Censoring Google
So Google is to leave China. But make no mistake. It is not pulling out. Instead it is being kicked out for not adhering to China’s rules on censorship. While the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Roman’s do,” may be applicable in this case. One can’t help but ask, why Rome, or in this case, Beijing does what it does. And for that matter, why Google made the decisions it did.
First, Beijing. China has always had its share of vague but very enforceable rules and regulations. Anyone familiar with the term “state secrets” knows people can get in big trouble for sharing them even though what they are has not been specifically defined. However, the hottest vague term nobody can define but everybody must adhere to is keeping “harmful” material out of society. What this means is that media of any type, be it music, movies, TV shows, advertisements, internet sites and so on can never be too violent, or too sexual because these things are deemed detrimental to a harmonious society. So what is too sexy or too violent? Well, just as a child looks for guidance as to what is good for them or not by their parents, we get similar guidance by the government who claims to know exactly what information is good and bad for us. Those that are good, we see every day, those that are bad never see the light of day.
This goes in the face of those who say it is Google who is politicizing this issue. Government censorship is, in itself, a political decision that can affect businesses involved with the media as it has with Google. By making decisions to censor the internet, a decision that it has previously denied, then rationalized, and finally defending, it is China, not Google that has politicized what we see online.
And here is where Google comes in. After a few years of blocking harmful information and profiting from doing business China’s way, it took one incident for Google to have a wakeup call. The incident of course was the hacking of human rights activist’s email accounts. The human rights part is important here because often, these people speak out against the politicizing of the internet by China. This, of course, does not make the government happy. Although after investigation it was found the hackers were not connected to the government, the fact that the targets of the attack all had something in common must have been too much for Google to keep on going as it had been. Google demanded that they stop censoring their content and Beijing said no. Saying that Google was in China so they must adhere to China’s way and that Google was being unfriendly, irresponsible and that Google would have to bear the consequences if it decided to unblock its searches. Anyways, China says, other countries censor, why can’t we?
China’s rationale that, “If other countries do it, why can’t they?” is the most important thing to pay attention to here. This is unique because when other conflicts arose in the past such as Tibet or Taiwan, we would only hear from China that these issues are “core interests” of China and that the West should stop meddling in China’s domestic affairs. On censorship, it is much different. Can you imagine hearing, “Censorship of the internet is one of China’s core beliefs.” or, “Censorship on the internet is an internal matter, butt out. “ being announced by a government spokesperson? This would never happen because it would force China to further defend censorship in the country. Something it has officially denied on numerous occasions. Google is not afraid to publicly defend what it believes in openly at the risk of losing profits in the China market. Why can’t those responsible for censorship be proud and stand up openly for what it believes in just as openly?
As Google prepares to leave China the media bias against Google will surely increase. After all, the same people who decide to censor the internet are friends with those that control the information we see every day in the news. They will flood the papers with anti-Google articles. But we know better. The truth is, after being attacked by hackers targeting human rights activists, Google’s eyes were opened. Google saw that China’s politicization of the internet through monitoring and censorship went against its core beliefs. Google forced censors, who previously could block information without accountability, to talk openly about what they do. They are not happy about this but now they have no choice. Now, it is time for censors to come out of the shadows, stop using vague terms, and learn from Google about being accountable and openly standing up for what it believes in.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Obama-Lama Rama!
When US President Barack Obama met with the Dalai Lama last week, I was expecting a backlash similar to the anti-French protests during the Olympic torch relay in 2008. I was expecting a call to boycott US goods, US businesses being vandalized and US made products such as cars destroyed. While I’m thankful I didn’t have to hide in my panic room and that cooler heads prevailed, the fact remains that US-China relations were still damaged by the meeting.
There are those in China who are very upset about the meeting and do not understand why President Obama would even think about meeting the Dalai Lama. To many Chinese, the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual leader as the U.S State Department describes him, but a terrorist, whose only goal is to make the Tibet Autonomous Region truly live up to its name. This is what Chinese have learned for decades in school and in society. He is the source of any trouble, unhappiness, and chaos that happens in the region.
It is hard for one to argue that this view is anything but dogma within China. This mentality is not unique to China however. The US obviously has its public enemy #1 not in the Dalai Lama, but in Osama Bin Laden. The difference however is while Bin Laden is a common enemy to most of the global community, including China. The Dalai Lama is anything but an enemy to most of the world. This is not to say that China is wrong in its views. On the contrary. Just because the majority of people believe something does not necessarily make them right. However, the fact that they do not see the Dalai Lama as China does, can least begin to allow us to see why other countries meet with the Dalai Lama despite his status within China.
One thing any rational person can agree on, no matter what their views or where they are from, is that there are always two sides to a story. However, in China, everything a typical Chinese person knows about the Dalai Lama comes from one official source. One side of the coin. In America, it is almost the same. Everything a typical American knows about Bin Laden is most likely coming not only from blatant examples such as terrorist attacks, but reinforced by the official dogma found in society.
Often however, these views are over simplistic. Rarely are conflicts as simple as, “We are good, they are bad.” Both sides have motives and goals. In the US, there is very little desire from the general public find out more information to better understand the terrorist’s side. In fact, incentives to not learn more about the other side far outweighs the benefits of learning more about it. Not only is it uncomfortable in the US to borrow a book or search online for more information on terrorism, but there is also an additional fear to be visited by the feds about why you are looking at such materials in the first place.
In China, it is almost the same. But in addition to the discomfort and the fear of being questioned, the biggest difference is censored information. You will never find a book of the Dalai Lama’s views in his own words in a Chinese library. Online is no better. The result of this for the everyday person living in China is a lack of perspective and understanding about the Dalai Lama issue. Here, there is only the one side and the Dalai Lama’s side told through the eyes of those against him. All on one side of the coin.
Again, this is not to say, the popular, official view is wrong. But the fact remains, those living abroad can see both the Chinese and Dalai Lama’s views straight from the camel’s (or Lama’s) mouth. And that is, what I believe the Obama-Dalai Lama meeting comes down to. Perspective.
When there is a dispute, a mediator won’t ask one side what happened, and then ask the same side what the other person’s view is. Instead, the mediator will learn from both people and then come to his own conclusion about the situation. This is what Obama is doing by going forward with the meeting. He knows the Chinese perspective, but also wants to hear the other side, not from China but from the mouths of those actually on the other side. And why not? It is only through knowledge, not ignorance that we can best deal with the problems we face.
There are those in China who are very upset about the meeting and do not understand why President Obama would even think about meeting the Dalai Lama. To many Chinese, the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual leader as the U.S State Department describes him, but a terrorist, whose only goal is to make the Tibet Autonomous Region truly live up to its name. This is what Chinese have learned for decades in school and in society. He is the source of any trouble, unhappiness, and chaos that happens in the region.
It is hard for one to argue that this view is anything but dogma within China. This mentality is not unique to China however. The US obviously has its public enemy #1 not in the Dalai Lama, but in Osama Bin Laden. The difference however is while Bin Laden is a common enemy to most of the global community, including China. The Dalai Lama is anything but an enemy to most of the world. This is not to say that China is wrong in its views. On the contrary. Just because the majority of people believe something does not necessarily make them right. However, the fact that they do not see the Dalai Lama as China does, can least begin to allow us to see why other countries meet with the Dalai Lama despite his status within China.
One thing any rational person can agree on, no matter what their views or where they are from, is that there are always two sides to a story. However, in China, everything a typical Chinese person knows about the Dalai Lama comes from one official source. One side of the coin. In America, it is almost the same. Everything a typical American knows about Bin Laden is most likely coming not only from blatant examples such as terrorist attacks, but reinforced by the official dogma found in society.
Often however, these views are over simplistic. Rarely are conflicts as simple as, “We are good, they are bad.” Both sides have motives and goals. In the US, there is very little desire from the general public find out more information to better understand the terrorist’s side. In fact, incentives to not learn more about the other side far outweighs the benefits of learning more about it. Not only is it uncomfortable in the US to borrow a book or search online for more information on terrorism, but there is also an additional fear to be visited by the feds about why you are looking at such materials in the first place.
In China, it is almost the same. But in addition to the discomfort and the fear of being questioned, the biggest difference is censored information. You will never find a book of the Dalai Lama’s views in his own words in a Chinese library. Online is no better. The result of this for the everyday person living in China is a lack of perspective and understanding about the Dalai Lama issue. Here, there is only the one side and the Dalai Lama’s side told through the eyes of those against him. All on one side of the coin.
Again, this is not to say, the popular, official view is wrong. But the fact remains, those living abroad can see both the Chinese and Dalai Lama’s views straight from the camel’s (or Lama’s) mouth. And that is, what I believe the Obama-Dalai Lama meeting comes down to. Perspective.
When there is a dispute, a mediator won’t ask one side what happened, and then ask the same side what the other person’s view is. Instead, the mediator will learn from both people and then come to his own conclusion about the situation. This is what Obama is doing by going forward with the meeting. He knows the Chinese perspective, but also wants to hear the other side, not from China but from the mouths of those actually on the other side. And why not? It is only through knowledge, not ignorance that we can best deal with the problems we face.
The Western Media Myth
A lot of major news events have happened in China over the last couple of years. Some are good and some...not so good. However, when news agencies from abroad report on the stories, they are often looked upon by many Chinese as biased and/or anti-Chinese labeling them as “Western”. But a closer look shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
One of the first mistakes that some Chinese make when criticizing a story is labeling the story as “Western.” In reality however, the story could be labeled as such so long as it is not from a Chinese source. Japanese, Korean, or Indian stories that displease some Chinese readers are immediately called “Western” when anybody who took 4th grade geography knows that they are not. So where does this label come from, and why are so many using it so freely?
One possibility could be China’s history. In schools, many Chinese learn that they have often been the victim and never the aggressor and that, far too often, the aggressor has been from the West. The lessons of the Opium War, French-Sino war, and the Unequal Treaties, China was forced to sign are just of the few humiliations the Imperial West brought upon China in the past. For some, despite all the prosperity that has come to China by and the West by cooperating, they believe Western countries still look to humiliate China today, no longer by treaties or the barrel of a gun, but by making it lose face in the media.
What many of these people don’t understand is that reporting something bad isn’t biased, but reality. The motive of a good reporter is to report the story as they see it, not to make China or any other person or place lose or gain face. Readers all over the world love to read happy things that make themselves feel good. But that isn’t reality. Sometimes bad things happen. Why should reporters, (Chinese and foreign alike) not report the story as they see it? When foreign reporters are “escorted” and or barred from an area where news happens, how much accuracy does those critical of non-Chinese reports expect? To its credit, more media freedom has been granted to journalists in China, but we have yet to see if they are effective at giving reporters access to areas news is happening in. This was not the case during the Xinjiang riots and it, no doubt, affected the accuracy of some news reports.
While they may still be living in the past, and be too extreme in their accusations, critics of non-Chinese news are right to be suspicious and question the news they watch and read. They are right to think about the motives of a story and question its legitimacy and whether it’s biased or not.
It amazes me, however, how these same people can completely avoid doing the same when it comes to the Chinese news they watch and read every day. Is it so unbelievable to think that Chinese news agencies might be just as flawed as those outside the country? Is it not possible that Chinese news agencies have motives and sometimes write stories that are slanted or false just as some Chinese claim foreign news agencies do?
There is no “West” in news. There are simply journalists from all over the world trying to report on a story. The companies and/or countries they report for may be biased but a smart reader never reads the news without questioning it anyways. If you are interested in a topic, you should read about it from many sources, no matter what country it comes from and then come to your own conclusions. Do not discredit an article because it is from a place outside your country. There are some truths even in the most offensive articles. Only by keeping an open mind will you truly get the whole story and in the end, you will be better informed and better off for it.
One of the first mistakes that some Chinese make when criticizing a story is labeling the story as “Western.” In reality however, the story could be labeled as such so long as it is not from a Chinese source. Japanese, Korean, or Indian stories that displease some Chinese readers are immediately called “Western” when anybody who took 4th grade geography knows that they are not. So where does this label come from, and why are so many using it so freely?
One possibility could be China’s history. In schools, many Chinese learn that they have often been the victim and never the aggressor and that, far too often, the aggressor has been from the West. The lessons of the Opium War, French-Sino war, and the Unequal Treaties, China was forced to sign are just of the few humiliations the Imperial West brought upon China in the past. For some, despite all the prosperity that has come to China by and the West by cooperating, they believe Western countries still look to humiliate China today, no longer by treaties or the barrel of a gun, but by making it lose face in the media.
What many of these people don’t understand is that reporting something bad isn’t biased, but reality. The motive of a good reporter is to report the story as they see it, not to make China or any other person or place lose or gain face. Readers all over the world love to read happy things that make themselves feel good. But that isn’t reality. Sometimes bad things happen. Why should reporters, (Chinese and foreign alike) not report the story as they see it? When foreign reporters are “escorted” and or barred from an area where news happens, how much accuracy does those critical of non-Chinese reports expect? To its credit, more media freedom has been granted to journalists in China, but we have yet to see if they are effective at giving reporters access to areas news is happening in. This was not the case during the Xinjiang riots and it, no doubt, affected the accuracy of some news reports.
While they may still be living in the past, and be too extreme in their accusations, critics of non-Chinese news are right to be suspicious and question the news they watch and read. They are right to think about the motives of a story and question its legitimacy and whether it’s biased or not.
It amazes me, however, how these same people can completely avoid doing the same when it comes to the Chinese news they watch and read every day. Is it so unbelievable to think that Chinese news agencies might be just as flawed as those outside the country? Is it not possible that Chinese news agencies have motives and sometimes write stories that are slanted or false just as some Chinese claim foreign news agencies do?
There is no “West” in news. There are simply journalists from all over the world trying to report on a story. The companies and/or countries they report for may be biased but a smart reader never reads the news without questioning it anyways. If you are interested in a topic, you should read about it from many sources, no matter what country it comes from and then come to your own conclusions. Do not discredit an article because it is from a place outside your country. There are some truths even in the most offensive articles. Only by keeping an open mind will you truly get the whole story and in the end, you will be better informed and better off for it.
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Writers are Coming
This past Saturday, about 20 members of the Independent Chinese PEN Society were stopped by the government from attending a year end dinner. Tactics included detention in hotel rooms and warnings by the police not to go. The article can be found here. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071222/lf_afp/chinamediarightsoly2008chn_071222185514
Those who did make it to the dinner were elated when they heard the news that some of their fellow writers were prevented to attend. "We, Chinese writers have had a tough time gaining international recognition," said one writer who chose to remain anonymous. "Now that the government is doing this, people who read about this news story abroad will finally know who we are!" He went on to say how his dream was to one day be detained so that people around the world would know who he is too.
Another writer said that the government was actually supporting writers by by keeping members from attending. "As you can see, the arts in China are flourishing and us writers (are) gaining international recognition because of what the government is doing," she said. "As a writer, being stopped by police is a golden ticket to getting your name out there."
She appears to be right. Because of their detentions and arrests Chinese writers are now more popular than ever. Modern Chinese novels are flying off the shelves from New York to Tokyo. The Chinese movie and television industry are popular worldwide, all of which, it seems, would have been impossible without the suppression of free thought of the writers who make them.
A Long time author who is still looking for recognition said, "Who hasn't heard of that guy who was arrested for writing a blog? Some guys have all the luck!"
Those who did make it to the dinner were elated when they heard the news that some of their fellow writers were prevented to attend. "We, Chinese writers have had a tough time gaining international recognition," said one writer who chose to remain anonymous. "Now that the government is doing this, people who read about this news story abroad will finally know who we are!" He went on to say how his dream was to one day be detained so that people around the world would know who he is too.
Another writer said that the government was actually supporting writers by by keeping members from attending. "As you can see, the arts in China are flourishing and us writers (are) gaining international recognition because of what the government is doing," she said. "As a writer, being stopped by police is a golden ticket to getting your name out there."
She appears to be right. Because of their detentions and arrests Chinese writers are now more popular than ever. Modern Chinese novels are flying off the shelves from New York to Tokyo. The Chinese movie and television industry are popular worldwide, all of which, it seems, would have been impossible without the suppression of free thought of the writers who make them.
A Long time author who is still looking for recognition said, "Who hasn't heard of that guy who was arrested for writing a blog? Some guys have all the luck!"
Monday, September 24, 2007
Japan is Dangerous!
So, I was on Japanprobe.com just now when I saw a posting about a survey taken asking Japan, South Korea, and China what countries or regions they consider the biggest military threat.
here are the results.
Japan:
North Korea (73.6%); 2. China (46.1%); 3. Russia (24.3%)
China:
1. Japan (78.2%); 2. U.S. (75.2%); 3. Taiwan (36.6%)
South Korea:
1. North Korea (71.0%); 2. China (46.6%); 3. Japan (37.5%)
These numbers actually are linked from another blog called GlobalTalk 21. Anyways, there are a couple interesting things about this poll. Most of it stemming from China being the odd man out.
Both Japan and Korea picked North Korea with almost the same percentage as the number 1 military threat to their country with both countries around 70%. They next chose China again with an equal 46%. It is only on the third choice that Japan picks Russia and Korea choosing Japan.
China has very different countries on its list. The first is Japan with a whopping 78% followed by the USA with 75% and Taiwan rounds out the top 3 with 37%.
Now this is supposed to be a semi China focused blog, so Ill comment about China's numbers. Again, anybody who knows China probably knew that Japan would be #1 on the list. 60 years ago, they did some pretty terrible things while they occupied China. However, the Japanese did very similar things in Korea during the war. But it is China who sees Japan as a much bigger threat. About 40% more than Koreans do today. That has to beg the question of why? Why such a huge contrast?
The best answer I can come up with is an education system who deliberately teaches Japan as still a very real enemy. The second is the efficiency of the Communist propaganda machine which influences every type of media and ways of communication reminding people of the enemy of Japan whose people are immoral, and would like nothing better than to invade China again. (Just about any time of the day in China you can turn on the TV and see a war drama between Japan and the heroic Chinese.) Of course this threat couldn't be further from the truth. 60 years later, it is simply a distraction to make a kind of "rally round the flag" mentality keeping people looking suspiciously outward so they don't begin doing the same thing inward. And after 60 years of this, it appears to be working very well.
I was also surprised to see the USA as China's #2. Not only that but only a few percentage points away from Japan! But now that I think about it, Americans would definitely have China in the top 3 if asked the same question. Still, it would be interesting to find out why America, who's RECENT history in China has been much more friendly compared to Japan's is only 3 points away from Japan. Okay, I know America's rep in the world, but I never thought it would be that bad in China.
Last of all is Taiwan coming in at 3rd. Are Chinese really threatened by a small island off their coast? Also, they consider Taiwan as part of China, so would that be a civil war? Maybe this is the real reason USA is #2. Without its support of Taiwan, the list, at least for China would be much different because there would be no independent Taiwan.
here are the results.
Japan:
North Korea (73.6%); 2. China (46.1%); 3. Russia (24.3%)
China:
1. Japan (78.2%); 2. U.S. (75.2%); 3. Taiwan (36.6%)
South Korea:
1. North Korea (71.0%); 2. China (46.6%); 3. Japan (37.5%)
These numbers actually are linked from another blog called GlobalTalk 21. Anyways, there are a couple interesting things about this poll. Most of it stemming from China being the odd man out.
Both Japan and Korea picked North Korea with almost the same percentage as the number 1 military threat to their country with both countries around 70%. They next chose China again with an equal 46%. It is only on the third choice that Japan picks Russia and Korea choosing Japan.
China has very different countries on its list. The first is Japan with a whopping 78% followed by the USA with 75% and Taiwan rounds out the top 3 with 37%.
Now this is supposed to be a semi China focused blog, so Ill comment about China's numbers. Again, anybody who knows China probably knew that Japan would be #1 on the list. 60 years ago, they did some pretty terrible things while they occupied China. However, the Japanese did very similar things in Korea during the war. But it is China who sees Japan as a much bigger threat. About 40% more than Koreans do today. That has to beg the question of why? Why such a huge contrast?
The best answer I can come up with is an education system who deliberately teaches Japan as still a very real enemy. The second is the efficiency of the Communist propaganda machine which influences every type of media and ways of communication reminding people of the enemy of Japan whose people are immoral, and would like nothing better than to invade China again. (Just about any time of the day in China you can turn on the TV and see a war drama between Japan and the heroic Chinese.) Of course this threat couldn't be further from the truth. 60 years later, it is simply a distraction to make a kind of "rally round the flag" mentality keeping people looking suspiciously outward so they don't begin doing the same thing inward. And after 60 years of this, it appears to be working very well.
I was also surprised to see the USA as China's #2. Not only that but only a few percentage points away from Japan! But now that I think about it, Americans would definitely have China in the top 3 if asked the same question. Still, it would be interesting to find out why America, who's RECENT history in China has been much more friendly compared to Japan's is only 3 points away from Japan. Okay, I know America's rep in the world, but I never thought it would be that bad in China.
Last of all is Taiwan coming in at 3rd. Are Chinese really threatened by a small island off their coast? Also, they consider Taiwan as part of China, so would that be a civil war? Maybe this is the real reason USA is #2. Without its support of Taiwan, the list, at least for China would be much different because there would be no independent Taiwan.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Taiwan's Entry into the UN opposed by Ch...THE USA?!!
It seems like today was a good day to protest and/or march...at least if you're in Taiwan and the USA. Anyways, I was checking the news today when I saw video of what was said to be 100,000 people marching the streets of Taipei in support of Taiwan's latest efforts to join the UN. Before, Taiwan has tried this, and naturally, every time they have China gets angry and starts complaining. The UN not wanting to anger one of its Security Council members has rejected every previous Taiwan bid because Taiwan applies to the UN as its official name, "The Republic of China", and there can only be one "China" in the UN.
So this time,(#15) Taiwan is applying simply as "Taiwan" for membership. Again this begins to ruffle Chinese feathers (as it has and may always do) which alone would probably be enough to keep Taiwan out of the UN even with it's "new" name.
However, the thing that disturbs me the most of this story has nothing to do with the Taiwanese-Chinese rivalry. Instead it has to do with the United States shunning its democratic allies bid to join the UN.
John Negroponte, US Deputy Sec. of State made these recent comments about Taiwan's UN bid to Hong Kong based Phoenix TV. "We see that as a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo." He goes on to say "What I would like to emphasize is that we believe it's important to avoid any kind of provocative steps on the part of Taiwan."
When hearing this comment, i could have sworn the same thing could have been uttered by a Chinese official, vague terms and all. I mean what really is the status quo that he is talking about? Taiwan's President Chen is also confused saying in response,
"As a leader in the community of democracies, why can't the U.S. say no to China?," he asked. "Why can't the U.S. openly say that you can't hold a gun pointing at the head of the 23 million people of Taiwan and use the other hand to choke Taiwan" and then say Taiwan "can't cry out in pain?" He also mentions that poll numbers say 77% of Taiwanese support its membership in the UN.
Now I realize in politics, like in many situations, there are things you say, and things you actually do. The US says it has a "One China" policy but has done very little to actually prove it. Now that Taiwan is making its move, the US was forced to react. This time choosing to say it opposes Taiwan's membership bid. However, I still have little doubt that if China decides one day to attack Taiwan (which won't happen), the US would be there to defend it. The real issue however isn't the danger of war, but the danger of losing money should relations begin to turn sour. Both US and China know that without the other, it would cause a severe blow to economies and society in both countries. In this case keeping things hunky dory is much better than standing up for what your country is supposed to believe in. When it comes to Taiwan however, It seems like only the US is making this sacrifice. And yes I did just say hunky dory.
So this time,(#15) Taiwan is applying simply as "Taiwan" for membership. Again this begins to ruffle Chinese feathers (as it has and may always do) which alone would probably be enough to keep Taiwan out of the UN even with it's "new" name.
However, the thing that disturbs me the most of this story has nothing to do with the Taiwanese-Chinese rivalry. Instead it has to do with the United States shunning its democratic allies bid to join the UN.
John Negroponte, US Deputy Sec. of State made these recent comments about Taiwan's UN bid to Hong Kong based Phoenix TV. "We see that as a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo." He goes on to say "What I would like to emphasize is that we believe it's important to avoid any kind of provocative steps on the part of Taiwan."
When hearing this comment, i could have sworn the same thing could have been uttered by a Chinese official, vague terms and all. I mean what really is the status quo that he is talking about? Taiwan's President Chen is also confused saying in response,
"As a leader in the community of democracies, why can't the U.S. say no to China?," he asked. "Why can't the U.S. openly say that you can't hold a gun pointing at the head of the 23 million people of Taiwan and use the other hand to choke Taiwan" and then say Taiwan "can't cry out in pain?" He also mentions that poll numbers say 77% of Taiwanese support its membership in the UN.
Now I realize in politics, like in many situations, there are things you say, and things you actually do. The US says it has a "One China" policy but has done very little to actually prove it. Now that Taiwan is making its move, the US was forced to react. This time choosing to say it opposes Taiwan's membership bid. However, I still have little doubt that if China decides one day to attack Taiwan (which won't happen), the US would be there to defend it. The real issue however isn't the danger of war, but the danger of losing money should relations begin to turn sour. Both US and China know that without the other, it would cause a severe blow to economies and society in both countries. In this case keeping things hunky dory is much better than standing up for what your country is supposed to believe in. When it comes to Taiwan however, It seems like only the US is making this sacrifice. And yes I did just say hunky dory.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Hi and thanks for reading.
This will probably be one of the the most disorganized and random blogs you have ever read. It will, I suppose, be mainly focused on my life in Beijing, China. However, there are times I imagine where Ill go way off the topic of China if I feel I have to say something about it. I was going to call this blog "Seeing Red" but since it was taken, I used "Hong" which is the Chinese word for red...or so they tell me. The "red" should be obvious to anybody who knows anything about China. Sometimes living here is good, and sometimes things really bother me so you can expect to be hearing me complain about one thing or the other but don't worry, It won't all be bitching.
Anyways, its getting late here, so Ill end this first post now. You can look forward to actual stories and comments at some point tomorrow. Until then...
Anyways, its getting late here, so Ill end this first post now. You can look forward to actual stories and comments at some point tomorrow. Until then...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)