Shanghaiist: Free Burma, YES, but is it right to blame Beijing?

guest

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:54:29 +0800

It is China that supplies the military and political suppport for Myanmars dirty jungle monkey rulers and openly arms them. What other country does this? Stupid, bad, dirty, jungle monkey China.

guest

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:45:08 +0800

Why single out only China to rein in the Burmese junta? Corporations like US'Chevron, France's Total, Malaysia's Petronas, some Thai companies, one West Australian oil company, India's GAIL and ONGC------ all have economic interests in Burma. Thay have been operating despite gross human rights violations and all other conceivable injustice perpetrated by the ruling military on its own people. Its true that China has a poor record of dealing wth despots, be it Sudan or Zimbabwe to maintain an uninterrupted supply of energy for its rapidly growing industries. But others are no better. It would be prudent to begin with sanctions on the multinational corporations benefitting from doing business with Burma or Myanmar irrespective of their countries of origin having dictatorships or democracies.

Dan Washburn

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:09:36 +0800

Comments 11 and 12 refer to a comment I deleted because it looked like SPAM. And if it wasn't SPAM, it had no business being attached to a post about Burma. Dan

guest

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:38:22 +0800

ditto

nanheyangrouchuan

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:06:55 +0800

Hey Dominic, Why don't you wrap a Burmese monk's tunic around your neck while carrying that torch? F*n sellout panda lickers, you are part of the chain of support for the Burmese massacre.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:29:22 +0800

#8, sorry for the lack of clarity. i was responding to the following point: "Can and should China be expected to intervene in other states to spread freedom and democratic ideals with the same evangelistic fervour that the United States, for instance, possesses?" My point is: I don't think that China breaking ties with burma in support of the protests (led by monks) could possibly be considered evangelistic or (as you might say) proselytic.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:49:38 +0800

#6: If the US split with the UN to take action, any action, we'd again be derided of ignoring world opinion and reducing the stature of the world political body, direct action against Burma would also probably mean war with China as Burma is a military colony of China. And all the world would do is sit on its ass and armchair quarterback without even lifting a finger to participate in helping the Burmese. nanheyangrouchuan

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:30:42 +0800

#7, looks like someone has a problem with basic comprehension skills? Nobody was talking about proselytization by the Buddhist monks.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:08:49 +0800

Dear Shanghaiist, you are missing the point The fervour by which Burmese monks hope to spread freedom and democratic ideals in their country is not an evangelistic one, much less is their desire to be able to speak up without the fear of being imprisoned or shot. Whether we SHOULD or shouldn't expect China to share such a fervour with them is irrelevant, whether we CAN is much more of an apt question - and fortunately the answer is, yes, with a bit of pressure perhaps we can, because China is quite obviously keen of making a good impression before the Olympic games next year. That's the whole point of this uprising happening now. This is an opportunity. It's not about blaming China for the junta, but recognzing that china has something to win from cutting the junta off, and something to lose from not doing so. So the last thing the people of Burma need right now is for journlists feeling sorry for the Communist Party of China (poor dears). As for worrying about starting a trend for China exerting its influence elsewhere: it is an inveitability that China will exert influence elsewhere whether it wishes to or not and I personally think that its opposing itself to a military dictatorship is a good way to get the ball rolling. And as for the idea that China should concentrate on its product quality instead... I'm not too happy with the quality of this Shanhaiist post, but I'm not going to blame China because that's where you keep your offices.

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:52:41 +0800

I think China is justly getting a good deal of flak for Burma. China sells weapons and trades with Burma; and then it expects to not get flak? It's worse than what this guy says above me: "" I would say this policy of "non-interference" in such extreme cases as Sudan, NK and Burma is no different than stepping over someone who has been attacked and left in the street and claiming "I don't know what happened and don't want to get involved". China is guilty of supporting these monsters, the world is guilty of not caring just to "get on with business". "" I say that its worse. It's like seeing an attacker going after someone, stopping the attacker, selling him a club, and then claiming you don't know what happened after he uses the club for its intended purpose. The world however, is guilty of not giving a damn, and needs to pull its act together. However, I don't blame the U.N. overmuch, because China uses its veto power(who the hell gave it veto power?) in order to stop the U.N from condemning Burma, a first step to going further. Funny thing, the U.S. is willing to go its own way on Iraq for money-grubbing, but isn't willing to split with the U.N. to do the right thing...

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:41:41 +0800

Yes China is to blame, but so is the rest of the world including the UN for standing on the sidelines while Burma's oppression continues. Oh and China, get out of Tibet and leave Taiwan alone now please.

nanheyangrouchuan

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:49:39 +0800

I do believe there were some in New York, but sadly Americans will complain at home and not turn out to protest. On the other hand, Americans will speak with their wallets and buy less and less "made in China" stuff. If China did nothing to support or depose despotic neighbors, it could claim moral high ground. But because China does support these regimes, it has a direct responsibility to keep them in line if not directly replace them. The USSR stopped supporting the Kim regime back in the 70s because of what it had become, China kept supporting the Kims solely to keep an economically modernizing and later a democratic Korean peninsula. Millions of koreans have died not just of Kim family punishment but also starvation and illness as a result. I would say this policy of "non-interference" in such extreme cases as Sudan, NK and Burma is no different than stepping over someone who has been attacked and left in the street and claiming "I don't know what happened and don't want to get involved". China is guilty of supporting these monsters, the world is guilty of not caring just to "get on with business".

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:14:06 +0800

To the guest above, there were big rallies in HK supporting the Burmese movement, but there weren't any similar protests in the US or Taiwan.

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:07:50 +0800

Qns 1: Can and should China be expected to intervene in other states to spread freedom and democratic ideals with the same evangelistic fervour that the United States, for instance, possesses? Answer: Maybe China might choose not to "promote democracy" but at the very least, it should not sell weapons and help the Burmese military further entrench its dictatorship rule on the Burmese. Qns 2: So China's quiet string-pulling behind the scenes haven't accomplished much, but what have sanctions accomplished apart from prolonging the pain of the long suffering Burmese people? Answer: The sanctions are supposed to hurt the Burmese military regime as any profits from any form of investments in the country ultimately ends up with the Burmese elites. The profits does not trickle down to the poor Burmese. However, since some companies (from all over the world) but perhaps with China as one of the largest investor, followed by India, Thailand and Singapore doing business in the country, the Burmese military has somehow managed to survive and profits itself. Qns 3: If China were expected to peddle its power and influence NOW to intervene in Burma, would it not be accused of bullying its way across Asia and the rest of the world when it finally did start to exert that same power and influence elsewhere (as it already has)? Answer: Telling a neighbouring country not to kill its innocent civilians is not intervening. It is expressing a moral obligation and protest towards innocent civilians who have no way of protecting themselves from the military state. === Out of curiosity, has anyone in China organised any activities protesting against the Burmese junta's treatment of its peaceful protestors and monks? The Chinese concept of harmonious rising and peaceful rising is misleading considering that China stockpiles and buys (and in turn sells military weapons) to countries like Burma and the Sudan government which have used these weapons on innocent civilians. It has also targeted its military missiles on the Straits, threatening Taiwan if it proclaims independence.

chinochano

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:50:09 +0800

I think exactly the same, and I planned to write something similar in my blog. Thanks a lot for writing something like this, I'm sick of Chinese propaganda but also of Western one.