Are we beginning to see the China we want to see?

[St Disibod]

With the 2008 Olympic Games only a year away, are we beginning to see the changes in Chinese policy that have been long-sought for in the West?

The UN has finally progressed on the issue of Darfur when many chose to blame China for the lack of action and still do for the shameful delay, though I take a different line that has seen me labelled as a whacky China apologist and a head-banging anti-American at times (see one such relevant thread here). But eitherway, at least the international wheels are now turning to produce a solution. And as China steps back from Khartoum, it has also rushed away from Harare where a devil's pact seemed on the cards for a while.

Instead we are seeing massive investment from China into Africa, and considerable bilateral aid flows as well, that seem to be having a genuinely positive impact. Though some question whether such investment is underpinned with sinister intent, at least the Chinese policy pursued thus far is benefitting Africans. To jump back on the anti-American bandwagon: if only we could say the same of US policy in the Middle East over the same period- but I probably shouldn't muddle the issues so. Indeed, if one does accept especial Chinese culpability for Darfur it blows my comparison out of the water.

But continuing on, China has been willing to engage meaningfully on the issue of climate change- to the point where Beijing is now the probable site of a global carbon exchange if ever the plans to build one are followed through.

And now Jin Renqing, China's finance minister, is due to attend the International Development Association donors' meeting in November in Dublin where he is expected to pledge funds- it would be a first for China and the World Bank is having a tough year so it is much needed good news for the new President, Robert Zoelllick.

All in all, things seem to be travelling in a positive direction. I have long thought that the more the West reached out to China, the more cooperation the West would enjoy from the same party. For instance, I think the siting of the Olympic Games in Beijing (not the prize of the West in strict terms, but it still enjoys disproportionate sway) has done far more for China's progress (in so far as we, the West, want to see it develop) than the threat to boycott them: I tend to stick to the internationalist view where such sporting events should be apolitical- just a healthy dose of nationalism and the rest is up to the athletes. Would it really have been better if countries had boycotted the 1936 Berlin Games? We would have been robbed of Jesse Owens victory, and all the mythology that has built up around it. I digress again.

Of course there are issues in China that still should be resolved, and should be labelled as shameful and spoken about. A documentary features on TG4 tonight, Not One Less at 10.25pm, about a 13 year-old girl working as a substitute teacher in a rural school in China- obviously way out of her depth and under wholly unacceptable pressure. It is only one such example. But China's foreign policy doesn't seem all that bad, and it seems to be improving. If only we could say the same of the other permanent Member States of the UN Security Council (though Britain has changed its tune under Brown for the better). Sarkozy fans should read Lara Marlowe in today's Irish Times on the French-Libyan deal.

Against this backdrop, the bad-mouthing of China seems a bit dispropotionate, no?

[Defeated Romanticist]

I'm glad to see you mentioned 1936. That was the time when Hitler layed off the Jews. The chinese won't change in the long term. Not while their not a democracy. A leapard never changes its spots

[St Disibod]

I'm glad to see you mentioned 1936. That was the time when Hitler layed off the Jews. The chinese won't change in the long term. Not while their not a democracy. A leapard never changes its spots

Do you think other countries should have boycotted the games in 1936? Do you think the world would be a better place if they did?

You might, and they are understandable positions. But I would answer in the negative to both questions.

[Defeated Romanticist]

[quote=St Disibod]

I'm glad to see you mentioned 1936. That was the time when Hitler layed off the Jews. The chinese won't change in the long term. Not while their not a democracy. A leapard never changes its spots

Do you think other countries should have boycotted the games in 1936? Do you think the world would be a better place if they did?

You might, and they are understandable positions. But I would answer in the negative to both questions.[/quote:20axjr4q]
No-one believed what was going to happen next. But it does teach us a lesson.
China may be cleaning up its act for the camera next year but that doesn't mean that it is going to become a beaken of light in a bleak world for human rights. I expect it to return to type by 2010.

[corkman2007]

There's still far too much repression in China and lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law to say that it's improved much.

If China does become a liberal democracy it will be because of decisions taken by Chinese people, not 'the West'.

So far, western engagement with China has been largely limited to trade and investment, with the occasional relatively mild criticism over human rights and other abuses.

'The West' looks at China and sees opportunities to make money. Some see it is a threat (actual or potential) to western hegemony. Very few actually give a damn about the way the state treats its citizens.

[}IknowurbutwhatamI{]

The Communist Chinese government has been, and is, a murderous one.
The Communist Chinese slaughtered millions during the Chinese
Revolution. After coming to power they murdered thousands of
landowners after mock trials. Subsequently, Communist China
invaded Tibet and murdered a million Tibetans.

Communist China aided the North Koreans in their invasion of South Korea. When North Korea was on the verge of defeat, . Over two million people died during the war. North Korea would have collapsed long ago without Communist China's assistance. Perhaps a million North
Koreans have died from starvation over the last 15 years while North
Korea continues to build a nuclear weapons program, with the
assistance of Communist China.

During the "Great Leap Forward" 30-40 million, perhaps more,
Chinese were starved to death. It is my understanding that millions died during the "Cultural Revolution." Chinese Communists murdered them simply for being intellectuals, or, "anti-revolutionaries." Many more were imprisoned and tortured. Red China also aided the Pol Pot regime that was reponsible for killing approximately 2 million Cambodians.

The Chinese regime is as vile and psychotic now as it was 40 years ago. If there was any justice in this pathetic world the 2008 olympic games would be boycotted.

[Defeated Romanticist]

The Communist Chinese government has been, and is, a murderous one.
The Communist Chinese slaughtered millions during the Chinese
Revolution. After coming to power they murdered thousands of
landowners after mock trials. Subsequently, Communist China
invaded Tibet and murdered a million Tibetans.

Communist China aided the North Koreans in their invasion of South Korea. When North Korea was on the verge of defeat, . Over two million people died during the war. North Korea would have collapsed long ago without Communist China's assistance. Perhaps a million North
Koreans have died from starvation over the last 15 years while North
Korea continues to build a nuclear weapons program, with the
assistance of Communist China.

During the "Great Leap Forward" 30-40 million, perhaps more,
Chinese were starved to death. It is my understanding that millions died during the "Cultural Revolution." Chinese Communists murdered them simply for being intellectuals, or, "anti-revolutionaries." Many more were imprisoned and tortured. Red China also aided the Pol Pot regime that was reponsible for killing approximately 2 million Cambodians.

The Chinese regime is as vile and psychotic now as it was 40 years ago. If there was any justice in this pathetic world the 2008 olympic games would be boycotted.

Thats the most rediculous thing i've ever heard. I mean god...where are we supposed to get our cheap plastic crap from?

[A_man_about_a_dog]

St Disibod, on the climate chnage point, can you really say that China is engaging "meaningfully"? The country is still building and opening coal-burning power stations at a rate of 3 a week. It is all well and good to 'engage' in some discussions and brain storming but actual application of these is another matter completely. I dont know if anyone has seen the satelite image of the huge cloud of pollution-induced smog which permenantly hangs over China and moves out over the ocean towards Japan and on towards the Pacific? I saw it on a website not too long ago but I cant remember which one and dont seem to be able find it through google so my apologies for not posting a link. That photo really shocked me. It made me realise that China was in a really bad way with regards to the amount of pollution it produces.

On teh Olympic point, I do not think that the 2008 Olympics should be boycotted but I feel that perhaps some conditions should have been put on the Chinese government when the games were awarded to Bejing. The IOC should have gotten together with UN and said, 'right, what aspects of Chinese policy are the rest of the world unhappy with?'. Top of the agenda should have been human rights and climate change. I am sure that some stipulations were put on but from stories I've heard and read, I believe the Chinese are doing there utmost to ensure that Bejing and the surrounding area meets all the criteria but that problems have increased in areas to the far North and all along the western and southern frontiers. Hopefully the massive cash boost which the Chinese coffers will recieve from the games will be used to rectify the situations which are arising in these areas.

[Kf]

Interesting local test in september in that the proposal to twin Dublin with Beijing will be tabled. It seems that FF and FG will vote in favour and SF and Lab (except Mary Freehill one of the sponsors of the proposal) against. It will be tight.

[St Disibod]

China may be cleaning up its act for the camera next year but that doesn't mean that it is going to become a beaken of light in a bleak world for human rights. I expect it to return to type by 2010.

Don’t get me wrong, internally China has many problems. Some are simply of humanitarian concern, though of a most acute manner, while others affect our economic interests- such as the use of slave labour to undercut normal prices. The heat should be kept on China on these issues.

But their foreign policy has come quite a distance in recent years. While they are becoming more and more extrovert they appear to be sticking rigidly to the rules of international law. We have the odd spat over bra shipments and such, but the Chinese seem to be much easier opponents to settle trade disputes with than the Yanks. Their dollar reserve is an ever-growing problem, but it takes two to tango to that tune. It’s a serious problem for Europe, but it is of Chinese and US making and only they can resolve it. KAL’s latest cartoon is apt:



But it seems to me that, limiting our scope to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, China is one of the easiest trade partners to do business with and one of the fairest players in international affairs. If they want to shoot down their own satellites, good luck to them. Internally though, it remains a deeply shadowy country, and that should concern us.

The Communist Chinese government has been, and is, a murderous one...

Okay, but this thread is about the direction of China. Are they improving (I believe they are) or are they the same old China of Mao and the rest, but with more money to spend?

St Disibod, on the climate chnage point, can you really say that China is engaging "meaningfully"?

I think so, yes. They are sticking to the letter of the law on it- which for them means they can pretty much do what they like. But they have expressed a willingness, an eagerness even, to tighten those rules. And there’s the rub. Most people will accept that addressing climate change means cash transfers to the developing world (including China). How can the countries who did the damage tell other countries that they are not allowed pursue the same route to economic success, but must pursue more winding and lengthy routes instead? Those who did the damage will have to pay compensation to those who are otherwise going to do further damage so that they can instead reform without the pain implicit in those reforms- or at least to dampen the pain.

China knows this- and wants to talk about it. The US keeps fudging the issue, and talks about taking the whole issue outside of the UN into a room where the top 20 polluters would meet and set the rules- a bit like getting car manufacturers to set emission standards, no? China is being much more reasonable about this, albeit because they know they stand to gain from it relative to the US (a.k.a. the historic chief polluter). They are at least pointing towards the solution.

It is a distraction to see China as part of the problem in relation to climate change- they’ll only change their behaviour when the rules force them to but it is they who are advocating such a change in the rules. Put it this way, if a property developer utilises tax loopholes but constantly highlights that such loopholes are not sustainable and should be changed, it is not his fault that the loopholes exist and he is not wrong to utilise them. If the government then criticises the developer, and calls him a hypocrite because he is utilising the very thing he opposes, that is just distraction. It is the rules, not the behaviour, that are the problem. China is willing to engage, it is others who are throwing spanners into the works and they are seeking to blame China for the hold up.

Hopefully the massive cash boost which the Chinese coffers will recieve from the games will be used to rectify the situations which are arising in these areas.

Hopefully, but you can’t take that cash boost for granted. When people think of the Olympic Games they think of the sort of boost Barcelona enjoyed. That ignores the fact that Barcelona is the exception rather than the rule.

Atlanta’s Olympic legacy is very hard to spot with only eleven years gone passed. They are credited with helping to renovate the city centre and reduce street crime, but that is about it. The Sydney Olympics stripped other Australian cities of tourists and the tourist flow dipped as soon as they were over. Sydney has been paying $34 million annually to maintain underused facilities since. Barcelona itself suffers from underused facilities, but it managed to boost its tourism sufficiently to more than make up for it: it became the third most visited city in Europe after London and Paris after the Games. It is the long-term that has to be factored into the cost to know if one is getting any financial dividend out of it. Montreal is still paying the debt on the games it hosted in 1976! China seems to be investing in the Olympics as a matter of national prestige- and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m doubtful if they’ll ever turn a profit on it, that’s not where the attention lies. In Barcelona, renovation was the all-pervading theme. That is not the case for Beijing. They just want the world to say ‘wow’.