China demands apology from United States - Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R.

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo

02 May 2012, 14:06

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/02/c_131564125.htm

Quote:
BEIJING, May 2 (Xinhua) -- China demands an apology from the U.S. side for taking a Chinese citizen "via abnormal means" into its embassy in Beijing, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said here Wednesday.

Chen Guangcheng, a native of Yinan county in eastern China's Shandong province, entered the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in late April and left of his own volition after a six-day stay at the embassy, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin.

"It should be pointed out that Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese citizen, was taken by the U.S. side to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing via abnormal means, and the Chinese side is strongly dissatisfied with the move," Liu said.

He stressed that China demands that the United States thoroughly investigate the event, hold relevant people accountable and ensure that such an event does not happen again.

"What the U.S. side has done has interfered in the domestic affairs of China, and the Chinese side will never accept it," said the spokesman.

"The U.S. Embassy in Beijing has the obligation to observe relevant international laws and Chinese laws, and it should not do anything irrelevant to its function," said the spokesman.

China noted that the U.S. has expressed the importance it attaches to China's demands and concerns and has promised to take necessary measures to avoid similar events, he said.

The U.S. should reflect on its policies and methods and maintain the overall situation of Sino-U.S. bilateral ties with concrete acts, he said.

Liu said China is a country under rule of law, and its citizens' legitimate rights and interests are protected by the Constitution and laws.

"All citizens, at the same time, have the obligations to abide by the Constitution and laws," he said.

To sum this up, China is demanding an apology from U.S. has because it has interferred in China's internal affairs. You can be sure the Yanks would be furious if the roles had been reversed.

We can be pretty sure there won't be an apology. It doesn't matter either way in the grand scheme though. I think this incident is going to work out in China's (and the worlds) favour in the end. Many progressives have criticised China for being too close to the U.S.. Within the Chinese Communist party itself, there are divisions between those who support a closer relationship with the U.S. (and are generally more right wing) and those who distrust it and advocate for a much more careful and guarded stance, not to mention supporting and increasing trade with nations the United States regards as enemies like Cuba and it's South American comrades. We can be sure that this and any incidents like it will give more support to the latter group.

Keep in mind that if China takes a more agreesive stance towards the U.S., it will aid the creation of a multipolar world. This will benefit many progressive nations and working class struggles in the world. It's only a question of degree. This is true whether or not you personally support the PRC.

Forum Rules

Jason24

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer

02 May 2012, 16:32

Under U.S. law, The U.S.A. must always accept as refugees, anyone who's facing persecution due to race, religion, political views, etc. So if the man in question can make the case that he was being mistreated by the Chinese authorities, he will be granted asylum. Also I feel that the rationel given by the Chinese government is absurd. To demonstrate, here is the quote rephrased into a different context.

Quote:
"It should be pointed out that Isaac Goldstein, a German citizen, was taken by the U.S. side to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin via abnormal means, and the German side is strongly dissatisfied with the move," Eichmann said.

He stressed that Germany demands that the United States thoroughly investigate the event, hold relevant people accountable and ensure that such an event does not happen again.

"What the U.S. side has done has interfered in the domestic affairs of Germany, and the German side will never accept it," said the spokesman.

"The U.S. Embassy in Berlin has the obligation to observe relevant international laws and German laws, and it should not do anything irrelevant to its function," said the spokesman.

Germany noted that the U.S. has expressed the importance it attaches to Germany's demands and concerns and has promised to take necessary measures to avoid similar events, he said.

The U.S. should reflect on its policies and methods and maintain the overall situation of Germano-U.S. bilateral ties with concrete acts, he said.

Eichmann said Germany is a country under rule of law, and its citizens' legitimate rights and interests are protected by the Constitution and laws.

"All citizens, at the same time, have the obligations to abide by the Constitution and laws," he said."

So while I'm sure that this is a national embarrassment to the PRC, he does have the right to allpy for asylum. Whether or not he'll be approved is another matter though.

Fellow Comrade

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo

02 May 2012, 17:28

So you don't mind if the U.S. interferes in the internal affairs of other nations? Also, he isn't applying for asylum and never intended to.

Forum Rules

Loz

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 10549
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized

02 May 2012, 17:38

Quote:
Keep in mind that if China takes a more agreesive stance towards the U.S., it will aid the creation of a multipolar world. This will benefit many progressive nations and working class struggles in the world. It's only a question of degree. This is true whether or not you personally support the PRC.

Yes, because the last time imperialist superpowers took to dividing and re-dividing the world was a blast!
Explain to us how will the rise of imperialist China "benefit many progressive nations".

Jason24

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer

03 May 2012, 00:22

Fellow Comrade wrote:
So you don't mind if the U.S. interferes in the internal affairs of other nations? Also, he isn't applying for asylum and never intended to.

I don't fully know what the situation is about. I'm against social imperialism, but I don't get why the PRC government even cares about this. I mean, if I were the Premeir of China, I think I'd be thinking good riddance to the troublemaker. I only reason I can think of as to why a regime wouldn't want malcontents to emigrate is that they might give an expose of the abuses of power practiced by the powers that be. I sure do hope that the Chinese Communists are not all that corrupt. But I've heard some alarming accounts of torture, and persecution, being carried out there. And, rightly or wrongly, if any contrary citizen of a foreign nation is able to make his/er way to either U.S. territory, or embassy, s/he may try to claim sanctuary. It's part of America's foreign policy, on humanitarian grounds. Though it sometimes might interfer at times with diplomatic objectives. This fictional political drama episode illustrates what I mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_(The_West_Wing) Here's a transcript of it. http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=94

Jason24

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer

03 May 2012, 18:45

Here's an update. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng-leaves-us-embassy-in-beijing-china.html The dissident claims that his wife was being threatened by the government, which was why he agreed to leave the embassy. I just hope that neither he, or any other citizen of the PRC will be facing any possible human rights abuses.

Mabool

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 9638
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Embalmed

03 May 2012, 22:54

One imperialist superpower is much better than a lot of them. If you crush the US while it's alone, imperialism is gone. If you crush the US when there are other superpowers, nothing changes.

runequester

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 1853
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Member

03 May 2012, 23:14

Mabool wrote:
One imperialist superpower is much better than a lot of them. If you crush the US while it's alone, imperialism is gone. If you crush the US when there are other superpowers, nothing changes.

That's an interesting thought.

I'll have to think about it but that's a viewpoint I hadn't considered.

Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job

Fellow Comrade

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo

05 May 2012, 03:55

Mabool wrote:
One imperialist superpower is much better than a lot of them. If you crush the US while it's alone, imperialism is gone. If you crush the US when there are other superpowers, nothing changes.

Don't you think the Soviet Union and other Socialist nations might have had an easier time if NATO had never formed, if European rivalries remained?

Forum Rules

Mabool

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 9638
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Embalmed

05 May 2012, 04:54

Certainly, but that's absolutely unrealistic. Capital centralizes. That's an economic law that is valid on every scale. Monopolization is valid for imperialism as well as fast food. Especially in that case, with a powerful socialist state stretching all over Asia, the imperialists really had no choice at all but to join forces. It really couldn't have happened any other way.

Fellow Comrade

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo

05 May 2012, 12:01

But you agree with my point in principle. I don't think China is really an emerging imperialist power, but either way, Challenging U.S. dominance is a benefit to progressive movements world wide.

Forum Rules

Loz

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 10549
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized

05 May 2012, 12:53

Quote:
Challenging U.S. dominance is a benefit to progressive movements world wide.

Of course that "challenging U.S. domiannce" is a benefit to the progressive movements in case of, say, Venezuela (which obviously benefited and could benefit the movements in the whole of Latin America).

But NOT in the case of inter-imperialist competition for the division and re-division of the world.

Tails

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 1722
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Ideology: None
Resident Artist

05 May 2012, 23:38

Mabool wrote:
One imperialist superpower is much better than a lot of them. If you crush the US while it's alone, imperialism is gone. If you crush the US when there are other superpowers, nothing changes.

That's not true because the first and second World Wars destroyed the European imperialist powers and decimated many royal families. Competition between superpowers prevents an imperialist hegemon like the United States from ascending and acting as the world's policeman.

There are no libertarians in dumpsters.

Soviet192491

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Party Member

08 May 2012, 01:34

Tails wrote:
That's not true because the first and second World Wars destroyed the European imperialist powers and decimated many royal families. Competition between superpowers prevents an imperialist hegemon like the United States from ascending and acting as the world's policeman.

It really doesn't matter, prior to the First World War there was a collective "police force". Each power sought to establish their interests in whichever part of the globe where there was a profit to be made. The Boxer Rebellion, the Opium Wars, and even the American War of Independence are examples of multiple countries intervening in foreign conflicts for their own benefit.

We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev

Loz

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 10549
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized

08 May 2012, 13:56

Quote:
That's not true because the first and second World Wars destroyed the European imperialist powers and decimated many royal families.

What? The EU imperialist block is almost stronger than the United States now. European powers traditionally opposed to each other ( France and Germany for example) have largely united into a huge block of imperialist superpowers.

Quote:
Competition between superpowers prevents an imperialist hegemon like the United States from ascending and acting as the world's policeman.

We do not take sides in conflicts between imperialist powers. And it's exactly that competition that results in "hegemons" emerging.
Who do you think profited the most from WW2? America of course, because after 1945 it emerged more powerful than ever before, with only the USSR (which itself eventually degenerated into social-imperialism) standing against it.

Jason24

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 180
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer

20 May 2012, 15:50

Well, finally Chen Guangcheng has entered the U.S.A. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/world/asia/china-dissident-chen-guangcheng-united-states.html And considering all that he went through in the P.R.C. I'm glad.

Quote:
Mr. Chen, a self-taught lawyer blinded by childhood illness, was once toasted by the state news media for his advocacy of the disabled and the disenfranchised.

But in 2005, he ran into trouble with the authorities by organizing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of women in Shandong Province who had been subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations. A year later, a local court sent him to prison for more than four years on charges that were widely seen as spurious.

Although technically a free man after his release in September 2010, Mr. Chen ran up against local officials who, with the backing of provincial authorities, turned his home into a makeshift prison, with hired guards and cellphone jamming equipment.

In a homemade video that was smuggled last year out of the village where he lived and posted on the Internet, Mr. Chen and his wife detailed the indignities of their detention. Local officials responded with a vicious round of beatings.

Fellow Comrade

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 4955
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo

21 May 2012, 08:55

It's always nice to see progressives supporting U.S. imperialism

. Those who think China is just another imperialist power in the making show an extreme ignorance of China's history, culture and material conditions. It can't be compared to the rise of Western imperialism.

Things like this show how much of a tight rope China is walking on. On the one hand, it wants to maintain a cordial relationship with the U.S. for the moment, but has to balance this with its own national interests and those of its allies. At least it's getting to the point where it won't need to walk this tight rope anymore.

Forum Rules

Loz

[+-]

Soviet cogitations: 10549
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized

21 May 2012, 11:32

Quote:
Those who think China is just another imperialist power in the making show an extreme ignorance of China's history, culture and material conditions.

Says who? Eh? You're not prevented from actually checking what imperialism means (as defined by Lenin). I've also posted a nice Marxist analysis from the early times of the Chinese rise to real prominence as a global "player" in a new thread in this forum.
Your fallacious ( where's your argument anyway?) agitprop has so far been completely unfounded. China is obviously an imperialist superpower.

Quote:
It can't be compared to the rise of Western imperialism.

No one ever said so. Obviously we're talking about completely different time periods and all other conditions.
But what relevance does this have? How does this prove that China today isn't an imperialist superpower?
It's patently obvious to everyone that the rise of British imperialism wasn't and can't have been the same as, say, the rise of German imperialism and so on and so forth...

Quote:
On the one hand, it wants to maintain a cordial relationship with the U.S. for the moment, but has to balance this with its own national interests and those of its allies.

Yep, you've just described about 75% of all countries.

Quote:
At least it's getting to the point where it won't need to walk this tight rope anymore.

Yes, it's amazing.