its oil ties to the Sudanese regime and its resistance to U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Khartoum, China is a convenient whipping boy, and a cast of celebrities has signed on eagerly to lead the whipping. Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and George Clooney have come out in recent weeks to criticize the Chinese government for not responding to the cries of Darfur’s people, zeroing in on the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Earnest editorial writers have joined them enthusiastically.

The campaign has had some results. Beijing’s usual foreign policy approach—“non-interference” in Sudan’s domestic affairs—has been evolving under the pressure. China has become more active in trying to persuade the Khartoum regime to cooperate with the international community. China is willing to pursue a peace settlement, and indeed President Hu Jintao pressured Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on this issue and duly urged cooperation with the United Nations on his visit to Khartoum in February. Beijing has also appointed a full-time envoy tasked with assisting in resolving the Darfur crisis.

But threatening a “Genocide Olympics” alone will not bring peace (or peacekeepers) to that troubled region. No amount of criticism will convince Beijing to pursue a coercive strategy and a nonconsensual deployment of U.N. peacekeepers that Khartoum rejects. Yes, China has the economic leverage to gain the ear of President Bashir, but that hardly means it has the ability—or, more to the point, the will—to bully him into accepting a large U.N. peacekeeping contingent in Darfur. China’s multibillion dollar investments in Sudan’s petroleum industry are a much-needed source of energy for its mushrooming economy. Beijing may make tactical moves to pressure Sudan, but it will not choose human rights over oil, a matter of paramount national interest.

And, even if China were capable of delivering Bashir, the Sudanese government is not the only impediment to an effective peace process. Nowadays, more people may well be dying from tribal clashes than from marauding janjaweed or government forces. The infighting of fractured rebel groups and the sheer number of displaced people with no homes to return to are also immediate and significant obstacles to peace. But China has little influence over the rebel movements and is ill-positioned to act as a mediator between them.

Nor is China a good choice to be our moral compass. The West embraces human rights and international humanitarian law, but China emphatically does not. The continuing crisis not only threatens the lives of millions, but the weak Western response undermines those grandiose principles such as the “responsibility to protect”—hallmarks of our international moral code. Moreover, it is the U.S. government, not Beijing (nor the U.N., for that matter), that has invoked the label “genocide” to describe the Darfur crisis. Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s.

Ending the Darfur conflict requires much more than what China alone can offer. Rhetorical flourishes from world leaders, limited Western unilateral sanctions, and promises of firmer action at some indeterminate time in the future are also patently insufficient. Only a top-level, sustained, and aggressive multilateral mediation effort backed by the United States, the European Union, and African, Arab, and Chinese governments can stop the violence and reverse the massive displacement of people.

Advocacy groups deserve praise for bringing Darfur into the world’s collective consciousness and generating funds to care for millions of dislocated civilians. But their latest campaign lets the U.S. and others off the hook. Highlighting China’s woeful human rights record is important, but does little to resolve the conflict in Darfur. China is not going to do what the United States and Europe have been unwilling to do for the past four years.

Pasta-Na
Sep 8th, 2007, 05:51 AM
Just a question: "If you were the people of the Darfur living
in fear of being raped, murdered, and tourtured every day
of your life, would you want people to know this?"

i am sure u or ur family members are using the products, made in China :o :angel:

LeonHart
Sep 8th, 2007, 06:25 AM
I try to stay away from "Made in China" products as much as possible.

Especially with all the made in china recalls going on lately.

China is just a fishy country. Reminds me a lot of the book "1986," if China will ever become a supreme power.

austennis
Sep 8th, 2007, 01:56 PM
Beijing are the greatest human rights abusesers in world today..but with their seat of UN security council and huge trade budget no 1 will ever stand up to them..
u want to see the genocide games ? just look @ tibet

HippityHop
Sep 8th, 2007, 06:59 PM
"The continuing crisis not only threatens the lives of millions, but the weak Western response undermines those grandiose principles such as the “responsibility to protect”—hallmarks of our international moral code. Moreover, it is the U.S. government, not Beijing (nor the U.N., for that matter), that has invoked the label “genocide” to describe the Darfur crisis. Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s."


So not calling it genocide means that you have no responsibility?
Who are these fools?

I love it how mofos want the despised America to take up their personal agendas.:rolleyes:

*JR*
Sep 8th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Beijing are the greatest human rights abusesers in world today..but with their seat of UN security council and huge trade budget no 1 will ever stand up to them..
u want to see the genocide games ? just look @ tibet
And the fanbase of whoever wins the China Open (one of the 4 mandatory events in the Roadmap starting in 2009) will go nuts anyway. Just like the Momo fans did (and the Venus fans would have) re. the 3rd Antwerp title netting a racquet studded with diamonds, many of which may have been mined by child labor to finance wars in West Africa that featured child soldiers.

I'm not saying players want tainted prizes, just that its easier for them "not to ask too many questions". (Ditto re. the factories that make the clothing and shoes they endorse). So any poster not willing to hold their favorite player responsible for asking such questions about social issues shouldn't be "holier than thou" on them.

thetennisutopian
Sep 8th, 2007, 10:25 PM
I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but... It IS America's fault.

Our greed has led the Chinese government to prosper and the American government to falter. We've allowed the mass production of practically everything in China and believe it or not America has practically no soft power with China because of it. They literally have us by the balls. With the utterance of a sentence they can literally topple the United States economy and send the world into chaos. That's why no one says anything to them. It takes true ambassadors like Mia Farrow to get things done... and it's a god damn shame.

China is probably the only reason why we haven't invaded North Korea yet...

HippityHop
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:03 AM
:lol: I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but... It IS America's fault.

Our greed has led the Chinese government to prosper and the American government to falter. We've allowed the mass production of practically everything in China and believe it or not America has practically no soft power with China because of it. They literally have us by the balls. With the utterance of a sentence they can literally topple the United States economy and send the world into chaos. That's why no one says anything to them. It takes true ambassadors like Mia Farrow to get things done... and it's a god damn shame.

China is probably the only reason why we haven't invaded North Korea yet...

:lol: That's rich. Very, very good. :lol: :lol:

Pasta-Na
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:12 AM
I try to stay away from "Made in China" products as much as possible.

Especially with all the made in china recalls going on lately.

China is just a fishy country. Reminds me a lot of the book "1986," if China will ever become a supreme power.

cant stay away 100% :angel:

Pasta-Na
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:13 AM
I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but... It IS America's fault.

Our greed has led the Chinese government to prosper and the American government to falter. We've allowed the mass production of practically everything in China and believe it or not America has practically no soft power with China because of it. They literally have us by the balls. With the utterance of a sentence they can literally topple the United States economy and send the world into chaos. That's why no one says anything to them. It takes true ambassadors like Mia Farrow to get things done... and it's a god damn shame.

China is probably the only reason why we haven't invaded North Korea yet...

:p

Goai
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:21 AM
I try to stay away from "Made in China" products as much as possible.

Especially with all the made in china recalls going on lately.

China is just a fishy country. Reminds me a lot of the book "1986," if China will ever become a supreme power.
1984

Fear is at the heart of this Sinophobia. China (as a country) has problems not always due to its own fault, just as other countries have. Sure "humanitarians" find it an apt time to use the Olympics to market their cause, but they're ignorant if they think they'll accomplish anything. A critical analysis will show that certain problems are based on the actions of 3-4 different countries.

HippityHop
Sep 9th, 2007, 12:27 AM
1984

Fear is at the heart of this Sinophobia. China (as a country) has problems not always due to its own fault, just as other countries have. Sure "humanitarians" find it an apt time to use the Olympics to market their cause, but they're ignorant if they think they'll accomplish anything. A critical analysis will show that certain problems are based on the actions of 3-4 different countries.

Do enlighten us.

Veritas
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:27 AM
So not calling it genocide means that you have no responsibility?
Who are these fools?

The exact quote was: "Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s." Which is fair enough, since the writer isn't saying China (and others) have no responsibility to help stop the conflicts in Darfur.

Also, the writer did point out that it was the U.S. government - as a representative of the U.S. - who used the term "genocide". Whether others agree that term is up for them to decide, not America (or the West).

The issue here is that activists and celebrities are pointing to China's economic dominance of Sudan as the reason why the Chinese government should take more action. What they didn't take into account is China's own agenda. The West is mainly concerned about the humanitarian crisis while China has its long-term survival (i.e. the supply of natural resources) to worry about.

The Chinese weren't the ones who made the conflict an issue in their relations with Sudan. For the West to force it into the Sino-Sudan relationship (not a U.S. or West - Sudan one) is not well thought-out. A lot of the misunderstanding comes from people failing to look in the perspective of the other side.

For example, memories of past imperialist actions from the West are still fresh in Chinese minds. Therefore, no matter how well-meaning, if the West doesn't approach any Sino-related issues with caution, they'll only antagnose the Chinese. If the activists are truly concerned about Darfur conflict, they should convince, rather than force, China to take a more active role.

Veritas
Sep 9th, 2007, 03:31 AM
Beijing are the greatest human rights abusesers in world today

Statements like that need stats and figures to support it.

Got any?

HippityHop
Sep 9th, 2007, 04:49 AM
The exact quote was: "Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s." Which is fair enough, since the writer isn't saying China (and others) have no responsibility to help stop the conflicts in Darfur.

Also, the writer did point out that it was the U.S. government - as a representative of the U.S. - who used the term "genocide". Whether others agree that term is up for them to decide, not America (or the West).

The issue here is that activists and celebrities are pointing to China's economic dominance of Sudan as the reason why the Chinese government should take more action. What they didn't take into account is China's own agenda. The West is mainly concerned about the humanitarian crisis while China has its long-term survival (i.e. the supply of natural resources) to worry about.

The Chinese weren't the ones who made the conflict an issue in their relations with Sudan. For the West to force it into the Sino-Sudan relationship (not a U.S. or West - Sudan one) is not well thought-out. A lot of the misunderstanding comes from people failing to look in the perspective of the other side.

For example, memories of past imperialist actions from the West are still fresh in Chinese minds. Therefore, no matter how well-meaning, if the West doesn't approach any Sino-related issues with caution, they'll only antagnose the Chinese. If the activists are truly concerned about Darfur conflict, they should convince, rather than force, China to take a more active role.

That begs the question. Why is it the US' responsibility to lead on this issue? Where is the American national interest?

Veritas
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:46 AM
That begs the question. Why is it the US' responsibility to lead on this issue? Where is the American national interest?

Because it was the U.S. who made the Darfur conflict into an issue about "genocide" - it was them who used that term, not China.

As for "American national interest", I don't want to speculate, but when China's involved, I'm pretty sure humanitarian concerns aren't the only things on the table.