Skip to main content

Our biggest creditor once again tells us what not to do....

... or at least that's the conclusion you might draw after this warning from the wizened old men in Bejing has received international coverage without a single statement in response from our State Department:

BEIJING, March 7 (Reuters) - China's foreign minister, speaking ahead of two sensitive anniversaries next week, warned other countries on Saturday not to let the Dalai Lama use their territory to try to sever Tibet from Chinese control.

Beijing abruptly cancelled a China-EU summit last year, angry over French President Nicolas Sarkozy's meeting with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader whom Beijing condemns as a separatist.

The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in March 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, says he only wants greater autonomy for the remote region in China's far west rather than outright independence.

"In developing relations with China, other countries should not allow the Dalai Lama to visit their countries and should not allow their territories to be used for the Dalai Lama to engage in separatist activities for Tibet's independence," Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said.

"I think this is an integral part of the norms governing international relations," he told a news conference on the sidelines of the annual meeting of parliament.


Oh, wait, I did find a statement from Hillary Clinton about Tibet:

I am deeply concerned about the violent clashes that have erupted in Lhasa, Tibet. Based on the limited information available, there is an urgent need for all parties, and in particular the Chinese security forces, to exercise restraint, to demonstrate respect for human rights and to protect civilians from danger. I call on the Chinese government to prevent further escalation of this conflict and to urgently pursue resolution through peaceful means.


Oops, sorry, never mind.

That statement was made by Senator Clinton, not Secretary Clinton, in March 2008, not 2009.

I will repeat my observation: China is now the only lender capable of helping us keep our economy afloat (which is what Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have been saying for months), and you do not get to criticize your largest creditor.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Should I stop cursing my mortgage company?
Thomas L. Knapp said…
Want to talk about what "integral part[s] of the norms governing international relations?"

How about, um, not invading, conquering, occupying and abusing peaceful neighbors? That one ring any bells?

Fuck Beijing. Even in a world increasingly composed of authoritarian savages at the political level, the Chinese Communist Party takes the cake.

There's no benefit in trying to discuss "integral part[s] of the norms governing international relations" with rabid dogs.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...