Tiananmen mothers urge China to end "atrocities"
-
Feb 28, 1:32 AM (ET)
BEIJING (Reuters) - Families of victims of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown have called on the Chinese government to renounce violent oppression of human rights.
The call from the Tiananmen Mothers, a group of more than 100 family members of demonstrators killed in the June 4, 1989 crackdown, comes just ahead of the opening of the annual session of China's parliament.
"Please show courage and determination to stop all atrocities that oppress human rights around the country," the group said in an open letter seen on Tuesday.
In December, paramilitary police opened fire on residents of Dongzhou village in the southern province of Guangdong protesting against a lack of compensation for land appropriated for a new power plant.
The government says three villagers were killed in what has been one of the most widely reported instances of armed forces firing on protesters since the military crushed the Tiananmen pro-democracy demonstrations. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed in that crackdown.
The Tiananmen Mothers, led by Ding Zilin, a retired professor whose teenage son was killed in the crackdown, have lobbied for years for an official apology over the massacre.
In the statement, Ding's group also asked parliament to press the government to unfreeze a bank account containing funds meant to help families of Tiananmen victims and warned of a need to "reverse the crisis that has emerged."
During its March 5-14 annual session, China's parliament is expected to address growing social unrest, largely sparked by public anger over issues ranging from land grabs without proper compensation and official corruption to a yawning wealth gap.
Chinese police have reportedly rounded up at least eight democracy campaigners involved in hunger strikes ahead of the session and other dissidents are being held under house arrest. -
The Chinese government is built up by the blood and deaths of countless people...
So they give in just because a few students protested?
If they need to kill more they will not hesitate and show no mercy
-
kill 500 million still got 700 million ... massive population indeed.
-
I read a historical record that Mao Tze Tong decided to kill 600k Chinese up front to instill fear among Chinese so that he could enegineer social change. This represented 0.1% of the total population in the 50s. Land owners were rounded up indiscriminately, tortured and beheaded publicly by communists soldiers. Thats the way these communists do it.
-
You must realise that Chinese through out history are ruled by the "imperial" style concept
Any other style will lead to chaos and probably a joke for the world -
What about imperial Japoan and Korea? Are these jokes or economic successes?
-
look at what democracy did to the phillipines, iraq, afghanistan and other latin american states.
-
democracy didn't cause the problems there. Had there been no democracy, it would have been worst. Are Chinese unqualified to enjoy democracy?
-
I support an eventual democracy for China, but not in the style so chaotic like Philipines or Indonesia, definitely not.
Well, throughout history China is only stable when the central government is very strong, the emperor is enlightened and willing to root out corruption. I feel western liberal democracy cannot work in China as an entire country (although it seemed to work in Taiwan) because China has a very large diverse population and a massive income gap, with rising social problems. China's short democracy record after 1911 revolution was a disgrace, ridden with corruption causing it to collaspe into warlordism.
However, I still feel China should one day embrance democracy, but with a strong central party present, similar to Malaysia and Japan, only then it can be stable. China need noT model itself after the West, but can seek direction from fellow Asian states like Japan, India, Singapore and Malaysia, to observe how they made democracy, where individual rights is crucial, compatable with Asian values of community. -
actually democracy is a joke in many countries in Asia.Originally posted by cheem-.-:I support an eventual democracy for China, but not in the style so chaotic like Philipines or Indonesia, definitely not.
Well, throughout history China is only stable when the central government is very strong, the emperor is enlightened and willing to root out corruption. I feel western liberal democracy cannot work in China as an entire country (although it seemed to work in Taiwan) because China has a very large diverse population and a massive income gap, with rising social problems. China's short democracy record after 1911 revolution was a disgrace, ridden with corruption causing it to collaspe into warlordism.
However, I still feel China should one day embrance democracy, but with a strong central party present, similar to Malaysia and Japan, only then it can be stable. China need noT model itself after the West, but can seek direction from fellow Asian states like Japan, India, Singapore and Malaysia, to observe how they made democracy, where individual rights is crucial, compatable with Asian values of community.
Taksin declares national election but the oppositiions wanted to boycott, all they wanted was Taksin to come down, then they take over??
Arroyo was an elected president but now 'the people's power' wanted her out. The person who walked in all the marches to topple all elected presidents was Mrs. Aquino. Looks like she is only happy when she takes over as president, just like taking over Marcos. Democracy = people's power??
Taiwan Ah Bian put on a good show of assasination during election, and has a new premier every year. Are the Taiwanese better off today? the happy Taiwanese are in China today.
Is China ready for democracy? I think the government should first reduce income disparities, improve its law and order, ensure national wide equality in education, monitor and punish power abuse, then it is meaningful to talk about a political overhaul.
american and foreign power stay out !! -
You have a point. I never said China should have democracy right now, but hopefully in the future. I also think Bush should stop walking around the world preaching his western democratic values, as if his country is very democratic itself.Originally posted by sgdiehard:actually democracy is a joke in many countries in Asia.
Taksin declares national election but the oppositiions wanted to boycott, all they wanted was Taksin to come down, then they take over??
Arroyo was an elected president but now 'the people's power' wanted her out. The person who walked in all the marches to topple all elected presidents was Mrs. Aquino. Looks like she is only happy when she takes over as president, just like taking over Marcos. Democracy = people's power??
Taiwan Ah Bian put on a good show of assasination during election, and has a new premier every year. Are the Taiwanese better off today? the happy Taiwanese are in China today.
Is China ready for democracy? I think the government should first reduce income disparities, improve its law and order, ensure national wide equality in education, monitor and punish power abuse, then it is meaningful to talk about a political overhaul.
american and foreign power stay out !! -
Democracy has worked for Taiwan? In their first presidential election they elected a traitor. In their second the winning candidate had only 38 per cent of the popular votes. In the third the same candidate carried a self inflicted wound into office. Then he appointed a foreign minister who used Hokien expletives like LP.Originally posted by cheem-.-:I feel western liberal democracy cannot work in China as an entire country (although it seemed to work in Taiwan) because China has a very large diverse population and a massive income gap, with rising social problems. China's short democracy record after 1911 revolution was a disgrace, ridden with corruption causing it to collaspe into warlordism.
In the Taiwanese parliament, members spend more time quarrelling and fighting than debating.
I really don't know what democracy has done for Taiwan. -
Democracy is basically a good thing,much better than dictatorships.
It may not be perfect so we cannot say China cannot have democracy or democracy don't work in Asia. -
A democratic China may bring as much harm to Asia as it does good, according to a new report from an Australian defense think tank.
In an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, economist David Hale warned that the peaceful, predictable economic engagement policies of the current Beijing could be undone by the greater democracy the next generation of Chinese leaders might bring, writes Agence France-Presse.
"When a fifth generation of leadership assumes power in ten to fifteen years, China could become more open and tolerate greater dissent," the report said.
"Such a political opening could then open the door to forces such as nationalism and populism. There is no way to predict exactly how Chinese politics will evolve in a more democratic era, but it is a development which could produce new challenges for the countries of East Asia after 2020.
"An authoritarian China has been highly predictable. A more open and democratic China could produce new uncertainties about both domestic policy and international relations."
Such uncertainties could include military threats to other nations in the region, Hale writes, though he notes that such threats would be likely only if "domestic political instability... produced an upsurge in nationalism and a search for external scapegoats."
Australian newspaper The Age reports that Mr. Hale sees similiarities between a democratic China and the "banana republics" of Central and South America, in part due to the increasing economic divide in China between the rural population and wealthy urbanites.
"If China had a democratic regime, there is a great risk that the increasing income inequality in the country could produce a populist regime which would suspend economic reform and plunge the country into the kind of inflationary crises which have characterised Latin America for much of the modern era," Mr Hale said in the report.
The potential for trouble is already apparent from the Chinese government's own admission of a seven-fold increase in protest marches in the last 10 years, many by rural people upset about the loss of their land to property developers or urban people concerned about job losses.
The fact that Germany helped to launch a war with Britain in 1914 is a reminder that economic integration does not guarantee that a country will have a benign foreign policy. On the eve of World War I, 76 per cent of Germany's foreign trade was with other European countries. As Norman Angell wrote in 1911, there should never have been a European war because it was economic madness for the players. Angell was vindicated by events but Germany nevertheless allowed her alliance with Austria-Hungary to set the stage for a conflict that engulfed all the major European nations....
The experience of 1914 is a warning that one cannot depend upon economic factors to resolve political conflicts, but the situation in East Asia today contains fewer political risks than Europe during the early 20th century. The challenge for the US, China and Japan is to continue minimising the potential for conflict through effective dialogue, while pursing the economic integration that will encourage further political co-operation.
[Bush and US secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] are in search of substantive partners in this global endeavour of pushing democratic values. The partners themselves must be deeply wedded to free electoral process and pluralism. Thus the fateful words on the Bush-Singh accord of July 18, 2005 : "create (together) an international environment conducive to promotion of democratic values, and to strengthen democratic practices in societies which wished to become more open and pluralistic".
These are activistic words indeed. Of course, the balance of power in Asia in the 21st century between a dictatorship of the proletariat, China, and a thriving democracy, India, is of major significance in the Bush-Rice decision matrix.
But if economic reform in China is widely seen as, at least indirectly, fostering democratization, democracy in India is seen by some as a drag on the kind of economic progress that would make India a stronger counterweight to China. Opinions differ on how much democracy has helped economic growth in India, and democracy's effect on economic growth will likely play a large part in China's decision to adopt democratic reform.
But Carl Mortished writes in The Globe and Mail that obstacles in India's democratic society snag economic progress, whereas no such obstacles exist for China.
There is a lingering doubt that the Indian tiger will be roused from its 50-year sleep. India is not China; even as the [Bombay Stock Exchange's Sensitive Index] soars, the government reached a deal with airport workers, promising them job security after a five-day strike created stinking rubbish heaps. Where China's despotic gerontocrats can bulldoze teeming slums for new highways, India's leaders must negotiate. The government sees a need for an extra 100 gigawatts of power by 2012, but the dams and power stations will be fought every inch of the way by petty officials, hysterical NGOs and any babu after a buck.
These issues are unvoidable for India, Mr. Mortished writes. "It's the price India pays for democracy."