Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (8610)	5/28/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: shadowman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

nytimes.com T. Friedman's column about US/China relations in today's NYTimes. Some of the "politics" involved.

To: DMaA who wrote (8610)	5/28/1999 7:39:00 PM
From: Stitch	Respond to of 9980

DMA, <<Here's the difficulty you run up against when discussing China by comparing it to USA.>> <<The government of the USA was founded on very clear principles >> <<The closest thing that China has to founding principles ( that I'm aware of ) is the Communist manifesto and Mao's little red book.>> The Maoisim is certainly not alive today and many of the "principles" espoused by the little red book has been largely if not officially eschewed by subsequent regimes in China starting with Deng who certainly had his differences with the "swimming poet". You neglected to mention Confucianism cum Taoism which, among many Chinese in and out of China is still very much a part of Chinese ethos and are no less principles then, say, Jeffersonian thought. I would attest personally to the fact that these ancient principles are still very much in evidence among the Chinese. I would further remark that these principles are very clearly void of western Democratic philosophy. In fact, I will go a step further. The PRC is just another dynasty, (not to trivialize the scope of what that implies) with many of the same basic tenets (and follies) intact that have been seen in previous dynasties. Then I will submit this notion for discussion. China is today, IMO, farther away from those tenets then ever before. I will add a quick personal footnote for thought. I see little difference in a Tibetan Monk's testimony on torture, then say a democracy advocate under Pinochet. Best, Stitch

To: DMaA who wrote (8610)	5/28/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 9980

I don't think the question of "founding principles" is really that relevant when applied to China. I am less concerned with where the current Chinese regime is than with where it is going. Change is certainly happening, and the changes are moving in a positive direction. They may not be happening fast enough to suit all of us, but there is little doubt that they are happening. I believe that confrontational moves are more likely to slow the pace of change than to accelerate it, and that from a pragmatic perspective the best thing we can do to improve the human rights situation in China is to help the Chinese to accelerate their economic development and their economic integration with the rest of the world. The combination of a lack of consensus among industrial allies, China's relative economic self-sufficiency, and the likelihood of encouraging a hardline reaction would make it unlikely that any economic sanction at this point would have much positive effect.