> But let's set the record straight on China's leaders : they make Clinton and Albright look like saints.
I disagree.
>Their main interest in this affair was not what happened to the Serbs, but rather, to use NATO's ill conceived plans and the bombing of their embassy as a means to discredit pro-democracy activists, divert attention from Tiananmen's 10 th anniversary, and generate a Patriotic fervor that corrupt politicians are often keen to exploit for their own selfish interests.
I agree for the most part.
> Surrendering the moral high ground to Chinese Communists and Russian hardliners, if only temporarily, was, IMO, one the greatest negative consequences of this fiasco.
YES, I agree 100% on this!
> On a final note, defending or justifying the survival of Communism in China by pointing to what happened to reforms in Russia is ill advised.
I do not think so. Clearly the reforms in the Soviet Union has been a nightmare for 99.99 of the people there and a great money making opportunity for the politicians, the oligarchs and Mafia.
> Communism is not a guarantee of stability in China, on the contrary.
Communism breeds corruption, and corruption is the source of instability.
People can be (and have been) executed for corruption in China. Here people like Keating and thousands of white collar criminals (the very small percentage that gets caught) get probation and go on to the next scam. If it wasn't for the strong Chinese govt, China would have made Russia look like nothing, IMHO.
>If the Chinese want stability, they will have to progressively abandon Communism and erradicate corruption.
What do you think they have been doing for almost 20 years? They sure got a long way to go but you just can not change everything in a flash (like the Soviets did).
As far as corruption go, it is a matter of perception. Here we have legalized corruption in the form of campaign lobbying contributions buying laws.
Yes, I agree corruption is a problem in China. Having people executed for it may prove as a detterent<g> |
