I am sure you are biologically closer to a monkey than a Chinese.

May you rest in shit.

I’ve lived in China for 6 years and I am sick to the back teeth of people of statements like these. Chinese people trot out these idiotic statements without any consideration whatsoever of what they mean. I would like you to tell me Aladdin exactly what mistakes the communist party has made and why you think they are acceptable. I would also like to know why you think a more transparent system of government would be detrimental to Chinese interests.

Indeed, the thought of China increasing its role in the international community makes me shudder. It does not give a damn about any other country but its own. To use a current example, I heard a report on cctv recently condemning Britain and other countries for tampering in the internal affairs of a number of African countries. Apparently they were peeved that we simply did not wish to throw away billions of dollars in aid. Instead we insisted on constitutional changes and electoral reform rather than pissing away our money to prop up corrupt dictatorships. Why would that be? Would it be because China has oil interests in the region and as a result has contributed millions of dollars propping up these regimes to enjoy access to their oil infrastructure?
And to think of all the self righteous rhetoric certain western countries had to endure after Iraq. At least we got rid of a dictator instead of embracing genocide.

People believe that China is a country on the move and perhaps they are right but God only knows how. They are backward bunch of arrogant xenophobes. They only explanation I have is sheer numbers. They lack innovation, common sense, diplomacy and a sense of history. The society is both culturally and morally bankrupt. They may talk about 5,000 years of culture but if you come to China you’ll have a hard time finding it. The’d tear down a 1000 year old temple arm off just to make a few yuan.

They also claim all invention as their own, despite the fact they haven;t contributed anything of significance in hundreds of years. I say let the dragon keep on sleeping because the only thing they are likely to to when they do fully wake up is bore everyone some more with tales of an old culture that no longer exists.

China is a vacuous and superficial shithole, a parody of what it may once have been.

Now don;t get me wrong. I want the poor in China to propser. I want them to afford medicines and food for their children. I do however have a problem with China becoming a major player, if not the major player, in world politics. It has neither the sensitivity, the ability, the diplomacy or the compassion to carry out the job effectively. I am a Brit and I say give me the yanks everytime. Call me niave but in my heart I believe that they are on the whole a force for good.

THESE COMMENTS ARE A RESPONSE TO A ANOTHER FOOLISH CHINESE MONKEY…

XXX your comments sound like the ramblings of a drugged horse. Why exactly do I have no authority to make comments about China? I lived there for 6 years. You on the other hand have most likely never left your village. I might add that your media is shamelessly skewed in favour of your government’s policies. From which position of authority are you speaking? In our countries we have an open and free media in which we can criticize our own leaders as well as others . Why don;t you go out into your local town square and start chanting slogans against the government. Let’s see where that gets you. As for China operating with the bounds of the law, perhaps, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. Most European countries and indeed most civilized countries have refused to deal with Mugabe and other such corrupt governments. Indeed we have imposed sanctions to try and effect change. Your government however is as we speak quietly negating the positive effect of these policies by plowing money into these countries to gain access to its oil infrastructure. It is therefore implicitly, if not explicitly, supporting genoicide, torture and murder. And I do have the right to describe China as a shithole. Indeed the right to express one’s opinion , however distateful it might be to you, is the very cornerstone of democracy. It makes me laugh when Chinese people say that other people have no right to talk about China, suscribing, at the behest of their government to a policy of cultural relativism which is at best an illusory concept and at worst great evil. Perhaps if Hitler had not invaded poland or indeed any other countires and just went about peacefully killing Jews within its own borders, we could have saved ourself the bother. The funny thing is you would probably think that is morally acceptable. It is also irritates me when you say foreigners can’t comment on China. Why the hell not? YOu guys trot out the same bloody platitudes. What makes your opinion better than mine? How can you claim to have an informed idea when you are fed and willingly gulp down the crap that cctv or the China daily feeds you. Take your head out the sand XXX. As for not talking again that would be great. You’re patently a person with very little to say.
Heard a great one today. According to cctv 1, all the people in Taiwan secretly want it to be a part of China. They are being held prisoner by a few rogue leaders. Funny, considering those rogue leaders were democratically elected.

THESE COMMENTS ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!

CHINESE ARE REALLY STUPID FUCKING MONKEY’S…

D

You first post here made some good points. I can’t say the same for your second post.

I’m going to quote a few parts and respond.

- “As I said, my interpretation of labelling Chinese protests as nationalism is that the protests do not have a moral ground. Therefore, the protests in China are also labelled as nationalism instead of patriotism (they were not waving foreign flags). Instead of distracting attention from the core issue, I’m trying to address the very core issue. That is, how to interpret Chinese protests.”

I can’t be certain what you are are trying to do. However, I can be certain that by rejecting the nationalist label you are obscuring the core issue. Why?

- “By the way, what you see as an “obvious truth” may be something different from other people’s perspective.”

No. When thousands of people gather to wave foreign flags and sloganeer about territorial integrity, what is happening is very obvious. Perspectives that deny the obvious are either dishonest or lack insight.

- “It seems you suggest that my views represent Chinese views. As I said, my views are based on Western scholars’ analysis. I tried to present a more balanced view. If you see that as a typical Chinese view, I must congratulate the Chinese. They are doing well. But yes, I am an ethnic Chinese although I’m no longer a Chinese national.”

I don’t really understand you. You say you are ethnic Chinese and imply you were once a Chinese national. Simultaneously you imply your views do not represent Chinese views, and instead represent “western scholars’ analysis” (presumably making them completely unbiased and something to be unquestioningly swallowed like a dose of medicine). Because I question some of your what you say I get accused of trying to suggest your views are ‘Chinese’. Can you step being cute? I’m not that thick.

- “I say “uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on)” because I wanted to be objective. The TGE calls it “uprising” while the Chinese government calls it “armed riots”.”

Needlessly splitting hairs doesn’t make one objective. Objectivity involves looking at what happened and labeling it appropriately.

- “You say “When armed clashes result in the political leader of a ’state’ fleeing abroad surely it is an ‘uprising’?” Not so simple.”

Actually, it is that simple.

- “Again, I believe the word “uprising” has its political connotations. An armed struggle against oppression is one. It’s a just cause.”

Just cause has nothing to do with it. An uprising can be just or unjust, well-intentioned or cynical, wise or misguided.

- “That is why some Western media attempted, unsuccessfully, to label the riots in Lhasa on 14 March as a Tibetan uprising.”

I’m not sure that the Western media were ‘unsuccessful’. While their reporting suffered problems and has been criticized, much of what they said was perfectly correct.

Organized and largely peaceful protests occurred in Lhasa and throughout Tibetan China in 2008. Riots occurred in Lhasa and elsewhere. There were scattered events that could be interpreted as consistent with an ‘uprising’ - i.e. burning of police stations, and so on. Details on much of what happened are sketchy because much of the action occurred in remote communities, Chinese media reported little, and western media were obstructed in their efforts to cover the story. However, events before and after the Lhasa riots show them to have had a highly political context. The riots followed mass protests by monks, and in some cases involved the protesting monks. Subsequent events further bear out the political nature of the riots (e.g. they eventually led to protests like that in Aotea Square). Even the Chinese government framed the riots as political - saying they were part of a plot instigated by the Dalai Lama.

Sure, the western media simplified and distorted the story to paint the Tibetan cause as a just and unfairly repressed one. But was there really never a Tibetan cause to begin with? Was it just a case of a random and isolated riot in Lhasa? Was there no purpose to it all? Perhaps the jury is out on whether the events in Tibetan areas of China in 2008 were an organized uprising, but they certainly displayed many elements of one. Much of the Chinese response is also consistent with an uprising (e.g. heightened security throughout greater Tibet, restrictions on foreign media reporting in remote areas, detentions of influential Tibetan figures, and so on).

- “The concepts of nation-state and sovereignty did not appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Chinese claims over Tibet can be traced back to the 13th century.”

What is your point? Is the Chinese claim stronger because it predates the nation state? Aren’t the claims based on the boundaries of old empires anyway? Empires are not the same as nation states.

- “It was under the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) that the Chinese authority over Tibet was substantially and systematically strengthened. Remember, it overlapped with the emergence of nation-state and sovereignty.”

What is your point? China was not a nation state during the Qing Dynasty. During the Qing Dynasty ‘Han China’ (the basis of the later Chinese nation state) was part of a Manchurian (i.e. foreign) empire and Han Chinese were second class citizens.

Modern Chinese nationalism was something that evolved only during the dying years of the Qing Dynasty. Moreover, it evolved in opposition to Qing rule rather than in cooperation with it. Before the overthrow of the Qing Sun Yat-sen would talk of driving the “Manchu barbarians” out of China. The Chinese nation state was initially conceived as something for Han Chinese only. The expansion of ‘Chinese’ to include non-Han minorities was something done after the 1911 Revolution to avoid ‘losing territory’.

Incidentally the dying years of the Qing Dynasty were also a period when Tibet was becoming increasingly independent. Suggesting that the strengthening of control over Tibet at the height of the Qing was somehow connected to the building of the modern Chinese nation is simply baseless. The late Qing period that saw Chinese nationalism flourish and eventually overthrow Manchu rule was also a period of growing Tibetan self-determination and nationalism. Tibet was drifting further from China at this time, not moving closer. Tibet was taking steps towards becoming a young nation itself.

- “To argue that the Mongols also controlled other parts of the world does not support your argument about Chinese claim over Tibet.”

What is my argument about the Chinese claim over Tibet? What is not supported? In fact I have no argument about this. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is already a full time job.

- “If the borders of empires mean nothing, then China and many other countries will have to be divided into many states because much of their territories were incorporated during their empire time.”

In many instances old empires have broken up into smaller states. Countless examples exist. That process has brought problems in some instances and much joy in others.

In fact, that very process has happened in the present People’s Republic of China and with Chinese consent, and as a result of that process the Mongolians seem happy to be Mongolians rather than Chinese ruled Mongolians.

Going back further to imperial times the Vietnamese and Koreans also seem pretty pleased about how things worked out for them with regard to Chinese rule.

- “On the other hand, historical borders of empires have limits. Territorial claims must be based on today’s political reality.”

So China won’t be claiming Poland then? The Mongol empire did briefly stretch that far.

But seriously, effectively you seem to be saying it is all fairly arbitrary. We just take with the situation that exists in our particular time and work with it. Good. I agree.

In that case we can drop the crap about Tibet having “been an integral part of China ever since the 13th Century”, since besides being inaccurate it is also irrelevant.

- “I did not say the British were colonising Tibet. I said the British were colonising India. Weren’t they?”

You presented the British as an imperial and colonial power that infringed on China’s “legitimate claim” to Tibet. My point was that the Qing were also an imperial and colonial power. That is, neither the Qing nor the British had any particular claim to Tibet beyond one imposed externally and by force. I made this point very clearly the first time round. Was it that hard to follow?

I did not intend to engage a debate with you. But I have to answer a few questions.

About nationalism. I focus on the connotation of nationalism, not its face value. As I said, my interpretation of labelling Chinese protests as nationalism is that the protests do not have a moral ground. Therefore, the protests in China are also labelled as nationalism instead of patriotism (they were not waving foreign flags). Instead of distracting attention from the core issue, I’m trying to address the very core issue. That is, how to interpret Chinese protests.

Both nationalism and patriotism are expression of national identity. I understand that they sometimes are treated as synonyms. But in this case, I believe there is a difference. It’s not just because the protesters were waving foreign flags and displaying political slogans that they are labelled as nationalists. There is a deeper implication. That is, these protests do not have a moral ground. The protesters are identifying themselves with China blindly because they are just irrational nationalists. That may not be your understanding. However, it’s how I see it.

So, when you say that I am attempting to deny an obvious truth, I’m afraid you are jumping to conclusions. My sentence “Chinese protests worldwide have been labelled as Chinese nationalism, largely because these protests are believed unjustifiable and the Chinese do not have a moral ground’ is an indication of my understanding of nationalism and I then try to present a different view about the protests. By the way, what you see as an “obvious truth” may be something different from other people’s perspective. That’s why we need discussion and communication.

It seems you suggest that my views represent Chinese views. As I said, my views are based on Western scholars’ analysis. I tried to present a more balanced view. If you see that as a typical Chinese view, I must congratulate the Chinese. They are doing well. But yes, I am an ethnic Chinese although I’m no longer a Chinese national.

I say “uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on)” because I wanted to be objective. The TGE calls it “uprising” while the Chinese government calls it “armed riots”. You say “When armed clashes result in the political leader of a ’state’ fleeing abroad surely it is an ‘uprising’?” Not so simple. Again, I believe the word “uprising” has its political connotations. An armed struggle against oppression is one. It’s a just cause. That is why some Western media attempted, unsuccessfully, to label the riots in Lhasa on 14 March as a Tibetan uprising.

The concepts of nation-state and sovereignty did not appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Chinese claims over Tibet can be traced back to the 13th century. Yes, the connection was weaker during the Ming Dynasty. It was under the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) that the Chinese authority over Tibet was substantially and systematically strengthened. Remember, it overlapped with the emergence of nation-state and sovereignty.

I agree that it’s difficult to define historical borders. The empires disappeared. Along with it, the borders of nation-states changed. To argue that the Mongols also controlled other parts of the world does not support your argument about Chinese claim over Tibet. If the borders of empires mean nothing, then China and many other countries will have to be divided into many states because much of their territories were incorporated during their empire time. On the other hand, historical borders of empires have limits. Territorial claims must be based on today’s political reality.

I did not say the British were colonising Tibet. I said the British were colonising India. Weren’t they?

You say “Basically my only hope for Tibet is that Tibetan culture thrives and the Tibetan people prosper. So long as this is achieved I am not too bothered by the means used. Achieving this should not prove inconsistent with a Chinese presence in Tibet, provided that Chinese presence is considerate and tolerant of the Tibetans.” I share your hope and I do think the Chinese government should and could have done better.

Thanks for the comments. A few points in response.

You said “Chinese protests worldwide have been labelled Chinese nationalism, largely because these protests are believed unjustifiable and the Chinese do not have a moral ground.” Sorry, but you are distracting attention from the core issue here. The protests have been labeled nationalism because that is what they are. The issues could be uncontroversial and the protests would still be nationalistic. Are you seriously trying to argue that an event where thousands of people gather to wave foreign flags and display political slogans dealing with territorial integrity is non-nationalistic?

You are attempting to deny an obvious truth. Why?

I am not going to get into debating history with you. I agree with much of what you say. I also disagree with some points. The gist of your account is that “Chinese view the Tibet issue more correctly than Westerners because they understand the history”. I do agree up to a point. The majority of pro-Tibet protesters in the west have a hazy and idealized understanding of the historical background. However, the Chinese understanding of the history is also skewed. The fact that the ‘pro-Tibet side’ are often wrong does not make the ‘Chinese side’ right.

Your own analysis of the history is simplified. I don’t have time to go into too much detail. In any case, Sino-Tibetan relations are not a big interest of mine. However, I will say a few things.

- You said “In March 1959, uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on) broke out in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, which ended with the 14th Dalai Lama’s flight into exile in India.” I don’t understand why the terms used to describe this event would depend on which side you were on. When armed clashes result in the political leader of a ’state’ fleeing abroad surely it is an “uprising”? It doesn’t matter which ’side’ you are on!

- I see taking the borders of an empire seeking to create a nation state within those borders as a difficult exercise. I don’t mean it should never be done. I simply mean it is fraught with difficulty. Nations and empires are very different things. Empires have subjects. Nations have citizens. Empires merely demand that subjects pay taxes and do not revolt. Nations want their citizens to identify with and love them. I think some of the Tibet issue comes down to the problem of nation building. The Manchurians and Mongolians never demanded that the Tibetans ‘become Chinese’. Since the Dalai Lama’s flight to India the CCP has demanded that they do so. I am talking in very general terms here, but I think I am touching on some very real isssues. Simply because somewhere was once part of some empire does not mean it is going to neatly fit into a new nation state that wishes to occupy the same territory of that empire.

- You assume uninterrupted Chinese control over Tibet from the Yuan Dynasty through to the collapse of the Qing. This is a simplification. The Yuan and the Qing empires ruled Tibet (tenuously at times, but as a generalization it stands up). The Ming simply didn’t. The Ming had more influence over Korea than Tibet.

- Is claiming Tibet as part of China on the basis that a Mongolian empire once controlled China and Tibet useful? On this same basis should we make Korea part of China too? What about eastern Europe? Since this road has no end maybe it is best left alone?

- Why do you talk in terms of British attempts to ‘colonize’ Tibet, versus China’s ‘legitimate authority over Tibet’? Why are ‘foreign’ powers’ designs on Tibet ‘imperialist’ and ‘colonialist’, while a Manchurian empire (surely an mperialist entity?) is simply ‘China’, the ‘legitimate authority over Tibet’? Is this not a type of bias? I am not saying I disagree with the British recognizing Qing authority over Tibet (the Brits shouldn’t have been going in there), but lets recognize the situation for what it was - two imperial powers fighting over a bauble that belonged to neither except by virtue of externally imposed force. The interests of the Tibetans themselves get completely ignored in this account of Tibetan history.

- I don’t have any major problems with China’s current presence in Tibet. If China was not the ‘imperial power’ in Tibet then most likely the Indians would be there instead. The Tibetans might be worse off. Who knows? Anyway, China is already well established there so why create a mess by seeking to remove their presence?

- Basically my only hope for Tibet is that Tibetan culture thrives and the Tibetan people prosper. So long as this is achieved I am not too bothered by the means used. Achieving this should not prove inconsistent with a Chinese presence in Tibet, provided that Chinese presence is considerate and tolerant of the Tibetans.

Chinese protests worldwide have been labelled Chinese nationalism, largely because these protests are believed unjustifiable and the Chinese do not have a moral ground. As you’ll see below, my view is different. My comments about the Tibet Question are largely based on Western academic publications, not propaganda from Beijing or the Tibetan Government-in-Exile and my comments on Chinese politics are based on my research and my own experience.

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile (TGE) claims that Tibet was an independent state before the 1950s when the Chinese military entered Tibet which the TGE regards as an invasion. The Chinese government insists that Tibet has been part of China since the 13th century and the Chinese military liberated Tibet in the 1950s. The Dalai Lama in the end accepted an agreement with the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) which was founded in 1949. The agreement, signed on 23 May 1951, was called “The Seventeen-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”. Point 1 said: “The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist forces from Tibet; the Tibet people shall return to the big family of the Motherland–the People’s Republic of China.” In points 3, 4, 7 and 11, the Chinese government agreed to maintain the Dalai Lama and the traditional political-economic system intact until such a time as the Tibetans wanted reforms (The Dalai Lama renounced the agreement after the 1959 violence. Beijing then followed and renounced the agreement, too)

At that time, Tibet was a slavery society. About 40 percent of the population was monks who were the ruling class in Tibet. Many of the monks were also fighters (I note this because there is an advertisement in New Zealand saying that monks do not fight). At that time, 5 percent of the Tibetan population controlled 95 percent of the wealth. After its establishment in 1949, the PRC started social, economic and political reforms in China in its effort to turn China into a socialist country. The Central Government made efforts to leave Tibet alone. However, the reforms in the areas surrounding Tibet caused problems. There were many Tibetans living in those areas. They staged unsuccessful rebellions. Some Tibetans then fled to Tibet where they had some influence on the Tibetan hardliners. Moreover, the United States, which regarded Communist China as an enemy, was encouraging the anti-Chinese faction and in 1957 actually started to train and arm Tibetan guerrillas. In March 1959, uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on) broke out in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, which ended with the 14th Dalai Lama’s flight into exile in India.

So the recent Tibet Question started in 1959. But the Tibet Question existed before then. Tibet was included in China’s map in the 13th century when China was ruled by the Mongols (the Yuan Dynasty). Having realised that the Tibetan culture was different, the Chinese seldom imposed direct rule over Tibet. They let Tibetans rule Tibet. From the Chinese perspective, Tibet was incorporated into China since the 13th century. The title of the Dalai Lama was created by a Chinese emperor in 1578. The word “dalai” means “ocean” in Mongolian.

The TGE does not accept the Chinese interpretation of the relationship, saying that Tibet had always been an independent state. But while Chinese control of Tibet was weak, to say Tibet was an independent state is problematic. In 1904, the British, who were colonising Tibet’s neighbour India, invaded Tibet. The British initially intended to either support an independent Tibet or convert Tibet into an Indian protectorate. But fearful of international criticism, they decided to recognise Chinese authority over Tibet. The 1906 Anglo-Chinese Convention reaffirmed China’s legitimate authority over Tibet. In 1911, China’s last dynasty, the Qing Dynasty collapsed and China entered a period of chaos and was not able to take care of the Tibet issue. In 1912, Tibetan forces expelled all Chinese officials and troops from Tibet. Two years later, in an attempt to weaken Chinese control over Tibet, the British forced China to attend a conference (the Simla Convention) to talk about the Tibet Question. Tibet wanted independence but the Chinese government refused. At that time, Great Britain still had a strong economic interest in China and Hong Kong. In the end, Tibet did not get its independence but gained greater autonomy. The final draft of the Simla Convention declared that Tibet would be autonomous from China, but also acknowledged Chinese authority over Tibet. From 1912 to 1950 when the Chinese military entered Tibet again, Tibet had de facto (not de jure) independence.

From 1949 to 1978 when China opened up, Tibet had a hard time under the Chinese rule. That has been the key reason why the TGE has been able to generate much support in the West. The TGE argues that the conflict is mainly an ethnic conflict. I actually disagree. The tragedies happened in Tibet are often part of the tragedies of China. I understand that many monasteries in Tibet were destroyed during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). This is what the TGE calls “cultural genocide”. But the same thing happened all over China as religion was regarded feudalistic and it runs against Communism. I also understand that many Tibetans died from the 1950s to the 1970s– Han people oppressing the Tibetans according to the TGE. However, a large number of Han Chinese also died in that period. From the late 1950s to the early 1960s, millions of Chinese died of famine and Tibet Question many more died during the Cultural Revolution. So I see the issue mainly as an issue of bad governance.

China has changed fundamentally since 1978. Notwithstanding its poor human rights record, the Chinese government has become more accountable.
Unfortunately, the Western public does not seem to have a historical view of Tibet and China. They are either unaware of or uninterested in the historical relationship between China and Tibet. They also knew little about Chinese politics since 1949.

In the Cold War years, the Tibet Question did not attract much attention in the West as human rights was not a major issue in international relations and China was on the US side against the Soviet Union. The Tibet Question remerged with the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A “Tibet fever,” spurred by films, appeared in the United States in the late 1990s. “Seven Years in Tibet,” starting Brad Pitt, depicts the friendship of a very young Dalai Lama and an Austrian Nazi mountain climber who became the boy’s tutor. The film’s adviser was Tenzin Tethong, long the Dalai Lama’s representative in international fora and ex-head of the exile Kashag (cabinet). “Kundun,” by US director Martin Scorcese, is an authorised biography of the young Dalai Lama; screenplay writer Melissa Mathison met several times with the Dalai Lama to receive his advice. These films portray the PRC government as villainous and generated much publicity and sympathy for Tibet in the West.

Obviously, it is in the interest of the Chinese government to improve the conditions of Tibet. As a slavery society, Tibet was economically backward. Infrastructure was basically non-existent in the early 1950s. The literacy rates were extremely low. Tibet still is poorer than other parts of China. But even the pro-Tibetan independence activists acknowledge that the Chinese government has invested heavily in Tibet. However, Beijing needs to make sure that the ordinary Tibetans really benefit from the investment.

Now, let me talk about human rights in China. People in the West often compare China’s human rights record today with that of Western democracies. I call it the horizontal perspective. Not surprisingly, they are shocked. I take a vertical perspective or historical perspective as I believe this is more meaningful.

As you may know, China experienced the “Century of Humiliation” from 1840 when Great Britain invaded China to 1945 when Japan surrendered and the Second World War came to an end. It then was in a civil war from 1945 to 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came to power and established the PRC. From 1949 to 1978, China was closed and the CCP launched political campaigns one after another. The most catastrophic one was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. By the late 1970s, the Chinese economy was on the verge of collapse. At that point, the CCP realised that what they had done was wrong. They decided to open up China and start economic reforms.

Today’s China is fundamentally different from that of the 1970s. While I do acknowledge China’s human rights problems, I must say that the Chinese are much happier today. China’s economic development in the past three decades has enabled China to dramatically reduce its population of poverty, from 250 million in 1978 to today’s 48 million (This is based Chinese poverty line. China’s population under the international poverty line of US$1 is much larger, about 10% of the Chinese population of over 1.3 billon. But if we use the international poverty line, the number of the Chinese in poverty was also much larger before 1978). The reduction of the Chinese living in poverty accounts for nearly three-quarters of the poverty alleviation by the developing world. The Chinese now have the freedom of choosing their jobs and can move freely. Such freedom was unthinkable before the late 1970s. Politically, although the Chinese do not have freedom of speech as we in the West understand it, they have many more channels to express their dissatisfaction. They have much more freedom in complaining about the government although they are not permitted to mobilise the public to overthrow the government. Up to the late 1980s, political prisoners accounted for 30 to 40 percent of the prison population in China. The proportion had fallen to 0.1 percent by the mid-1990s. In 1997, “counter-revolutionary” offences were removed from China’s Criminal Law which did not exist until 1979.

I do think it necessary that the West imposes some pressure upon the Chinese government on the human rights issue. However, it is equally, if not more, important to recognise the progress that the Chinese government has made in this area. The best way to help improve China’s human rights conditions is to encourage China to continue to open up to the world.