Sarkozy taking on the chinese ?

[Mabs]

now this looks like it could get interesting, heres hoping

 

[DaGaffer]

China shouldn't have been given the Olympics in the first place. Not just because of Tibet, but all the other Human rights abuses. Of course, if you're a repressive regime that doesn't hold huge dollar reserves and cheap manufacturing capacity that helps keep all those western share prices up, then you wouldn't have got the Olympics in a million years.

Of course, this is the French, who's opinions' people care about even less than the British, so Sarkozy's posturing is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Mabs]

granted, but its always easier to be the SECOND person to do something

 

[Mabs]

ah theyve updated the article, this made me giggle

On Tuesday, the Chinese foreign ministry said any attempt to disrupt the torch relay for the Olympic Games was shameful.

thats nice, i wonder what they would consider this then

they really dont have a foot to stand on, it just annoys me so much, as u said gaffer, people pander to them cos of their power base

 

[Embattle]

He is simply grandstanding, the effect if he did follow through is negilable.

 

[ECA]

I dont think its negligible at all.

But in typical french fashion they'll talk about it a lot and then decide eating cheese and surrendering is a better idea.

 

[Embattle]

Well for me it is negligible (correct sp this time) because most people, bar newspaper noise, won't care if a leader doesn't appear but it might be different if a whole squad doesn't appear as this is a real sacrifice.

 

[Tom]

Much as I dislike the government of China, ignoring and upsetting them won't exactly be a catalyst for change. You have to engage them.

 

[Mabs]

Much as I dislike the government of China, ignoring and upsetting them won't exactly be a catalyst for change. You have to engage them.

engage them like this ?

 

[DaGaffer]

Much as I dislike the government of China, ignoring and upsetting them won't exactly be a catalyst for change. You have to engage them.

By giving them all of the world's manufacturing jobs and most of its currency, whilst turning a blind eye to a fifty year illegal occupation, a shocking human rights record and unfettered military expansion. This is teaching China what lesson exactly? That we like it up the arse? I suppose getting buttfucked is one way we can "engage" them.

 

[ECA]

By giving them all of the world's manufacturing jobs and most of its currency, whilst turning a blind eye to a fifty year illegal occupation, a shocking human rights record and unfettered military expansion. This is teaching China what lesson exactly? That we like it up the arse? I suppose getting buttfucked is one way we can "engage" them.

Will be fun if/when china dumps all its us bonds.

Right about now would be a nice time.

 

[Tom]

By giving them all of the world's manufacturing jobs and most of its currency, whilst turning a blind eye to a fifty year illegal occupation, a shocking human rights record and unfettered military expansion. This is teaching China what lesson exactly? That we like it up the arse? I suppose getting buttfucked is one way we can "engage" them.

Nobody is giving them anything. Tibet isn't quite as simple as you'd believe, read a little about the history of the place.

Their human rights record may be shocking but ignoring them and refusing to trade with them won't solve that. The more you trade with someone/something, the more say you get in how they run their affairs. China has opened up massively in the last few years.

Still, you could just be like the USA and ignore Cuba in the hope that it'll all go away. Oh look, it still hasn't.

By the way, if you're up for market protectionism, can I ask where your clothes are manufactured?

 

[Jonty]

Sarkozy's posturing is pretty irrelevant

He is simply grandstanding, the effect if he did follow through is negilable

True; anyone can say 'all options are open'.

Ignoring and upsetting them won't exactly be a catalyst for change. You have to engage them.

Also true. When Spielberg quit his Olympic role over Darfur, it created maybe a day or two's headlines and editorials, then nothing. The Chinese state press demonized him as being reckless and misguided for mixing politics and sport, and the rest of the world's media decided they had more important things to report on, like the US elections or the financial crisis.

Face (not him ) is still very important in Chinese culture; and if you set out to embarrass Chinese people in public then you won't get anywhere. As Tom said:

The more you trade with someone/something, the more say you get in how they run their affairs.

This is very true in China. People who have invested and worked with the government have been able to make positive changes. Minimum wages are increasing rapidly, social security is improving, and even human rights and quality control are increasingly audited by third-parties. This is a direct result of working with western investors and accommodating their needs. (Ironically, this also has the effect of reducing the reason for investment - i.e. cheap labour - so the Chinese government is now promoting services and high-value industries, leaving many businesses to close or move elsewhere).

Of course everything is far from perfect, as DaGaffer mentions:

By giving them all of the world's manufacturing jobs and most of its currency, whilst turning a blind eye to a fifty year illegal occupation, a shocking human rights record and unfettered military expansion.

I don't believe China was 'given' anything; people invested, China had the fortitude to take advantage, and most people benefited (although the affluence disparity between inland Chinese and coastal Chinese is a huge problem).

As for human rights, I won't even try to justify their record. They execute more people per year than the rest of the world put together, many government officials are still corrupt, and despite improvements, media and personal liberties are still heavily controlled. If there's one slight upside, it does mean they can get projects done in very small timescales - because they work so hard and don't have to worry about objections - but this doesn't justify all the other hardships endured.

As for their military, there are apparently over a 1,000 Chinese missiles aimed at strategic targets across Taiwan ...

Anyway, in short, I think Sarkozy is just posturing. Even if he does order a boycott, it won't have any lasting affect. We all know appeasement can be dangerous, but sometimes it really is better to work with someone rather than against them.

Kind regards

 

[DaGaffer]

Nobody is giving them anything. Tibet isn't quite as simple as you'd believe, read a little about the history of the place.

I have. Tibet isn't the Shangri-La idiots like Richard Gere would have us believe, but at the same time China's only legitimacy over the place is "they say so". It's about as relevant as any claim they have over Mongolia, the only difference being that the Mongolians had Russian, not Chinese, occupiers, and the British weren't involved in Mongolia, but they were in Tibet. Fact is, the Chinese have been quietly carrying out ethnic cleansing of Tibet since the sixties; following pretty much the pattern the Nazis intended for places like the Ukraine (and no, I haven't invoked Godwin's Law); marginalise the locals, bring in ethnic Chinese settlers.

Their human rights record may be shocking but ignoring them and refusing to trade with them won't solve that. The more you trade with someone/something, the more say you get in how they run their affairs. China has opened up massively in the last few years.

In principle you're right, but the difference is scale. When engaging a Vietnam or North Korea you have leverage; you are more important to them than they are to you; with China, this is no longer the case. We have no choice about disengagement from China because they've become totally integral to the world economy. China may have "opened up", but only so far, and there are now so many places where Chinese goods (and increasingly, services) touch Western consumers that any kind of trade boycott is effectively impossible.

Still, you could just be like the USA and ignore Cuba in the hope that it'll all go away. Oh look, it still hasn't.

Totally different situation. Cuban-American relations are frozen in a fucked-up posture because Cuban exiles have a disproportionate influence on the American election system. If a US Government had the balls to sacrifice Florida at the next election they could solve the Cuban problem in months.

By the way, if you're up for market protectionism, can I ask where your clothes are manufactured?

I'm not protectionist. Not at all. But your point about where my clothes are made is relevant to my point above; try living your life without buying Chinese goods. We're way past the time when that option is easy.

 

[dysfunction]

Talking of Nazi's....they held the Olympics in Germany under Nazi rule cos the Games are not supposed to be political...

 

[Chilly]

Transforming a government from communist to democracy or something similar quickly is disastrous. You can see the results by looking at Russia. Yes, China have horrible human rights records but they are changing and they are making progress. Like any process there is a start and an end. They have recently started and starting a war with them is not going to change anything, except change our life expectancy to fuck all.