17 March 2008
China Out of Control
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: World Affairs .
We are in an impossible situation with China. Without their imports, our economy would collapse. Because of that relationship, we are in a very weak position to protest too loudly over their crackdown in Tibet. It breaks my heart to watch what is happening over there. I am very proud of the athletes who are brave enough to speak up on behalf of Tibet. I am not proud of the statements by Thomas Bach, the VP of the Olympic Committee. His logic makes no sense to me. When we pander to China, they are empowered to continue their bullying tactics and arrogance.
German athletes mulling Beijing boycott over Tibet
Published: Monday, 17 March, 2008, 02:22 AM Doha Time
BERLIN: International Olympic Committee vice-president Thomas Bach said a number of top athletes were considering boycotting the games in China over the bloody crackdown on protesters in Tibet.
“Several sports stars are feeling ill at ease when they think about the Olympic Games. Some are even considering canceling,” Bach, of Germany, told yesterday’s edition of the Bild am Sonntag newspaper. Bach said he understood the athletes’ concerns about the situation in Tibet but said he was advising them to participate.
“They will realise when they assess the situation that it is better to make an appearance than to stay away. That is a symbol that will be noticed by the public,” he said.
What kind of a symbol is it and what good does it do?
Asked if human rights had been a concern when Beijing was selected to host the August Games, Bach said the IOC believed the intense focus on China would have a positive effect.
“We are of the opinion that the Games will help China open up. But we cannot solve the problems that UN secretaries general have not been able to solve for generations,” he said.
So why reward them for continuing their problems of abuses?
“The Olympic Games can foster change and be a catalyst for a solution but they are not a panacea.” Bach said the current debate over China reminded him of the discussions before the US-led boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan…
“I have considered whether I can compete in China under these conditions,” equestrian Ludger Beerbaum said. “We will surely discuss the issue amongst ourselves here at the tournament in Dortmund (running until Sunday).” Javelin thrower Christian Obergfoell said the Games were her first priority but that her impression of China had worsened with the latest developments. “I had been asking myself the whole time why they gave the Olympic Games to China,” she said.
30 Comments so far...
SGS Says:
17 March 2008 at 9:30 am.
China should never have won the Olympics bid in the first place. They have been busy ever since trying to make their appearance looking good, especially on the face of human rights. Yeah, they have been busy arresting a lot of people! And our US Department of State has been doing absoultely nothing about it, even to the point of ignoring completely (no generic letter or such) the various organizations within US asking them to look into such and such. This for me is the sign that there lacks the respect our own government has for the basic human rights. This, among other fews (like the Dept of Justice’s stance on gun rights in DC), is why I am extremely upset with the Bush Administration. The other thing, too, is that Bush has been very quiet about the struggle between the Legislatives and his administration, making those liberal Legislative leaders look like they are winning. Grr!!!
Mac Says:
17 March 2008 at 9:57 am.
Don’t forget, this all began with the Clinton Administration. The Clintons helped China get a hold of our top secret military information.
Angela Rogin Says:
17 March 2008 at 10:19 am.
Good parents know that when you reward a child who shows a pattern of acting bad, then they learn to have a sense of entitlement and become entrenched in their behavior. They feel no need to change because they can get want they want without changing. China is exactly the same. They are spoiled and they don’t respect us for licking their boots. They should never have been given the Olympics.
Cameron Says:
17 March 2008 at 10:44 am.
Why is it okay for China to be our buddy and get all kinds of concessions but not Cuba? What’s the difference? How does it look to be so inconsistent? Human rights don’t mean a thing over there.
China Blocks YouTube Over Tibet Videos
Mar 16, 10:08 AM (ET)
BEIJING (AP) - Internet users in China were blocked from seeing YouTube.com on Sunday after dozens of videos about protests in Tibet appeared on the popular U.S. video Web site.
The blocking added to the communist government’s efforts to control what the public saw and heard about protests that erupted Friday in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, against Chinese rule.
Access to YouTube.com, usually readily available in China, was blocked after videos appeared on the site Saturday showing foreign news reports about the Lhasa demonstrations, montages of photos and scenes from Tibet-related protests abroad.
E.E. Says:
17 March 2008 at 10:50 am.
Mac, you are right about Clinton starting this but the Bush administration didn’t need to keep it going.
Cameron, I have always wondered the same thing. How come China and not Cuba? I don’t think we should have supported Cuba, don’t get me wrong, but why the double standard?
E.E. Says:
17 March 2008 at 10:54 am.
The media is not making a big deal about this because we absolutely do pander to China:
Hundreds dead in Tibet unrest: parliament-in-exile
Hundreds of Tibetans have died in unrest in Lhasa and elsewhere in the Chinese-ruled Himalayan region, the India-based Tibetan parliament-in-exile said in a statement Monday.
“The massive demonstrations that started from March 10 in the capital city of Lhasa and other regions of Tibet, resulting (in the) death of hundreds of Tibetans, and subsequent use of force… needs to be brought to the attention of the United Nations and the international community,” the statement said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080317090321.tp9mvvpd&show_article=1
Mac Says:
17 March 2008 at 11:05 am.
Isn’t China just protecting part of its territory from breaking away?
Benjamin Says:
17 March 2008 at 11:22 am.
I just read the history in Wikipedia. It wasn’t until the twentieth that China started to seriously claim Tibet and all through the century things have been volatile. Our CIA helped Tibet gain some freedom in the 50s. The problem now is that China is trying to wipe out Tibetan culture and language.
T. Fan Says:
17 March 2008 at 12:06 pm.
Right Benjamin. History shows that China has no claim on Tibet. They have been moving a lot of Chinese into Tibet to try and lay claim. It reminds me of the Albanians moving into Kosovo and then taking it away from the Serbs. When we don’t call aggression what it is, we are sending a signal to keep doing it.
Hank Says:
17 March 2008 at 1:30 pm.
China is very good at assimilating people. I would bet that if there no interference, there won’t really be a Tibet in a few more decades. That’s too bad because it is a very interesting place with a lot of history.
Stumpy Says:
17 March 2008 at 1:44 pm.
Hank ole pal, good luck with yer betting problem. Its hard I know. I use ta have it myself. Tibet or not Tibet - that is the question.
E.E. Says:
17 March 2008 at 1:53 pm.
OUCH!
Stumpy Says:
17 March 2008 at 2:02 pm.
phlllluuuuuu
Jesse Says:
17 March 2008 at 2:20 pm.
hehe, E.E. I think you got raspberried.
E.E. Says:
17 March 2008 at 2:26 pm.
Yeah, I caught that.
Cavetrollhead Says:
17 March 2008 at 2:50 pm.
I really seems like the trade relationship is allowing china to be bold. They have economic leverage now that they didn’t before. That is my understanding of the situtation.
That is why I like the idea that Mitt Romney puts forth about out-competing the Chinese Tiger. But I don’t like how BAIN has had a lot of dealings the Chinese. I am kind of torn about that. I don’t like free trade and especially don’t like entering into treaties on trade. We shouldn’t enter into treaties unless absolutely necessary. BTW- who knows the status on the Law of the Sea Treaty (if I am naming it right)
Cavetrollhead Says:
17 March 2008 at 2:50 pm.
(oh I guess he called it the Asian Tiger)
Joy Bischoff Says:
17 March 2008 at 4:17 pm.
Cave, couldn’t agree with you more. Here is part of an article about the Sea Treaty from a month ago:
Congress Should Ignore Budget Requests Relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty
by Steven Groves
The U.S. Senate has not ratified, and therefore the United States is not a party to, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, commonly known as the “Law of the Sea Treaty,” or LOST. The Bush Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, however, requests nearly $5 million to fund the LOST organization as well as the international tribunal established by the treaty. The Administration’s request is both fiscally irresponsible and opposed to U.S. national interest. If it is not withdrawn, Congress should reject the Administration’s proposal and any other request to provide funding for international organizations of which the United States is not a member.
A Flawed Treaty
LOST is a controversial treaty that awards effective control of 70 percent of the Earth’s surface to an international treaty organization. The treaty purports to establish a comprehensive legal regime for management of the oceans and its mineral resources by an international organization known as the International Seabed Authority (Seabed Authority). LOST, among other things, creates yet another unaccountable and opaque international organization, sets a precedent for international taxation of U.S. companies, provides an avenue for international environmental regulation, and threatens U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the United States and U.S. companies to mandatory dispute resolution in international fora that have traditionally been stacked against U.S. interests.[1]
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan identified serious flaws in LOST and rejected the treaty on multiple grounds.[2] An effort to “fix” LOST during the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton resulted only in a new agreement that failed to fully address Reagan’s concerns regarding the treaty.[3] Despite the problems with LOST and the failure of the subsequent agreement to address those problems, the Clinton Administration signed the treaty on July 29, 1994, and submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1804.cfm
Jesse Says:
17 March 2008 at 4:39 pm.
Pretty weird to be helping to fund a treaty we aren’t a part of.
M.G. Says:
17 March 2008 at 6:44 pm.
You know Cave makes an interesting point. Romney was the only candidate who talked about competing with China and India so we don’t end up like France. Everyone else talks about keeping these great relationships with them even though we are running a big trade deficit and losing jobs to them. Reality check, they want to beat us in an economic war. Thanks for the observation Cave.
Cavetrollhead Says:
17 March 2008 at 11:18 pm.
Thanks back, M.G. Are you sure that no one else did. I wonder if Paul addressed the Asian Tiger thing. (Of course he wouldn’t have called it that) I know there are some Paul fans here that may know. Jesse and others.
I feel very strongly that we should not let anyone have ANY leverage on us. Trade, or Treaty, or whatever. We could be so hobbled by that. We need to think long term and always put sovereignty ahead of short term gains of any kind. I mean come on- letting China have leverage on us?!!! China??!!! That is why I love this site. We seem to get the gravity of sovereignty.
Thanks Joy for the nice article. I didn’t read the whole thing yet - just the part you posted. But I will. The founding fathers were SO wise to foresee the potential snares from treaties, as was good old Ronald Reagan. (of course we religious fanatics know where their wisdom came from)
Joy Bischoff Says:
18 March 2008 at 12:19 am.
Yeah it’s like the old father line about how the older we get the smarter your father seems. That isn’t true for everyone by any means, but it sure fits with the founding fathers.
truetomyfaith Says:
18 March 2008 at 1:38 pm.
I am wondering why China got the games as well. It should have been else where. First, they have the worst Air condition in the entire world. Secondly, they are one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world and yet they get a free pass? I am sorry what it might do for our economy but we need to speak out and speak out strongly against what China is doing. They have no right at all to do what they are doing.
SGS Says:
18 March 2008 at 1:50 pm.
Cave, I did follow Paul for a while (though I have decided not to support him). I believe he recognized the Free Trade issues, and he pointed out often how we are at a huge disadvantage competiting with other FT country members. He also took many shots on the condition of our economy — specifically, the strength of our dollar, which is at all time low, the inflations and such. He did mention China in passing a few times, but he do not have Chinese policy like Romney. Then, we have a handful of 3rd tiers candidates (like Tancredo) who said something about competiting with China. But, that is it. None of other frontrunners from both parties have created a policy against China.
truetomyfaith Says:
18 March 2008 at 2:07 pm.
“We are of the opinion that the Games will help China open up. But we cannot solve the problems that UN secretaries general have not been able to solve for generations,” he said.
I agree with the statement above but only because the UN has failed and been a disgrace when it come to dealing with China. Lets remember China is the new center for Communism and athiesmn and has been since the fall of the soviet union 18 years ago.
I know we have too many problems in this world and that we can’t tackle every one. Yet we can use our resources wisely. Is there something more important then defeating communism? Yes its called defeating Jihadism. I understand there are some Ron Paul supporters here that believe we should not intervene in anything at all in the world. I must say I don’t believe that possible with all the technology we have including Planes and the world wide web. When you can move information that freely from one part of the world to another it is ridiculous to think “Well if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone.”
China is a disgrace with how they act, we are a greater disgrace with how we ignore them. I agree that treaties are a problem, yet you tell me with facts and websites where I can find those facts how those treaties are a problem and where we can fix it and I will be on board the “Away with unfair treaties” bandwagon. I need info. Help me find it from reliable sources.
truetomyfaith Says:
18 March 2008 at 2:17 pm.
I am not saying that I don’t know about unfair treaties. I know that we have screwed up Royaly on quite a few of them. I am just wanting some help in where exactly are those treaties wrong and how are we going to fix it.
I went on a rant with my comments. I hope every one understands. If you don’t please comment. I just had a lot on my mind.
SGS Says:
18 March 2008 at 2:24 pm.
TTMFaith, this is one of the reasons why I don’t like Paul. Yes, he has the right idea that US Federal Government should not be in the business of policing the world. But yes, he falsely thought that the government cannot be influenced by other nations, as we have gone global. There is too many interdependences between various organizations within the national governments throughout the world. It will be a long time to unweave them all.
E.E. Says:
18 March 2008 at 2:33 pm.
Great thoughts you guys. Cave said yesterday that the global economy was like ships moored together and if one goes down they all do. We really have created a mess. It’s like different people saying, hey you keep all the flour in your house and someone else keep all the eggs and I’ll keep the milk and so on. Then if a terrible storm comes, how do they put all that together to make something. Each country should have the stability of their own manufacturing base and farming etc. This global economy is dangerous for so many reasons but we are now seeing new dangers. It makes me so nervous that we get most of our food from China. I do not trust them at all. Our dog almost died from their dog food in addition to all the other problems. Small but it means something to us.
Cavetrollhead Says:
19 March 2008 at 1:39 am.
Well Said EE - that is what I was getting at. Each country needs to be self sufficient and independent -not because of chauvanism, but for security. Another analogy could be how they build compartments into the hulls of large ships so if the hull is breached, it can’t fill up with water.
Dogs are precious in my book. My daughter would weep for a week if our dog died an untimely death.
BTW, thanks for the response SGS
Cavetrollhead Says:
19 March 2008 at 1:47 am.
TTMFAith,
I haven’t had the chance to welcome you. Have you posted here for long? You ask a good question about sources for info on treaties.
My understanding on the Founding Fathers’ advice is that treaties are simply restrictive of US independence and tie our hands, so we shouldn’t enter in to them unless ABSOLUTELY necessary just a s general rule. I am sorry I can’t source that.
Joy posted for me a nice article on the Law of the Sea treaty. Look for it above.
I think The treaty subject could be one worth fleshing out with a blog of its own.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.