China has accused the United States of harbouring a "Cold War" mentality, while expressing deep anger over a tribute by US President George W. Bush to people who have died under communism.
"We express our strong dissatisfaction and stern opposition to the words and actions of the American side and have already lodged solemn (diplomatic) representations," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.
"Some US political forces still cling to their 'Cold War' mentality and out of political necessity seek to provoke conflicts between different ideologies and social systems.
"This runs counter to the trend of the times and is unpopular."
Qin's statement was published on the foreign ministry's website late on Wednesday, a day after Bush unveiled a new memorial in Washington that mourns tens of millions of people who were killed under communist rule.
The memorial, a replica of the Tiananmen Square "Goddess of Democracy," was dedicated 20 years to the day since Bush's predecessor Ronald Reagan stood at the infamous barrier dividing Berlin and urged Moscow to "tear down this wall."
The bronze memorial unveiled near the US Congress is modeled on the statue raised by pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square before they were massacred by Chinese troops in June, 1989.
"Like the communists, the followers of violent Islamic radicalism are doomed to fail," said Bush, who has often compared Islamist extremists to Germany's Nazis or Soviet communists.
"By remaining steadfast in freedom's cause, we will ensure that a future American president does not have to stand in a place like this and dedicate a memorial to the millions killed by the radicals and extremists of the 21st century."
Qin said the trends of contemporary times were to seek peace between nations and maintained that political ideologies should not interfere with global cooperation.
"The Chinese side calls on the US side to reject its 'Cold War' mentality, seek to reform its mistaken actions (and) stop interfering in the affairs of other nations," Qin said.
I really would like China to become the world super-power, they know how to look at their own deficiencies before pointing fingers at others.
Bush would wont be in power to see Islamic radicalism fail. Until US policies on middle-east (especially in relation to Israel-Palestine) changes, I doubt the islamic extremist would stop.
China is good at deflecting attention from their own human rights record. The memorial to the victims of communism is quite justified, as no political ideology has led to so many deaths, not only of others but of their own people.
That being said, I do wish for good relations with China, but I don't think any world leader, whether American, British, Afghan, Polish, etc, etc, should apologize for recognizing the millions upon millions of people who died as a direct result of communist policies. If China wants to change the perception of communism, they should do it through their policies.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
You can say Capitalism killed all those innocent milions in the vietnam war. Or capitalism killed 600.000 Iraqis.
Stop blaming the ideologies, its the politicans that is to blame.
What do politicians do? They carry out a political ideology. In any event, the communism we have seen to date didn't and does not really have "politicians" as we think of the term, just totalitarian and authoritarian leaders. China is more of a communist-lite, compared to the days of Mao Zedong, but those days still existed. Just as the Nazi ideology led to millions of deaths, communism has that burden on its shoulders too. Particularly when speaking about Stalin and Mao Zedong. Stalin with outright murder, and Mao with mass starvation.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
It's rather ironic, really, as modern day China has little resemblance to even a Leninist (or Maoist) communist state. If anything it bears considerably more resemblance to the sort of alienating capitalist set-up Marx would have recognised than any of the European democracies.
It has more to do with burying a past the leadership would rather forget, and that it would be 'unfortunate' if the masses ever really got to know about, than any defence of communism as such.
I'd agree with Sinbad on the matter of ideologies and individuals.. there is nothing inherent in communism that results in such atrocities, although there must always be risks associated with the revolution that is required (according to Marx) to establish it. Stalin was never a commited ideological communist as such, at least after Lenin's death, he just used the existing machinery to trample over everybody to reach the top and implement his own agenda. Mao was a communist, but basically made two massive mistakes in regard to the 'Great Leap Forward' and Cultural Revolution, and the second of those was primarily a political move rather than any attempt to forward the implementation of communist ideology.
I think its important to note that we've never seen an actual communist country. China and old Russia were communist in name only. Just as the USA is capitalist in name only. Communism actually has been shown to work quite well in small communities, which is pretty much the only setting that has ever actually used it in more than name only.
I'd agree with Sinbad on the matter of ideologies and individuals.. there is nothing inherent in communism that results in such atrocities, although there must always be risks associated with the revolution that is required (according to Marx) to establish it.
I think that's a cop-out. Communism has resulted in so many more atrocities than any other political system that I don't think you can simply blame the individuals. Any system with so many incorrect assumptions about human nature and with such reliance on centralized control will almost always produce atrocities when put into practice on a large level.
To comment on the "real communism" statements, I would like to submit that "real communism" can only exist on a small, localized level. A fully communist/marxist society is impossible to create. The communism we've seen in the world is as real as it'll ever get.
To comment on the "real communism" statements, I would like to submit that "real communism" can only exist on a small, localized level.
You, and Pygoscelis, would have to produce your own definition of "real communism" to go along with that suggestion. The Marxist view is that a communist society can ONLY come about on a worldwide scale; the very conditions necessary for its formation cannot exist outside a world-historical context. That doesn't rule out other socialist alternatives, or indeed anything else that might call itself 'communist' at any scale you like, but it could not be "real communist" at least as I would understand that phrase.
I think its important to note that we've never seen an actual communist country. China and old Russia were communist in name only. Just as the USA is capitalist in name only. Communism actually has been shown to work quite well in small communities, which is pretty much the only setting that has ever actually used it in more than name only.
Without taking sides, I think it's a little arrogant for a very young country like the United States, which is very experimental, to diss the older, more established ones because of supposed differences. But Youth and Stupidity.
For the love of God, it was only 50 years ago that blacks were given any equality at all, let alone respect. I like the way it was said in the movie "Dazed and Confused" (which was a pretty accurate description of my upbringing): While you're out there celebrating all that bicentennial brew ha ha, just remember what it is you're celebrating. The fact that a bunch of rich, slave-owning, aristocratic white men... didn't want to pay their taxes.
Sounds strange, but to me, it depends on what you're looking for. If you like to find faults... every country has em. If you look for fine qualities... every country has em. For me, I don't see the better from the worse. I just see interesting differences.
On that note and for other reasons, I would not want to be the one to piss off China. That would not be a "good" thing.
Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 06-19-2007 at 10:05 PM.
Without taking sides, I think it's a little arrogant for a very young country like the United States, which is very experimental, to diss the older, more established ones because of supposed differences. But Youth and Stupidity.
For the love of God, it was only 50 years ago that blacks were given any equality at all, let alone respect. I like the way it was said in the movie "Dazed and Confused" (which was a pretty accurate description of my upbringing): While you're out there celebrating all that bicentennial brew ha ha, just remember what it is you're celebrating. The fact that a bunch of rich, slave-owning, aristocratic white men... didn't want to pay their taxes.
Sounds strange, but to me, it depends on what you're looking for. If you like to find faults... every country has em. If you look for fine qualities... every country has em. For me, I don't see the better from the worse. I just see interesting differences.
On that note and for other reasons, I would not want to be the one to piss off China. That would not be a "good" thing.
Ninth Scribe
It isn't "arrogant" to call a spade a spade. Also, the China that we know today is younger than the U.S. Yes, they have an ancient culture, but it is a form of government this memorial is addressing.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Ohh! Boo Hoo! Did the nasty america denounce you killing 30 million of your own people?
Ohhh! I'm sure the Yanks are very very very sorry.
Try not butchering girl's as they emerge from their mothers wombs you dictatorial savage murdering slimebags.
Try joining the 21st century or even the 2nd.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks