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.
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: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.
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.
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".
Fellow Comrade wrote: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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Yep, you've just described about 75% of all countries.
Yes, it's amazing.
Alternative Display:Mobile view