[url=http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080324_china_cries_foul_over_tibet_coverage/]China Cries Foul Over Tibet Coverage
[/url]

China has accused international media outlets of showing bias in news reports of the riots in Tibet, however the feeling is mutual. Beijing has prevented foreign media from entering Tibet and neighboring provinces and has limited domestic access to foreign media reports.

International Herald Tribune:

State-controlled news media have been allowed to report from Tibet and neighboring areas where violent protests occurred.

But foreign journalists have been denied access to Tibet and blocked from reaching neighboring regions with large Tibetan populations. Many foreign reporters who managed to get into Tibet after the riots were forced to leave.

Foreign journalists in China said those actions violated the government’s pledge to give them greater press freedoms and access to the country in the months leading up to the Olympic Games.

Catherine,

China is not entirely a free society just yet, even though it has become one of the biggest players on the international scene. China wanted the Olympics to display their emergence from Mao's gentle slumber over the prior 50 years. I think they deserve a chance to demonstrate their abilities on the world's stage, after all, one in four of us live there.

Along with notoriety on the world's stage comes the attention that siuch a position merits. China invaded Tibet in 1959, not last week. The Dalai Lama has been speaking out about this ever since he was kicked out. For 50 years the world has been rather blasé about the whole affair, nonchalantly classifying it as "Another Chinese human rights issue."

China deserves to be called out on the global carpet for their actions. In a way it's sad that the world waited so long before protesting this much, but on the other hand, China was never so elevated on the world's stage in recent history. They get to see the other side of the coin of world activities. I'm sure they've been expecting this.

The Olympics need to go on, period. What the US did in 1980 and the Soviets in 1984 was silly and childish and quite undeserving of each other. The Olympics are the largest overall sporting event in the world. Athletes train for many years to achieve this single opportunity to perform before the entire world. To deny them this chance is stupid and childish. No country is so pristine as to be able to walk on water. All nations have a closet, some have entire storage centers. Sports and politics do not mix well. It's like oil and vinegar, after mixing they separate quickly.

Let's protest China's mistreatment of the Tibetans and scream from the highest mountain tops that they need to resolve this issue immediately. But let's not forget the athlete who has trained for years for this one chance to achieve their dream. The athletes didn't invade Tibet. They have nothing to do with China's ugly foreign policy. They shouldn't be made to suffer as a result.

Agreed, but I think it's very important to let the Chinese government know that their human rights violations are just as exposed and open for scrutiny as is their more recent world stage presence. The Chinese human rights record should not be shunted aside in order to have a "polite" Olympics.

However, when we consider the human rights violations that are taking place in Iraq right now as a direct result of the American invasion of that country, perhaps we should keep our protests down to a mere squeak. Otherwise, we'll look more hypocritical than we actually are....if such a thing is possible.

Exactly,

For us it's more like the pot calling the kettle black. It's also a bit hypocritical of the rest of the world to protest en extremis now for an action that took place 50 years ago. Where were these demonstrations last year, and the year before, and the year before that??

The Olympics is the greatest athletic games in the world. The athletes shouldn't be made to suffer and those who are demonstarting today should also be the ones who voice their dissent tomorrow.

btw, your picture is very à propos. And it's not just Walmart, either. There are thousands of companies, Mattel for example, who trade more and more with China because of their cheap labor.

Fuck China.

It's time we cut all trade ties to China.

Everyone says, "Oh, you can't stop free trade."

Bullshit.

High tariffs built this country.

Let's go back to what works.

Tariffs are seldom a good answer and they are always retaliated against.

But the playing field does need leveling. The slave labor in China and Indonesia only benefits the corporate leaders. They should increase wages and benefits to their slaves....or see tariffs level the field.


Don't buy from WalMart or Nike. They are two of the worst for slave exploitation. Their sins pale next to the IMF of course.

shoeless,

If we do like you say and stop buying altogether, we might be able to affect the Chinese economy a small bit, but not much. With China's growth at over 10% annual over the past 10 years or so, China would be able to replace the business we do with them within two years time. However, those companies that now use China as their manufacturing facility will have to look elsewhere for their production needs. That won't be easy and the goods they sell in the US will increase in price due to the necessary relocation and probable higher cost of labor in the new country.

Another major loss on the US's part would be all the raw materials we currenltly see to China. For the past several years China has been on a building frenzy and has been buying all the excess lumber, steel, and other construction supplies around the world. They would have to look elsewhere, which means that the business we would lose there would be taken up by other countries. Both China and India have super hot economies now and are looking to grow even faster. If we can't sell them computers, cars, building materials, manufacturing equipment, etc., they will have to go elsewhere. It should that no more than two years before China is back to normal on that front as well. Many other nations would benefit enormously from our decision, while American companies would be made to suffer the loss of a giant customer.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that China has major human rights problems, labor problems, and foreign policy problems. However, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others. Our human rights problems have serious flaws, unless you think torture is okay and illegally invading two countries isn't a crime. Our labor problems are just as bad. We are currently paying millions of undocumented workers slave wages to work on our farms and provide us with produce. If Americans had to replace them, our produce prices would skyrocket from the additional costs. Our foreign policy is pretty bad as well. We have illegally intervened in other countries' internal affairs over 163 times since the founding of our nation.

As I said, it would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

They were on the streets, in the Temples and on the stage of the Academy Awards being ignored by the MSM and the general public. Now that the public relation show that the Olympics have become gives the protests their deserved attention gives no weight to the argument, "It's too late now."



The Olympics may have been the greatest athletic games some time in the past, today they are a vehicle for corporate profits and PR. The goal of the athlete today is money. The Olympics are a sham and have been for many years.



Let's see if I get this right, if two wrongs don't make a right, then 164 (163+1) wrongs do make a right. What a load of crap. Here are the lyrics that seem the most applicable:

Your free market is perfectly natural,
Or do you think that I’m some kind of dummy,
It’s the ideal way to order the world,
Fuck the morals, does it make any money?
And if you don’t like it? Then leave.
Or use your right to protest on the street,
Yeah, use your rights but don’t imagine that it’s heard, Oh no no,

Running the World
Written and Recorded by "Jarvis Cocker"
Album: "Children of Men Soundtrack"

APL,

you wrote this:


I haven't a clue what you're talking about. 163 interventions were wrong. I am not advocating another intervention of the same type. I can't see where you'd even get that impression. Why would I bring up the fact that 163 times were wrong and then try to present a case where the next intervention would be right??

Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote. I am definitely NOT advocating interventionism of the type we've seen before.

You say since we did 163 wrongs we should do nothing about China's. I don't need to re-read that crap, you need to examine your false logic.

Wow,

You've got issues.

How do you propose we take care of the situation? A full force attack on mainland China?? Since you are obviously announcing that interventionism is the only way to go, I'd like to hear how you'd intend to take care of this.

That is, if you have any ideas at all. You could just be blowing hot air, belittling others with no clue yourself. Explain your interventionist tactics, oh Great Patton jr.

I have heard whisperings that this administration believes we could 'take China' but have not been able to find anything on the net to link to. Still, the thought scares me, knowing how those on 'the other side' in America love to attack nations.

I believe China would have many ways to fight back, including knocking out our power grids and electronic signals.

The thought scares me because the people in power now do not appear to be in touch with reality one bit. They could try such a hairbrained idea--it is their modus operandi.

Oh, the poor little mega-multi-national corporations!

You are obviously so addled by the globalization propaganda, that you can no longer imagine the idea of making things in the USA.

This attitude is the root of our problem. For 200 years, the US built the world's biggest economy, and best standard of living. We did this by protecting our markets with high tariffs. Over the past 30 years, we have been propagandized to believe that we need cheap crap from third world countries in order to survive. The result has been a devastated economy, and the loss of millions of jobs. How's that workin' for ya.

Dori,

The US never attacks a country that possesses nuclear weapons. We never have. Here is a cute little two minute vid which explains it in a funny way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

The bottom line is that the US doesn't pick on countries where a major fight could occur. The only time we fought big fights was when there were several on our side, and most of the war had already been fought. There are few exceptions to that rule, and those were times when the fight was brought to us, not the contrary. We're not about to start launching bombs on a country that could turn around an devaste a great portion of the world, including a lot of us. I'm still waiting for APL's great intervention plan on how to attack China and NOT have a nuclear war. I'll be very surprised if he can come up with anything at all.

shoeless

I wouldn't mind everything being made in the US. I think we do a great job for the most part. Our labor's expensive, but the quality is often very good.

You stated this:


The above implies that 200 years ago we had the world's biggest economy and best standard of living. This just isn't so. Up until the 20th Century the US was a fast-paced, expanding nation that grew in size by way of purchasing land, fighting wars and wiping out local popluations. Our industries grew, our labor was relatively cheap in the world, and our manufacturing ability steadily increased. We didn't have the greatest standard of living, but we were steadily improving.

Only after the second world war were we pretty much alone at the top. That's because the other major economies had just been flattened by 5 years of steady bombardment. We were IT as far as production was concerned. Our standard of living didn't necessarily rise to the top. It was more a case of the other nations fell below us. Nevertheless, since WWII our labor costs have been among the highest around the world.

So when you have WalMart, Target, CostCo, and others vying for your dollar, they realize that you will purchase from the store with the cheapest cost, all else being equal. Labor costs become a huge factor in this. If it's made in America, the overall cost of it will generally be a lot higher than if it was made overseas and shipped here. That is economics 101. As a consumer, if WalMart sells their widget for $2.00 because it was made in China, and Target sells an identical widget for $12.00 because it was made in Akron, Ohio, you're gonna buy from WalMart. There will be a small percentage of the population that will "buy patriotic" and spend the extra $10.00, but if you're a member of the lower middle class or poor class, the meaning of "patriotic" takes on a whole nuther rung.

The bottom line??? For every widget "made in USA" that Target sells, WalMart will sell 1,000. You know that, they know that, we all know that. That's why no one among them is pushing the "buy patriot" advertising. American labor is too expensive for most common goods. If you're talking a high end performance vehilce, I don't care how much cheaper China makes it, I won't buy it. China is definitely not known for their attention to detail and quality. High end cars are not cheap. I want good quality for my money especially when I have to pay thousands of dollars to get it. In other words, the US has not been able to compete on the world's stage for cheap items for a long time now. The US can and does compete in other areas such as, computers, military equipment, fast food, certain construction supplies, high end technical machinery, space technology etc.

You're also implying that in 1977 and before we didn't buy from overseas countries.


I can remember back to the early 60s. Then it was cheap radios from Japan. I remember that there were also about 25 different brands of TVs, all made in the US, competing for out dollars. Over the years, and prior to 1978, that dwindled down to two or three. Japan could just make them better and cheaper, even when you factored in shipping costs. In the 60s the rest of the world was still coming out of the second world war. The major economies that existed before the war were still retooling and rebuilding. As the years went buy, their abilities improved, the production of common goods became very standardized and easy to make, and cost cutting maxed out on all raw materials. The only cost cutting measure left was labor. Since our labor is expensive, companies started shifting their plants to cheaper countries. Those companies that didn't follow suit are no longer with us. Their employees are either without a job, or with another company which is sending its mfg overseas.

As Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and a few other high end labor countries can attest, the only items that are logical to produce in their countries are high end technologically superior products that cannot be mass produced. This isn't a US-only problem. This is Economics 101. It's the same for every country. When Chinese labor starts becoming more expensive, global mfg companies will switch to other countries to cut labor costs, it's that simple. My paradigm will work regardless of what American companies do.

btw, your cute little cartoon missed a big point. The gentleman was making US wages in the US. In Mexico, he's making 1/10 the wages. There is no reason for any company to shift their manufacturing to another country if they don't receive a benefit for it. That makes no sense.

"Hey Bill, let's ship this production to Japan, what'd'ya think?"

"But Japan has the same labor rates we have. We'll be paying a ton more in new costs of shipping, packaging, customs, delays to our stores, etc. We'll increase the cost of the product by 50%"

"Yeah, I know. I just want to be able to tell little Johnny that we are now making stuff overseas like the big boys. You know he asked me the other day, and I said I'd look into it."

"But our product will be priced out of the market. If we pay the same labor rates in Japan that we pay here, all the other companies will be cheaper and we'll go out of business."

"Yes, but I promised little Johnny that we'd make stuff overseas so that he can tell his other friends whose parents run Ford, GM, WalMart and the other big companies."

"But it doesn't make sense to spend MORE money somewhere else for the same product. The only reason to build elsewhere is to save costs, not spend more!!"

"Oh, you know how little Johnny can whine. Now let's see how we can ship this overseas and spend more money making the same thing and THEN try to sell it to Americans. I hope our Marketing staff is up to the task."

And yes, I realize that Mexico isn't "overseas," it's next door. You forget that I worked there for four years in a town called Apizaco, Tlaxcala, Mexico. I worked for CLEMEX, Creusot-Loire Entreprise, Mexico, a French-Mexican consortium. They are located at the industrial park, Ciudad Industrial Xicohtencatl (and it took me nearly a year to pronounce that last word correctly). The make heavy equipment for the petrochemical industry.

I know what it's like to work in other countries. I know the differences. I know Economics 101 and the need to stay competitive in a global economy. So do our business leaders. Many of the 163 incursions into other countries were to help our industry in a beleaguered country survive. You can look it up.

http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_a ... meline.swf

My only issue is with moral pygmies that justify their spineless stances with this "all countries have done wrong" so we should not complain when others are doing the same thing. Or it might cost me some money. The tolerance of evil is just as evil the evil act itself. Where did I say intervene? The only person that saw that as obvious was you. My ideas include boycotting the games with Tibet only being one reason, the Tiananmen Square massacres of 1989 seem ignored as well. So screw your sarcasm and take your pocketbook morality away.