Hu Xijin is the editor-in-chief of Global Times, often regarded as one of the "mouthpieces" of the Chinese government (aka communist party in western press).
China is a huge multicultural country with wide economic and social disparities which need to be addressed efficiently. It is easy to point fingers especially coming from those who do not know Chinese history and local conditions well. China is more complex than outsider's simplistic viewpoint. Development takes time - this is nothing compared to the thousands of years of Chinese history. It pays to be patient is the wise message to hot heads.
This is a frank interview with Hu Xijin. No political rhetoric, just plain words from the heart of a Chinese.
Quote :
Hu: I respect the voices on weibo, but I don’t think the voices on weibo represent the whole of China. Weibo only gathers people of the same mind. These people are active but they are not the mainstream. If the majority of Chinese society thought I was wrong, then I would think carefully if I should change. The Global Times is doing better and better, and its influence is getting bigger and bigger. People are still buying it even at 1.2 yuan. The circulation is huge. It means people are reading our newspaper, they agree with our position. Most people are still on my side.
We have been touching sensitive topics in recent years, which laid the groundwork for our prompt comment on the Ai Weiwei case.
There are diverse public opinions in China. Some people try to label everything and everyone. This is not healthy. I think GT has been trying to take an impartial position on sensitive issues. But I have to admit, it’s difficult. Take Ai’s case for example.
We wrote four editorials about Ai in a row. Maybe not every word was accurate, but the overall message was not wrong. If you have to pick a particular sentence and ask me what it means, then it’s like punishing people for their words. We can’t take things out of context. Any article would be problematic if taken out of context.
We wrote those editorials out of China’s interest. The articles reflect our overall understanding of the world. I don’t think we should single out the government. The Chinese government is part of China. Under most circumstances, the interest of the government is the same as the interest of the people and the nation. I don’t believe the US government cares more about the well being of the Chinese people than the Chinese government does. I don’t believe that.
It’s a simple way of putting things. The key is to understand the word “rise.” The authorities do not like this word; they prefer “development.” The foreign media like to say “China rise” and many Chinese people followed suit and grew used to it. It’s a reality for China. There are good things, such as rapid economic development, but there are weaknesses and problems too, such as the income gap. And we haven’t completely solved the theoretical questions; such as how do we connect the superiority of socialism with economic development and the fruits of a market economy. These haven’t yet been solved. The rise of China is complicated.
The China consensus is not mature, neither is the China model. At least we haven’t figured it out ourselves.
But we do walk on a different path than the West.
We shouldn’t be obsessed with the question of whether this path is unique to China or not. That’s meaningless. No society develops completely isolated from the rest of the world. It’s impossible. In this age of globalization, we most definitely have been influenced by the West. We can’t develop without the West. Our opening up, to a large extent, has been toward the US. All kinds of Western thoughts and good things have had a positive impact on us. China can’t develop in isolation. No doubt about it.
Yet China can’t simply copy the US or the UK. That can’t be done. China takes all the good things from different countries, puts them together, remixes them in China, and moves on from there. That’s a fact. And that’s the way it should be. What’s the population of most Western countries, tens of millions? That’s just a small province or a city in China. China is a huge truck, and the West is a go-cart. If you put someone who’s used to driving a go-cart behind the wheels of a big truck, they will feel completely different.
I agree that there are common universal values; human rights, freedom and democracy. Call them universal values and I agree. But the West has made these words political. The meaning of those words have gone far beyond their original concept. The situation changes when the West uses them as diplomatic tools to pressure China. In fact most Chinese people have the same understanding about whether we should have democracy and freedom. It’s just that we don’t have a consensus on how to get there.
China is moving forward. You’d be a fool to deny it. But we can’t equate democracy with votes, one person one vote. That’s too narrow an understanding of democracy, and that’s a path designed by the West. Chinese people aren’t that stupid. We should call a spade a spade, and continue to promote democracy.
I think human rights and sovereignty are consistent. Separating the two is the Western discourse. How can human rights in China be separated from sovereignty? Hasn’t China suffered enough throughout history over issues of sovereignty? How many people were killed by foreigners? In the past, when sovereignty was weak, the country had little say in the world. Today every country is competing to develop. The stronger their sovereignty, the bigger say the country will have. This is directly connected to human rights. Why do we set them up against each other? That’s Western discourse and Chinese intellectuals who believe it are either not thinking for themselves and following the West, or doing so deliberately out of personal interest.
China’s national strength is still weak when compared to the West, so stressing no interference in the country’s domestic affairs is in line with China’s national interest. It’s also against China’s interest to intrude on other country’s domestic affairs.
There is only one China, there is nothing wrong with loving the country and doing one’s best to help push it forward. A friend of mine told me another story. One of his friends was rich and wanted to go to the US, so my friend said, “You will always be Chinese even in America, and you will always rely on China. If China gets better your status will rise, if not, you will be more miserable, as you won’t be accepted in that society.
The country may not be perfect but why belittle it?
This is how I feel. The US doesn’t need us to defend its interest as other people do. China has finally grabbed the chance to develop and is very likely to succeed. There are people saying online that China is messy, I agree and I have said so in an editorial. Sometimes we don’t know whether to love or hate the country seeing all the problems, but once I see hope and the progress that’s been made, I choose to love it and protect it.
Full report of the interview with Hu Xijin :
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/663853/China-is-complicated.aspx
The fact is that majority of people do not want to rock the boat does not mean that they are ignorant or have been subdued or brainwashed.
Self-righteous humanists, please give more respect and credit to the intelligence of Chinese people.
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thanksgiving - repaying gratitude with revenge? What Tibet rebels could teach native Americans about autonomy and freedom
Stories of two huge landmass : North America and China.
Pilgrims who could not adapt to the harsh winter conditions were helped by native American Indians. Thanksgiving was a gesture of gratitude. However, pilgrims decided to stay on in the land of milk and honey, and European migrants flocked to America to seize, plunder, steal from Native Indians and did not spare killing those who stood in their way.
Tibet was ruled by theocratic monastery and majority who were serfs suffered inhuman treatment. Local feudalist lama-abbot controlled government was concerned that post-war revolutionary fervour will spread to disgruntled serfs. There were indications of planned uprisings and internal dissension.
Following negotiations, Dalai Lama invited the People's Liberation Army to get the house in order. His Holiness was seen taking photos with Mao and attendance of plenary sessions of the national assembly during happier times.
Census showed that the population of Tibetan Autonomous increased due to stability, decline in starvation and better medical facilities, amenities and general living conditions. The slaves were freed, liberated and enjoyed equality with former serf owners.
However, Dalai Lama's inner circle and revisionists discontent with the erosion of their powers conspired to revolt against Beijing and regain power with the help of Uncle Sam. Thanks to the help of CIA, the Dalai Lama ended up in exile and could not return to his homeland which has since changed by leaps and bounds, materially and spiritually.
http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.secret.war.TIGHT.htm
http://www.reality-choice.org/134/how-cia-helped-dalai-lama-to-end-up-in-exile
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm
http://ciaintibet.com/about_project.php
The whole of China, not only Tibet and inner provinces suffered from the devastation of failed economic management and the political "cultural" revolution. Tibet was not singled out. However, for the last two decades, economic growth and policies to develop remote areas has brought about improvements and uplifting of conditions for growing numbers of people. Better communication links, infrastructure, health facilities, However, superstition and accessibility remain major obstacles to reach out to every family living in the Tibetan region.
On the other side of the globe, native American Indians live in poverty and could not get out of the rut. But in a democracy, the government does not want to interfere in the lives of its people who should enjoy all the freedom they want. The capitalist Darwinian system does not require intervention . American presidents are more interested in garnering national support to fund democratisation of other countries. In a system where majority rules (tyranny?), the aspirations of remnant native Americans are ignored.
More than two centuries on, why don't Indians learn from dissident Tibetan Buddhist monks to exercise freedom and agitate for more help by burning themselves to have their voices heard? Some say native Indians have pride and honour or perhaps are they are not very politicised and assertive.
Does the Dalai Lama have in mind some sort of native reserves for Tibetans? If Americans can't redress inequalities within their own country, how could they hope to champion human rights for Tibetans unless there is a prize at the end of the tunnel.
Pilgrims who could not adapt to the harsh winter conditions were helped by native American Indians. Thanksgiving was a gesture of gratitude. However, pilgrims decided to stay on in the land of milk and honey, and European migrants flocked to America to seize, plunder, steal from Native Indians and did not spare killing those who stood in their way.
Tibet was ruled by theocratic monastery and majority who were serfs suffered inhuman treatment. Local feudalist lama-abbot controlled government was concerned that post-war revolutionary fervour will spread to disgruntled serfs. There were indications of planned uprisings and internal dissension.
Following negotiations, Dalai Lama invited the People's Liberation Army to get the house in order. His Holiness was seen taking photos with Mao and attendance of plenary sessions of the national assembly during happier times.
Census showed that the population of Tibetan Autonomous increased due to stability, decline in starvation and better medical facilities, amenities and general living conditions. The slaves were freed, liberated and enjoyed equality with former serf owners.
However, Dalai Lama's inner circle and revisionists discontent with the erosion of their powers conspired to revolt against Beijing and regain power with the help of Uncle Sam. Thanks to the help of CIA, the Dalai Lama ended up in exile and could not return to his homeland which has since changed by leaps and bounds, materially and spiritually.
http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.secret.war.TIGHT.htm
http://www.reality-choice.org/134/how-cia-helped-dalai-lama-to-end-up-in-exile
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm
http://ciaintibet.com/about_project.php
The whole of China, not only Tibet and inner provinces suffered from the devastation of failed economic management and the political "cultural" revolution. Tibet was not singled out. However, for the last two decades, economic growth and policies to develop remote areas has brought about improvements and uplifting of conditions for growing numbers of people. Better communication links, infrastructure, health facilities, However, superstition and accessibility remain major obstacles to reach out to every family living in the Tibetan region.
On the other side of the globe, native American Indians live in poverty and could not get out of the rut. But in a democracy, the government does not want to interfere in the lives of its people who should enjoy all the freedom they want. The capitalist Darwinian system does not require intervention . American presidents are more interested in garnering national support to fund democratisation of other countries. In a system where majority rules (tyranny?), the aspirations of remnant native Americans are ignored.
More than two centuries on, why don't Indians learn from dissident Tibetan Buddhist monks to exercise freedom and agitate for more help by burning themselves to have their voices heard? Some say native Indians have pride and honour or perhaps are they are not very politicised and assertive.
Does the Dalai Lama have in mind some sort of native reserves for Tibetans? If Americans can't redress inequalities within their own country, how could they hope to champion human rights for Tibetans unless there is a prize at the end of the tunnel.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Guo Mingyi - the modern Lei Feng, a model for Chinese people
This is a model selfless Chinese. It is very rare in today's materialistic world. Most people are too busy chasing after material wealth and neglect social and spiritual development.
More people should follow his example and come forth to serve the community. Don't give excuses, procrastinate or wait till you are rich. There is never enough wealth for some to amass and they don't know where is the limit.
Guo Mingyi is just an ordinary worker. But he has done many charitable, commendable and admirable deeds from whatever he could offer - blood donation and money for the needy. A humble quiet achiever is worth much more than self-serving and short-sighted arrogant individuals who only talk about great ideas but fail to achieve any common good.
http://www.chinahumanrights.org/Messages/Focus/056/7/t20110719_770323.htm
More people should follow his example and come forth to serve the community. Don't give excuses, procrastinate or wait till you are rich. There is never enough wealth for some to amass and they don't know where is the limit.
Guo Mingyi is just an ordinary worker. But he has done many charitable, commendable and admirable deeds from whatever he could offer - blood donation and money for the needy. A humble quiet achiever is worth much more than self-serving and short-sighted arrogant individuals who only talk about great ideas but fail to achieve any common good.
http://www.chinahumanrights.org/Messages/Focus/056/7/t20110719_770323.htm
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Tibetan Monks' Suicide Mission - marginal sect's interpretation of Buddhism and politics
Monks from Kriti monastery have burnt themselves to send a message to Beijing. They are said to be close and sympathetic to the exiled Dalai Lama and the controversial anti-government Kriti Rinpoche.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geqMJgfzWImzR1kzZ-sA7cPamEQg?docId=CNG.85d6efd89b39fb7853a1eb4f76261036.431
Self immolation is unheard of in Tibet until recently. It is also discouraged in Buddhist teachings.
It is assumed that His Highness condones such behaviour. Tibetan monks are willing suicide burners to pressure Beijing.
It is a reminder of inferno monks during the Vietnam War which caught media attention. But it was the cost of the war that led to the withdrawal, not protests.
Majority of Tibetans are now enjoying a higher standard of living, modern universal multilingual education and temples receive huge amounts of funding from the government as well as other ethnic followers of Tibetan Buddhism. The cultural genocide charges levelled against Beijing by the Dalai Lama could not be proven or substantiated. Instead, exiled Tibetans have lost much of their cultural heritage compared to their cousins living in mainland China.
The Dalai Lama has been accused of human rights abuses, nepotism and hypocrisy by the Western Dorje Shugden. But victims endured discrimination and harassment and had not resorted to burning themselves to seek attention.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/files/tibetan_situation.pdf
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geqMJgfzWImzR1kzZ-sA7cPamEQg?docId=CNG.85d6efd89b39fb7853a1eb4f76261036.431
Self immolation is unheard of in Tibet until recently. It is also discouraged in Buddhist teachings.
It is assumed that His Highness condones such behaviour. Tibetan monks are willing suicide burners to pressure Beijing.
It is a reminder of inferno monks during the Vietnam War which caught media attention. But it was the cost of the war that led to the withdrawal, not protests.
Majority of Tibetans are now enjoying a higher standard of living, modern universal multilingual education and temples receive huge amounts of funding from the government as well as other ethnic followers of Tibetan Buddhism. The cultural genocide charges levelled against Beijing by the Dalai Lama could not be proven or substantiated. Instead, exiled Tibetans have lost much of their cultural heritage compared to their cousins living in mainland China.
The Dalai Lama has been accused of human rights abuses, nepotism and hypocrisy by the Western Dorje Shugden. But victims endured discrimination and harassment and had not resorted to burning themselves to seek attention.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/files/tibetan_situation.pdf
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Lessons for Occupy Wall Street - Remembering America's Tiananmen - Kent Campus massacre
OK, perhaps the London riots and looting by sympathisers of a rogue killed in an unclear scuffle with the police and opportunists who exploited the mayhem may not be suitable comparison with shooting at unarmed innocent students by the police and military.
So American, British or European students who do not read history or show disinterest in world affairs and prefer to rely on hearsay and biased news reports, think again and consider carefully before you plan to embark on a campaign that could disrupt the government for a prolonged period of time.
My sympathies and concerns go to the current worldwide Occupy Wall Street that if they persist, tragedy may befall them.
That the Jasmine Revolution would not happen in democratic and well endowed democratic countries is a myth. The fact is that democracy supports participatory decision-making, which has so far been muted due to apathy and indifference, and the predominance of corporate power. The people have awakened. Capitalist and incestuous collaboration of politicians, military and corporations need to be questioned if not challenged by the people, for the people.
What really happened?
http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm/history-world.org/
http:/kent_state_shootings.htm
QUOTE :
On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
That was in Ohio, an obscure state in the Midwest, not the centre of power and wealth. The best advice anyone could give to both sides : be flexible and willing to compromise. Avoid confrontation and hardline bargaining that would get nowhere but disastrous consequences. Because we know that it is not beyond the police and military to in America to fire at innocent and unarmed citizens engaging in peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins and protests. Anything could be justified even in the land of liberty, if the authorities are forced by circumstances. Tiananmen could happen anywhere, and it did.
So American, British or European students who do not read history or show disinterest in world affairs and prefer to rely on hearsay and biased news reports, think again and consider carefully before you plan to embark on a campaign that could disrupt the government for a prolonged period of time.
My sympathies and concerns go to the current worldwide Occupy Wall Street that if they persist, tragedy may befall them.
That the Jasmine Revolution would not happen in democratic and well endowed democratic countries is a myth. The fact is that democracy supports participatory decision-making, which has so far been muted due to apathy and indifference, and the predominance of corporate power. The people have awakened. Capitalist and incestuous collaboration of politicians, military and corporations need to be questioned if not challenged by the people, for the people.
What really happened?
http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm/history-world.org/
http:/kent_state_shootings.htm
QUOTE :
On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
That was in Ohio, an obscure state in the Midwest, not the centre of power and wealth. The best advice anyone could give to both sides : be flexible and willing to compromise. Avoid confrontation and hardline bargaining that would get nowhere but disastrous consequences. Because we know that it is not beyond the police and military to in America to fire at innocent and unarmed citizens engaging in peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins and protests. Anything could be justified even in the land of liberty, if the authorities are forced by circumstances. Tiananmen could happen anywhere, and it did.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
China model : western democratic model not at this stage, or never
A frank opinion and balanced assessment from a Norwegian academic which exposes the prejudices of the Nobel prize Committee.
Judge for yourself. If you read widely and weigh the odds, you won't believe everything that the mass media (profit driven and backed by powerful interest groups) feeds its readers. But of course, certain powers would also try to conceal the truth, spread false rumours, in order to cast doubts on the credibility of others and make their own kind look noble and impeccable.
Quotes :
Big mistake to award Nobel Peace Prize to non-contributor to peace: Norwegian professor
Ironically, Kolstad said, many in the West still believe that their system is the best in the world and has to be exported to all other countries, "in some countries by force and wars, and in other countries by supporting those who are believed to represent these values and ideas."
"To state that parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech is a guarantee for peace and end of armed aggression is a mistake," he said.
Commenting on the Nobel Committee's claim that it is independent of political influence, the professor said: "There is definitely relationship to the official political system in Norway." He noted that the committee leader is also a former Norwegian prime minister and president of the parliament.
China has made remarkable progress in human rights, such as plugging starvation, curbing crimes and promoting food safety, which are "important not only for a developing and still poor country like China, but for developed countries as well," Kolstad said.
"In this way, the Western world can learn human rights from China," he added.
Meanwhile, China carries a "relational" culture where people seek relationships and harmony and are less inclined to stay out as independent and autonomous human beings than those in Western societies, Kolstad said.
It is also simply unfair to label China as an undemocratic country, he stressed, explaining that China adopts "another kind of relationship between those in power and the people."
"The parliamentary system with more parties is not the only way to give people influence on political decisions and the future of their country. We have to accept that other countries choose other political and democratic solutions, based on their culture and level of development," he said.
"I do not know if it is more democratic to have a system where presidential candidates have to be extremely rich to run for presidency," he added.
Lurking underneath the West's uneasiness and faultfinding with China, Kolstad pointed out, is that many in the West do not like to see a big and in many way successful country like China having another political system, based on other cultural values than is accepted in the West.
"I look at China as a peaceful, not aggressive country compared with most developed countries in the world. China does not take part in wars, it tries to solve international problems with dialogue," he said.
"I therefore think it is unfair to give a Peace Prize to the opposition and dissidents in China instead of giving it to the president, as in the U.S.
http://www.english.news.cn/
"Liu Xiaobo has, as far as I know, never contributed in any conflict-reducing activity or take part in peace-related activities," Professor Arnulf Kolstad of Norwegian University of Science and Technology told Xinhua.
"I therefore cannot see that the peace prize winner fulfills the most important criteria in Nobel's testament. Therefore it is a mistake," added the professor of social psychology and China expert.
The professor explicitly rejected the Norwegian body's argument that Liu's struggle for human rights, especially the freedom of speech, and a Western parliamentary democratic system in China is a prerequisite to world peace.
Many countries that have long followed the Western political system, such as the United States, Britain and Norway, have been among the most aggressive military powers in the last 50 years, occupying and starting wars in others countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, he noted.
To state that parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech is a guarantee for peace and end of armed aggression is a mistake," he said.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2010-10-13/content_1000948.html
Clarification
A Norwegian professor explicitly rejected a claim he “denounced China for slander” during an interview by the Voice of Germany (Deutsche Welle) on October 17, 2010. Arnulf Kolstad, a professor with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, stressed that he had never made such statement and insisted he had been dissatisfied with the Nobel Peace Prize committee during interviews from both Norwegian and foreign media.
On October 8, professor Kolstad said “This is a wrong decision (to give Liu Xiaobo the 2010 Nobel Peace prize)” while he accepted an interview with the World’s Road (Verdens Gang).
The Oslo bureau of Xinhua new agency interviewed professor Kolstad on Oct 12 and completed a story with the headline “Big mistake to award Nobel Peace Prize to non-contributor to peace”. After the publication of the article, a post claimed professor Kolstad made a quick statement once he heard of the Xinhua’s report that “it’s a complete rumor and a trick of Joseph Goebbels.”
In a telephone interview with the Voice of Germany (Deutsche Welle, DW), Arnulf Kolstad confirmed that he had given an interview to Xinhua, and that the views he voiced in the interview were nothing special. He also said that he had not issued a statement accusing Xinhua of fabrication afterwards, and was not aware of news about such a statement. As early as the day the prize was announced, the DW reporter also noted, Norwegian media had published his interview and its contents are much the same as the Xinhua report.
Kolstad also expressed in an interview with the Oslo bureau of Xinhua News Agency that his views have not changed. He said, "I have never published the so-called statement. I stand by everything I say, I did not withdraw anything I said. The statement online is not correct and is pure rumor."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/after-peace-prize-china-targets-winners-friends/
Judge for yourself. If you read widely and weigh the odds, you won't believe everything that the mass media (profit driven and backed by powerful interest groups) feeds its readers. But of course, certain powers would also try to conceal the truth, spread false rumours, in order to cast doubts on the credibility of others and make their own kind look noble and impeccable.
Quotes :
Big mistake to award Nobel Peace Prize to non-contributor to peace: Norwegian professor
Ironically, Kolstad said, many in the West still believe that their system is the best in the world and has to be exported to all other countries, "in some countries by force and wars, and in other countries by supporting those who are believed to represent these values and ideas."
"To state that parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech is a guarantee for peace and end of armed aggression is a mistake," he said.
Commenting on the Nobel Committee's claim that it is independent of political influence, the professor said: "There is definitely relationship to the official political system in Norway." He noted that the committee leader is also a former Norwegian prime minister and president of the parliament.
China has made remarkable progress in human rights, such as plugging starvation, curbing crimes and promoting food safety, which are "important not only for a developing and still poor country like China, but for developed countries as well," Kolstad said.
"In this way, the Western world can learn human rights from China," he added.
Meanwhile, China carries a "relational" culture where people seek relationships and harmony and are less inclined to stay out as independent and autonomous human beings than those in Western societies, Kolstad said.
It is also simply unfair to label China as an undemocratic country, he stressed, explaining that China adopts "another kind of relationship between those in power and the people."
"The parliamentary system with more parties is not the only way to give people influence on political decisions and the future of their country. We have to accept that other countries choose other political and democratic solutions, based on their culture and level of development," he said.
"I do not know if it is more democratic to have a system where presidential candidates have to be extremely rich to run for presidency," he added.
Lurking underneath the West's uneasiness and faultfinding with China, Kolstad pointed out, is that many in the West do not like to see a big and in many way successful country like China having another political system, based on other cultural values than is accepted in the West.
"I look at China as a peaceful, not aggressive country compared with most developed countries in the world. China does not take part in wars, it tries to solve international problems with dialogue," he said.
"I therefore think it is unfair to give a Peace Prize to the opposition and dissidents in China instead of giving it to the president, as in the U.S.
http://www.english.news.cn/
"Liu Xiaobo has, as far as I know, never contributed in any conflict-reducing activity or take part in peace-related activities," Professor Arnulf Kolstad of Norwegian University of Science and Technology told Xinhua.
"I therefore cannot see that the peace prize winner fulfills the most important criteria in Nobel's testament. Therefore it is a mistake," added the professor of social psychology and China expert.
The professor explicitly rejected the Norwegian body's argument that Liu's struggle for human rights, especially the freedom of speech, and a Western parliamentary democratic system in China is a prerequisite to world peace.
Many countries that have long followed the Western political system, such as the United States, Britain and Norway, have been among the most aggressive military powers in the last 50 years, occupying and starting wars in others countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, he noted.
To state that parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech is a guarantee for peace and end of armed aggression is a mistake," he said.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2010-10-13/content_1000948.html
Clarification
A Norwegian professor explicitly rejected a claim he “denounced China for slander” during an interview by the Voice of Germany (Deutsche Welle) on October 17, 2010. Arnulf Kolstad, a professor with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, stressed that he had never made such statement and insisted he had been dissatisfied with the Nobel Peace Prize committee during interviews from both Norwegian and foreign media.
On October 8, professor Kolstad said “This is a wrong decision (to give Liu Xiaobo the 2010 Nobel Peace prize)” while he accepted an interview with the World’s Road (Verdens Gang).
The Oslo bureau of Xinhua new agency interviewed professor Kolstad on Oct 12 and completed a story with the headline “Big mistake to award Nobel Peace Prize to non-contributor to peace”. After the publication of the article, a post claimed professor Kolstad made a quick statement once he heard of the Xinhua’s report that “it’s a complete rumor and a trick of Joseph Goebbels.”
In a telephone interview with the Voice of Germany (Deutsche Welle, DW), Arnulf Kolstad confirmed that he had given an interview to Xinhua, and that the views he voiced in the interview were nothing special. He also said that he had not issued a statement accusing Xinhua of fabrication afterwards, and was not aware of news about such a statement. As early as the day the prize was announced, the DW reporter also noted, Norwegian media had published his interview and its contents are much the same as the Xinhua report.
Kolstad also expressed in an interview with the Oslo bureau of Xinhua News Agency that his views have not changed. He said, "I have never published the so-called statement. I stand by everything I say, I did not withdraw anything I said. The statement online is not correct and is pure rumor."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/after-peace-prize-china-targets-winners-friends/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)