Chinese Premier is in town - why no protests?

ReefBreak

Are there any protests today in Dublin against the Chinese Premier? If not, why not? Considering China has one of the worst Human Rights records in the world.

Could it possibly be because the usual protesting suspects, i.e. the SWP, Boyd-Barrett, and the rest of the extreme-left mob would never protest against a Communist premier?

dathi1

Despite their illegal occupation of Tibet ...the Chinese haven't gone on any imperialistic invasions and coups like the yanks. China also seems to be embracing the market system with gusto and in time a growing middle class will demand more rights. Bush + Co on the other hand are dealing in mass death around the world to support their Zionist friends and Big oil.
Bush out..Peace In.

ps: I think the anti war movement although heavily infiltrated with SWP etc really reflects a wide cross section of the Irish political spectrum.

ReefBreak

Very good, but you didn't actually answer my question. In fact you ignored my question and changed the subject. Answer the question: Why no protests against China and their premier? Or do you just despise the Yanks and nobody else? Like you said:

Despite their illegal occupation of Tibet

...Not to mention their hideous human rights abuses. And yes, before you answer, I know ALL about the abuses in Iraq.

dathi1

well ok....take for instance the situation we have in the world now...Who would you regard the biggest threat to world stability?

1 Bush Admin?
2 Chinese President Hu Jintao?

A: Bush 100% hence protests.

sceptre

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Could it possibly be because the usual protesting suspects, i.e. the SWP, Boyd-Barrett, and the rest of the extreme-left mob would never protest against a Communist premier?

I suspect it could.

edit: On the other hand as daithi has said, Bush would be regarded as the most pressing threat to world security at the moment. There's a notable lack of any protest at all down in Glengarriff and anywhere in West Cork being visited by EU leaders at the moment. Still, my sentence above ("I suppose it could") is my own attitude on the thread topic.

arcadegame2004

I agree that the lack of protests when a Chinese or Russian leader visits is hypocritical and betrays a certain anti-Americanism among a lot of Irish people.

BarryFry

Originally posted by dathi1
well ok....take for instance the situation we have in the world now...Who would you regard the biggest threat to world stability?

1 Bush Admin?
2 Chinese President Hu Jintao?

A: Bush 100% hence protests.

Still not a reason not to protest is it?

Of course, if there were protests against every visiting leader from a country with a poor human rights record, that would mean protests for 75% of visits. It would get very tiring.

So peaceniks and human-rightists, being essentially lazy, just save them for the only ones who might possibly listen - the Yanks.

Meh

To be fair, I did see a couple of dozen Chinese people (some of them seemed to be meditating, possibly Falun Gong?) opposite Dublin Castle with banners condemning China's human rights abuses. But there wasn't a sign of the Indymedia/SWP crowd, so the original poster's point still standnd

mike65

I agree with the original point, its always been thus.

Mike.

Sand

Pretty much its because people dont care what goes on in Tibet. Most protestors, and indeed most people in Ireland, couldnt find it on a map.

The US on the other hand we know all about - We feel closer to the US, culturally, than we do to China. The atrocities in Vietnam for example are well known and indeed relatively magnfied by their pop culture exsposure in movies and music and so on. China cant rival that - Tienamen Square has a good iconic image of the protestor, whose actually facing a *real* (rather than imagined ) police state, in front of the tank but it hasnt really brought about the moral outrage that you might expect. The Chinese, like the Russians are good at washing their dirty laundry in secret.

Protesting China might be worthy and good and even consistent with claimed principles, but it just isnt as conformist and as sexy as protesting the Bush visit. You can make a career out of describing the US as a dangeous terrible empire bent on world domination and enslaving us all. Call oppressive regimes evil and youre mocked. The US monopolises western culture in all its aspects. Its no wonder its decried as "the biggest threat to world stability?" when Pakistan and India have regularly had pissing contests with nukes. Culturally, we know all about the US and nothing really about the rest of the world.

sleepwalker

i didnt even hear about this


but yeh i agree with this post its a very good point

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
Chinese President Hu Jintao?

He's not coming - it's Wen Jiabao.

Anyway, we didn't get the invite in time.*

* note to Bertie. Minimum 4 weeks notice for appointments.

dathi1

it's Wen Jiabao.

****e....I never get those Chinese personalities right:D

spanner

Originally posted by dathi1
Despite their illegal occupation of Tibet ...the Chinese haven't gone on any imperialistic invasions and coups like the yanks.

and:
- agressions towards taiwan,
- surpression of the freedom to practice religion
- showing no remorse for tenimin square

and countless smaller enfrigements on human rights documented be amniesty international and the U.N. The fact of the matter is that no one bothers protesting againist china because china just doesnt tolerate it and it is pointless. The anti war movement in ireland have accused bush of having two standards but really they should take a long look at themselves first

chewy

infact when i saw all the police i took a walk down to the castle to see what the fuss was about and was surprised when reading the big red banners it wasn't a protest but the dcu chinese society welcoming wen to dublin

i thought the was a nice change....

as an anti-war type... (hey whats exactly wrong with being antiwar ?) i reckon you might be somewhat right about the extreme left people.... and i think part of it is a lack of knowledge on the part of usual protestors..... but there you go what the us do is in the news everyday , what the us does effects the whole world ... what happens in china is only now beginning to effect the whole world...


its the same example for why anti-capitalist focus on mcdonalds rather then protesting against burger king and supermacs too... you focus on the biggest the first and the baddest and it refers to the rest.... if im not going to off the point with this analgoy , i havn't eaten at a mcdonalds in two years (even though i love banana milkshakes and smarties mcflurries) but i also haven't eaten at a burgerking or a supermacs they all the same supermacs got done last year for employing young workers beyond the legal time limits allowed. they're all the same but mcdonlds and similarily the US shout it out the loudest how good and nice and they are and how they give money to charity etc blaa blaa blaa

its the same with the torturing of iraqi prisoners so saddam did it too but he really didn't bill himself as the sole bringer of peace to the world nor does the chinese administration either ....

i really don't know any anti-americans i know plenty of anticapitalists though....a good question though i'll look into it

PaulHughesWH

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Are there any protests today in Dublin against the Chinese Premier? If not, why not? Considering China has one of the worst Human Rights records in the world.

Could it possibly be because the usual protesting suspects, i.e. the SWP, Boyd-Barrett, and the rest of the extreme-left mob would never protest against a Communist premier?

U got it in one, boyo!

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Are there any protests today in Dublin against the Chinese Premier? If not, why not? Considering China has one of the worst Human Rights records in the world.

Could it possibly be because the usual protesting suspects, i.e. the SWP, Boyd-Barrett, and the rest of the extreme-left mob would never protest against a Communist premier?

Absolutely! How much longer is ReefBreak going to have to wait for someone else to get their finger out and start protesting down at Dublin Castle?

Reefbreak wants a protest and as a very busy man he obviously hasn't the time or the inclination himself, so someone get down there now and start protesting on his behalf!!

AngelofFire

i think it was an absolute disgrace that the tanaiste would hold a dinner for the chinese premier. It is clear that all she cares about is maintaining irish business interests in china. She wouldnt think twice about chinas appauling human rights record.

As for the swp.The socialist party would have a lot in common with chinese economic ideology but the chinese governments social policies would be extremley authoritarian unlike the swp.
www.politicalcompass.org

I Just think that the swp couldnt be bothered organising a protest as they would get very little support.

thejollyrodger

why no protests?

'
Cos we can play this one real well and make a few bucks along the way;) so what if they are going to copy all of our ideas, econmic development models, anything else they might see while their over here,

we had ship tons of culture over there, taken in charlie tourists and students and make a packet on this whole job. Its a swell idea and give that man Bertie a god damn gold star!

therecklessone

I had a discussion with a (SWP) mate of mine a while back about dissident thinking. I asked him something along the lines of "why do the more well known dissidents never raise their voice in protest against non-Western governments". I think we were talking Chomsky at the time.

He reckoned it is because dissidence is relative to one's culture, so an American citizen will protest at Western actions (the West has effectively a single political culture) but not Chinese actions for example. He believed it was the responsibility of those within [insert non-Western culture here] to protest at their own governments policies.

I thought it was a cop out.

On a rather simple level I believe many "professional protestors" will not protest against the Chinese government because it doesn't allow them to rebel against the prevailing culture of the community they live in. In my experience, most of the people who choose radical politics have rejected the way of life that the majority of people live, so protesting against the US, or the EU, is a form of rebellion. Few retain their radicalism into later life because like most of us they grow out of their rebellious phase.

I've not really though this through, so I'm willing to listen to counter argument on it. Anybody?

sceptre

Originally posted by therecklessone
I had a discussion with a (SWP) mate of mine a while back about dissident thinking. I asked him something along the lines of "why do the more well known dissidents never raise their voice in protest against non-Western governments". I think we were talking Chomsky at the time.

He reckoned it is because dissidence is relative to one's culture, so an American citizen will protest at Western actions (the West has effectively a single political culture) but not Chinese actions for example. He believed it was the responsibility of those within [insert non-Western culture here] to protest at their own governments policies.

I thought it was a cop out.

I'd tend to think of it as something of a copout as well. However, he may be correct in that we do tend to be most opinionated and/or disagreeable about faults that we perceive to have something to do with us, our country or our "culture", directly, by association or some connecting cause or common ground. The other aspect is that, while it's extremely unlikely that any action taken in Ireland can or will affect the policies of the US government and/or corporations, any action taken in Ireland will be far less likely to even reach the "extremely unlikely" point with the Chinese government given that the links we have with that country are far less significant.

On a rather simple level I believe many "professional protestors" will not protest against the Chinese government because it doesn't allow them to rebel against the prevailing culture of the community they live in. In my experience, most of the people who choose radical politics have rejected the way of life that the majority of people live, so protesting against the US, or the EU, is a form of rebellion. Few retain their radicalism into later life because like most of us they grow out of their rebellious phase.

And there's that as well, which is generally true. Time constraints, such as family and job, and changing views when the wallet gets thicker tend to cause many activists to fade away (in the latter case I'm obviously thinking specifically of the more left-wing activists but there are as many reasnos for the fading of activists with other views). Of course even if that happens it doesn't affect the legitimacy or non-legitimacy of the philosophy itself that they held in their activist and/or whinger days.

invincibleirish

the swp have nothing but disgust for china,they dont support them or cuba,n.korea ,vietnam or the ussr, their ideological forefather is trotsky who was killed by stalins henchmen so thats probably why they hate the stalinist countries,that and their perversion of marxism and disdain for human rights.

chewy

well firstly i don't think you can blame anyone for being more concerned involved in local issues then ones across the world but hey thats part of the lety idea to think globally.... so they're working on it...

they're have been some protests
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65010

i also think there was a protest by falun gong members at dublin castle although i didn't see them... it'd be interesting to find out what the percentage of falun gong etc practicioners there are in china, and the percentage of non-practicioners there are who believe repression of such groups is wrong... and compare that with percentages of irelands 100,000 chinese population

when it coms to human rights, i dunno, its a clearer issues that everyone can detest, so its more the domain of well established ngos etc... and im quite sure that numerous dozens hundreds of letters and representations re the premier visit were made to the government.... ngo aren't as quick to do actual physical protests

so theres another reason

as for the guy who wrote "indymedia/swp" there is very little cross over of those groupings so either you don't know what your talking about or are trying to muddy the water?

therecklessone

Originally posted by chewy
well firstly i don't think you can blame anyone for being more concerned involved in local issues then ones across the world but hey thats part of the lety idea to think globally.... so they're working on it...

Then you've missed the point methinks.

Compare anti-Bush protests with anti-China protests. Both deal with external affairs yes?

chewy

soory you got me there i had begun to reply to points within other peoples replies rather then the first question but then it goes back to my response that the US actions have more effect on us then chinas...

bonkey

I seem to remember making this argument somewhere before...so excuse me if you also feel I'm repeating myself

Lets consider two kids in the school yard. One is the school bully. One is a reasonably good kid.

One lunchtime, you see both of these kids involved in seperate incidents. In both cases, they are beating up on someone else. The bully is being more vicious than the good kid.

1) Who's actions are you more disappointed in?
2) Who is more likely to change their ways for the better, given some encouragement?

Lets go one step further - why were anti-globalisation protestors focussing on Nike? Was it because they were all secretly Adidas or Reebok fans? Or could it be that they understood that convincing the industry leader to change its behaviour could have a knock-on effect on the entire rest fo the industry (just as had happened when said leader begain using foreign sweatshops in the first place)?

And indeed, lets just go for one more.....

Why have "incentive-based" encouragement programs been far, far more successful in terms of reforming countries than sanctions have? And given this, why - once a country seems to be making at least some moves in the right direction - would we want to encourage the stick over the carrot because they're still not perfect?

There are a myriad of reasons why people may not have protested. I'm sure different people and different groups may have different reasons.....but the most obvious one for me is simple. At the end of the day, a lot of people actually believe that elected governments can be influenced by public opinion far more readily than non-elected ones. I know its crazy, and its that old "mob rule" that Sand so despises, but its really true....protests can influence democratic governments, but I can honestly say that I don't remember the last protest that a non-democratic government was visibly swayed by.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
At the end of the day, a lot of people actually believe that elected governments can be influenced by public opinion far more readily than non-elected ones. I know its crazy, and its that old "mob rule" that Sand so despises, but its really true....protests can influence democratic governments, but I can honestly say that I don't remember the last protest that a non-democratic government was visibly swayed by.

From a superficially pragmatic point of view this makes a certain amount of sense but it detracts from the idea that there's some sort of moral principle behind the protests. The danger is that one gets the impression that people simply hate the target of the protest rather than the impression that they are protesting against a particular activity of the target.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
From a superficially pragmatic point of view this makes a certain amount of sense but it detracts from the idea that there's some sort of moral principle behind the protests.

I don't think so.

People generally condemn what they see as immoral actions, but they don't necessarily protest against every single incident. To do so would be counter-productive in terms of "burn-out" - both of the protestors and those they seek to be heard by.

The danger is that one gets the impression that people simply hate the target of the protest rather than the impression that they are protesting against a particular activity of the target.

You'll generally notice that those who criticise protestors for not protesting against X whilst protesting against Y bear a remarkable similarity to those who support Y and disagreed with the protest against Y in the first place.

In other words...you'll find very, very few people out there who will actually make an issue of the Chinese not being protested against who haven't already made an issue at some other point that the Americans / the war / whatever was or being wrongly protested against.

To me, its not the non-criticism which has led to the complaint at all, so I wouldn't subscribe to the notion that it sends anyone the wrong message. Mostly, I reckon the only people who get the "wrong" message are those who are taking exactly the message they want to - that the protests against the US are fundamentally wrong because the lack of protest against China somehow "proves" that its really just thinly veiled anti-Americanism.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
I don't think so.

People generally condemn what they see as immoral actions, but they don't necessarily protest against every single incident. To do so would be counter-productive in terms of "burn-out" - both of the protestors and those they seek to be heard by.

Again, perfectly understandable from a pragmatic point of view. You mention that it makes sense to protest at a democratic government as these are more likely to bend under pressure. I think that if, say, Amnesty International were to do this they would lose a lot of moral credibility. From a pragmatic point of view, Amnesty International targetting democratic governments may make some sense in that it could be argued that it leads to more political prisoners being released in the short term, but my point was strictly about the the impression being given out. They would quicky start to be dismissed as an anti-democratic organisation just as an organisation highlighting human rights abuses only in Muslim countries would be dismissed as an anti-Muslim organisation.

You'll generally notice that those who criticise protestors for not protesting against X whilst protesting against Y bear a remarkable similarity to those who support Y and disagreed with the protest against Y in the first place.

This does not mean that the points they are making aren't valid and, moreover, what you're not hearing from is the large number of people who don't post on message boards, don't protest but influence government action through voting. It is these people who the politicians are thinking of when they work out how to react to protests. If the general body of the populace thinks protesters are simply angry anti-americans, then the politicians will simply ignore the protests.

In other words...you'll find very, very few people out there who will actually make an issue of the Chinese not being protested against who haven't already made an issue at some other point that the Americans / the war / whatever was or being wrongly protested against.

To me, its not the non-criticism which has led to the complaint at all, so I wouldn't subscribe to the notion that it sends anyone the wrong message. Mostly, I reckon the only people who get the "wrong" message are those who are taking exactly the message they want to - that the protests against the US are fundamentally wrong because the lack of protest against China somehow "proves" that its really just thinly veiled anti-Americanism.

The notion that the people complaining about protesters may have their own agendas in doing so, does not detract from the idea that when you target your protest at a specific country while ignoring others guilty of the same thing detracts from the moral credibility of that protest.

I'm not arguing against the pragmatic aspects such as burn out, etc.

therecklessone

Originally posted by bonkey
but I can honestly say that I don't remember the last protest that a non-democratic government was visibly swayed by.

jc

The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe was largely prompted by peaceful protest was it not?

The fall of Milosevic in The Former Yugoslavia also?

Victor

Originally posted by therecklessone
The fall of Milosevic in The Former Yugoslavia also?

Well a 2 million crowd storming the city centre really did it, but yes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie

Milosovic wasn't a dictator, he was democratically elected in 1997 and he's still an MP afaik. If the people didn't want him in they should've waited til election time instead of indulging in mob rule obviously.

I don't suppose Reefbreak is going to bother explaining why he wasn't out protesting himself if he's so concerned about evil communist (quite a bit of foreign capital going in there last time I checked) China's human rights record.

pork99

Originally posted by AngelofFire
As for the swp.The socialist party would have a lot in common with chinese economic ideology but the chinese governments social policies would be extremley authoritarian unlike the swp.
www.politicalcompass.org

This is very naive. As soon as you (the SWP) start any social engineering you are going down a road the ultimate destination of which is a place where you lock up dissidents in mental hospitals & gulags. You might have the best of intentions but that is the ultimate effect of real Marxist policies: "everything will be fine if we just divide society's wealth fairly". :rolleyes: (How many votes has the SWP ever got? Is it not a "play party" for middle class students to work out their anti-establishment feelings?)

This naivety extends to this idea of the USA as the world arch-villain. I can't defend Bush & his neo-con mates but look at the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Can you imagine any Chinese officials ever having to face any public scrutiny for their atrocities in Tibet? And then changing their policies because of adverse public opinion? As Winston Churchill said "The Americans always do the right thing - eventually"

Compare going on a protest in the PRC to one here, for example the little May Day scuffle outside the Phoenix Park. Here you might get wet or get a slap from a cop. In China doing the same thing you risk death or slavery in a gulag for many years.

When I was a student I can remember reading SWP literature and finding it very attractive. I also remember the beginnings of my disillusionment with left-wing politics. There was a definate anti-American and pro-Marxist totalitarianism bias. I remember when I was in 1st or 2nd year - would have been 1989 - when the executed bodies of the Ceausescus were shown on TV news. Some of my left wing fellow students were upset and disgusted by that. (And by the collapse of Eastern European Communism generally) A couple of years later I was in London and I met a couple of Romanians who had lived under the Ceausescu regime. I asked them how they felt about those images and they said that they got the champagne out and had a party when they saw that. Interesting contrast.

Zombrex

Down here in Limerick there were protests, and a lot of quite pissed off people

I think the reason there wasn't mass protests was because there isn't a war going on involving Ireland and China at the moment.

I am pretty sure if Bush came to Ireland before Iraq or Afganistan he would have recieved about the same level of protest, or even less

Zombrex

Originally posted by pork99
This is very naive. As soon as you (the SWP) start any social engineering you are going down a road the ultimate destination of which is a place where you lock up dissidents in mental hospitals & gulags.

Not necessarily

Not to get too off topic, but there are two ways to form a communist society, the easy way and the hard way

The easy way evolves forming a authoritarian government that simply forces the people of your country to submit to the communist economic and social structure. Naturally you will get people who resist, so to stop the entire thing coming apart, military and oppressive rule must be imposed and those who attempt to fight against the system are eliminated "for the good of society." This is the method used in pretty much every communist country, from Cuba to Russia.

The hard way evolves convincing everyone that the communist system and principles are worth while and better than the old capitalist system. This way there is no need for a repressive system because everyone wants to live in this form of government (at least the majority in a democracy).

Notice that both these methods are independent of the actually communist ideals themselves. They are just too methods of attempting to impliment them.

The SWP is attempting (afaik, i am not a member) to impliment a socialist system using the later form (the hard way). Now personally I think they are doomed to failure because it is unrealistic and against even a basic study of human nature to assume that people will want a communist system. Put simple people are simply too nasty and greedy to live in a system whole centered around sharing and helping one another, and it is unrealistic to assume otherwise. But I have nothing against them trying, and it does not mean they are preaching repression.

Dictatorships or authortarian governments do not go hand in hand with communism. They are just a way (the easiest way) to impliment a communist system.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Redleslie
Milosovic wasn't a dictator, he was democratically elected in 1997 and he's still an MP afaik. If the people didn't want him in they should've waited til election time instead of indulging in mob rule obviously.

They did wait until election time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2000/milosevic_yugoslavia/downfall.stm

From the link above
When Milosevic refused to recognise the election victory of opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, and a national strike was declared. One by one, key allies dropped their support, including the Serbian Orthodox church and parts of the state media.

Confidence grew, and 10 days after the election protesters stormed the parliament and the state TV station, setting both buildings on fire. Many policemen took off their helmets and joined the protesters. Milosevic's empire had crumbled.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/29/yugoslavia.vote.03/index.html

Redleslie

Ta for that. My mistake. He's still an MP though.

Jailed former President Slobodan Milosevic and another U.N. war crimes suspect won seats in Serbia's parliament as an extreme nationalist party swept weekend elections, according to results released Monday.

Vojislav Seselj's Serbian Radical Party, which supported Milosevic's 1990s Balkan war campaigns, won 81 seats in Sunday's ballot for the 250-seat parliament - far more than the pro-Western groups that toppled Milosevic three years ago, the state electoral commission said.

therecklessone

You're welcome.

And sure isn't Micky Lowry still a sitting TD...;)

bonkey

Originally posted by therecklessone
And sure isn't Micky Lowry still a sitting TD...;)

I thought he was a fictional cop from Bad Boys.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by bonkey
I thought he was a fictional cop from Bad Boys.

jc

The double jobbing sonofabitch...;)