Do you tune in to the Sky Business Channel on Foxtel? Why? Do you think they report well on business? For a while now, since the mining boom, which some say is over, we were all about trading iron ore and so forth with China, that so called great trading partner. Our important trading friend. What nonsense.
Why do they buy our iron ore? To build navel vessels designed to take away our fight for freedom. China hates Tibet. What was Tibet? China’s aim was to take over the world and invade everywhere. China said, “once Tibet falls under Chinese Communist control, we, China, take over everything;” (Mao Tse Tung (not that he’s worth quoting)). People watching the business channel probably couldn’t give two hoots. Well, if you bothered to educate yourself according to an authentic Buddhist system, one designed to defeat the causes of suffering, the cycle of samsaric existence, you would learn it’s the only valid education system really. Gosh, that’s a big statement to make, but it’s reliable and safe.
I can say, having watched the genocide of over one million people, negative karma hurts. China, aren’t you worried? The Sky Business Channel really doesn’t have a clue. What do you think, and I suppose you could argue, as long as they, (China), are building ghost cities, what concern is that of ours? However, what if they, China, are preparing for a military takeover? These people, Xi Jinping (who pongs by the way) are just mass murderers, uninterested in justice, freedom, or in preserving human rights. China’s track record stinks.
When I was young, I reported for Amnesty International on human rights abuse cases. Some of the stories I documented include the following:
China – it’s red army- under the leadership of Mao Tse Tung, ordering the murder of people in such a way; children as young as four or five years of age given a gun and ordered to shoot dead their parents in front of the red army or be shot themselves. Well, only the red army really survived, but they have rebirth in hell ahead (which is obviously necessary). Secondly, burying Tibetans alive in upright coffins. Thirdly, capturing 1500 Tibetan farmers and loading them onto a truck to take them to a deserted place on the Tibetan Plateau, to shoot them dead in a mass grave.
Fourthly, taxing the Tibetan people 90% of their income to make it impossible for them to find the income to eat; in other words starving Tibetan Buddhists to death.
The incident with the death and shooting of the Tibetan farmers happened no more that ten – fifteen years ago, under other communist leadership, (or lack thereof).
Aren’t you concerned? Why do you prefer dealing with murderers and torchurers in trade, than developing your own understanding of the heart and the mind, of realizing proper mind science that can set you free once and for all, from suffering and it’s causes. No amount of business properganda or bullshit can change these facts. If you practice religious freedom correctly, under the guidance of the Dalai Lama’s system, you can actually solve your problems forever by relying upon a proper understanding of the small, medium and great scope stages of the path to Buddhahood. China, it’s not a liberator. It’s a mass murderer, a genocidal criminal and thief, and a raper of more than just the environment.
Copyright © Vanessa Anne Walsh 2019
Regular offerings appreciated. Thank you for supporting this community orientated project.
Thank you for supporting this community friendly Buddhist project. We appreciate your interest and support.
Please support our dharma practice. We appreciate ongoing support.
Silence on China’s Human Rights Abuses
Where is China headed in 2018? President Xi Jinping promised “world peace” for the new year – but his 2017 track record suggests otherwise. Remember the singular stain of the July death of 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, surrounded by state security? Many condemned China’s conduct, but such interventions are fewer and further between these days. Increasingly, abusive Chinese authorities are garnering international support for their principles and policies.
In a single December week, the Chinese Communist Party hosted an international political forum in Beijing attended by representatives of political parties from democracies including New Zealand and the United States, seemingly unbothered that their hosts run an authoritarian, one-party state.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Council Information Office held an international symposium in Beijing on human rights – attended by United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a UN body that, unlike two dozen other UN agencies, is systematically denied the ability to operate in China.
And China held another global information technology summit on connectivity – attended by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, who in the US argues hard for privacy rights but in China lauds Beijing’s plans for a “common future in cyberspace” despite rampant censorship and electronic surveillance.
The term “normalising” is in heavy use these days, typically to mean the implicit or explicit acceptance of problematic behaviour. In diplomacy, it means two countries establishing formal diplomatic relations.
But it’s now also a perverse hybrid in contemporary international politics: individuals and institutions from parts of the world where human rights are generally protected aren’t just cosying up to, but also increasingly publicly praising, their Chinese counterparts – while failing to defend the principles and institutions that underpin their very existence. In doing so, they enable a whitewash of an abusive regime, one with global aspirations to change and set the rules of modern political life.
While it’s true that many people across different realms – academia, business, politics – have, over the years, pushed the Chinese government to adopt international human rights standards and end its persecution of peaceful critics, few now stand against Beijing’s intransigence. Many now choose to engage on Beijing’s terms, even when doing so is perverse and even harmful to their interests. Will Apple still thrive if China’s vision of state control of all sources of information and the use of artificial intelligence to monitor all citizens’ behaviour becomes a reality?
Those who participate in these kinds of gatherings invariably insist that it’s better they engage than not: after all, the logic goes, who else will set out different or higher standards on everything from democratic governance to corporate social responsibility?
But, increasingly, they simply don’t bother to set out or defend those standards. Did any of the political party conference attendees publicly dissociate themselves from their hosts’ closing statements praising President Xi’s leadership, or offer up publicly available remarks reflecting concern about the lack of elections or multiple political parties in China? No. Did anyone at the human rights conference make a public statement, while in China, about the death penalty, or torture by police? No.
While Chinese authorities host these substantively through-the-looking-glass gatherings and proclaim international support for their vision, increasingly they exploit openness elsewhere to do the same, often through state organisations like the United Front Work Department. Australian politicians have been discovered receiving political donations from Chinese businesses.
The Chinese authorities have been limiting access of human rights groups to the country. Police from Cambodia to France have capitulated to pressure from Chinese law enforcement or Party “discipline” officers and handed over allegedly corrupt fugitives without any semblance of due process. Universities struggle with ferocious complaints from Chinese diplomats about whether the institutions may describe Taiwan as an independent country, or have the Dalai Lama as a commencement speaker.
The question for democracies or businesses isn’t whether to engage: it is how to engage in a principled manner. This means treating China like many governments treat US President Donald Trump when he makes outrageous statements or adopts retrograde policies. Democratic leaders condemn Trump’s remarks about “fake news” – but don’t condemn China for its censorship or propaganda. They criticise Trump for his hostility towards the UN, but have nothing to say on China’s efforts to weaken the institution.
It is time for new standards to reverse these highly abnormal relationships with China. Forty years into China’s “reform era”, Beijing has made clear it’s not moving on democracy, a free press, or an independent legal system, though courageous people continue to push for these at considerable personal risk. If powerful outside voices mindlessly engage, they not only stab these brave people in the back – they may also find themselves obliged to dance to the tune of a highly repressive government.