Ron-
Yes, I gather there have been significant reforms in economic areas. Chinese still lack the most basic of political or human rights. The Chinese gov. appears of the opinion that they can maintain political control and stifle dissent while structuring their economy along semi-capitalistic lines. My entire point was about the lack of human or political rights in China, while I allowed for changes in material circumstances. Your list of economic changes is simply wide of the point.
<<I recently read of a man winning monetary damages from the local government for being wrongfully detained - the official responsible was removed from his position.>>
I find that interesting and new. I suspect this pushes the frontier in China and does not pertain to the national government.
<<Particularly interesting were the years Premier Zhu Rongi spent 'down on the farm' being 're-educated'>>
Not sure what relevance that has, although it may exercise a moderating influence. Deng's and Jaruselski's family experience might support that idea- but the former was in power during the Tienamen massacre.
<<I recently read of some home owners suing a developer for not repairing shoddy workmanship - China has sent judges to the US to learn how to create the laws necessary for individual property rights.)>>
I'm not one to minimize property rights. But again, you are failing to distinguish between economic rights and political ones- and it was political ones that my post addressed.
When you say 'thugs', do you include Batista, Shah of Iran, Marcos, Hussein...>>
This is a pretty odious group.
<<Wen Ho Lee's firing 'implies' that he's guilty of treason, yet no
evidence has been made public to support these implications>>
Whatever can you be thinking? Suspicions have been aroused- that is enough to stimulate loss of access to classified info, as you well know. Legal guilt is an entirely different matter and is determined by entirely different folks. You suggestion that evidence has not been made public and therefore action is not indicated is laughable. Surely you understand many espionage cases are not even tried because of security concerns.
Condemnation of human rights violations and other concerns should be put forth, but they should not foster alienation.>>
I'm glad to see your concern for human rights. I don't think the matter can be raised publicly- and very often not privately- without risking alienation. It is a risk we should be prepared to run.
<<I hope you don't mean to be as insulting as the comment indicates.>>
No insult really intended. When I choose to insult, I'm usually direct.
<<Would Dr. Tsien have been ousted if he were caucasion? In the early '50s there were many involved in the aerospace and nuclear programs that had 'extremist ideologies' according to Hoover's standards, but the non-caucasion was removed>>
Hmm, I'm not sure what history you are referring to. Was Robert Oppenheimer was "non-caucasion"? Or Theodore Hall, who probably smuggled secrets from Los Alamos to the Soviets. I challenged you not to impugn the integrity and motives- by citing "racism"- of those who decided Wen Ho Lee represented a security risk unless you have grounds for that claim. I find your historical reference utterly unconvincing.
Thanks for writing,
Larry |
