Asia-Pacific News
China slams Bush's "Cold War thinking" in anti-communism speech
Jun 14, 2007, 4:55 GMT
Beijing - China on Thursday accused US President George W Bush of reviving 'Cold War thinking' by inaugurating a monument to 100 million people whose deaths were blamed on communist regimes.
'Some political forces in the United States still use Cold War thinking and aim to provoke conflicts between different ideologies and social systems,' foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement after Bush's speech in Washington.
'We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to the statements and actions of the US side,' Qin said.
'The United States should stop interfering in the internal affairs of other nations,' he said.
Bush said at the new Victims of Communism Memorial that the number of people killed 'in communism's name' was 'staggering.'
Survivors of communist repression from Belarus, Vietnam and dozens of other countries gathered Tuesday near the US Capitol Building for the ceremony to dedicate the memorial to the victims of communism.
The statue is a replica of a Statue of Liberty-style 'Goddess of Democracy' erected by Chinese protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989, during a movement that ended with the death of hundreds when China's ruling Communist Party sent tanks and troops to clear the square.
Buh said the statue 'reminds us that when an ideology kills tens of millions of people, and still ends up being vanquished, it is contending with a power greater than death.'
The figure of 100 million political deaths under communism was based on the 1997 book by French scholars, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, published by Harvard University.
The book estimated that some 65 million people had died in China during the famines of the Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s and the violent communist fundamentalism of the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Asia-Pacific
- 1. Chinese dissidents hail late democracy activist Fang Lizhi
- 2. China "worried" over planned North Korea rocket launch
- 3. Myanmar's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi meets Karen rebels
- 4. Chinese schoolboy sells kidney to buy iPad, iPhone
- 5. Myanmar president invites Karen rebels to form party
Older Talkback
page: 1
It is a sad thing that our peers are dying in Iraq for a dying cause (let those who wish not be civilized have civil war, eventually the process of a middle eastern democracy will rise, and it doesn't have to be the same as our's). I suppose that if people from different nations/cultures around the world can understand math, then somewhere in the middle east there is common thought of representation. And that little resentment will build over time, as long as we don't interfere too much.
But enough about Iraq, the monument serves its purpose. Again it's a sad thing young men are dying for reasons they don't fully comprehend.. BUT as the article points out >65 million died as a result of oppressive communist ideas, 65,000,000 is A LOT greater than 3,513 last time I checked. oh and it's erected not erupted...lol
communism exists on a sole mission to unite the classes. all of this statistical talk does nothing to discredit the socialist ideal and the communistic approach.
Unbelievable. The previous comment clearly shows what the real problem is. You must be sick in your mind to justify communism on the basis that the 100 million deaths it caused is just some statistic. Not a single form of dictatorship (left or right) can justify its existence on the basis that the people it kills are just some numbers. In addition, the suffering is much more farfetching than poeple being killed. The misery communism created has reached a few billion of people.
as americans, we are taught that all life is sacred and that every individual is unique thus special. the meaning of life is not the same for everyone. Not only that, there is a natural way of leveling off that takes place with everything. why are humans special? if we dont kill ourselves, a natural disaster would. and come to think of it, war is a like natural disaster since we are a part of nature.
Was it communism or was the cold war and the ww2 after-effects(rise in power of warlords and extremists that though they were good fighters they were also tyrants in governing) that were responcible for the suffering and deaths of all those people?
Was it the continual war of attrition, embargoes, imposed on them helpfull to all these deaths and suffering and underdevelopment?
And in all this, what was the role of people like Bush, Nixon, and the big capital behind them?
People like Bush and his gang of money making thugs, from inoscent blood should not speak, they should instead be tried for crimes against humanity!
Communism is just a concept, its not concepts that kill people, its people that kill people!
Even if it is a bad concept, and i don't really know about such things my self, i doubt that it sais to kill people, that would not make sence, its what people do on the ground that matters.
And what kind of people come to power on the gound depends on the nature of the situation on the ground, nations that were under so much pressure and destruction to begin with, what kind of people ruling them would they get?
It is pretty obvious that dictatures kill. Our current capitalist dominion kills as well, and causes billions to starve or die. The richest 3000 earn every year MORE than the poorest 3.000.000.000 habitants of the earth.
So what's the point of a monument like this if not to try to mask the inhumanity of a social system that euroamericans want to impose (whenever necessary with weapons, of course) to anybody else?
The current president of the USA, that has unveiled this monument, is himself the SON of a previous president, surrounded by dinasties of petro-ultra rich, that do not hesitate to invade countries out of any international legality when that serves their own purposes.
At least the soviet union had the elegance to vane into history without a single shot, I doubt that the same will hold true when the united states will face the same fate. I hope soon.
'The figure of 100 million political deaths under communism was based on the 1997 book by French scholars, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, published by Harvard University.'
So I wonder what the figure would be for the 'SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY' and when are they going to write that book? Did no one in the Bush Admin. realize the irony of his speech and his effort to 'SPREAD LIBERTY' to the world.
This just all makes me real sick.
When the monument commemorating those killed by capitalism is erected, it will memorialize numbers in excess of 100,000,000 as well. Almost every person who dies from poor health care in the United States is a victim of capitalism. A good example would be Edith Isabel Rodriguez. The million or so that died in Ireland during the Great Hunger were victims of capitalism. The fatalities in the famines in eastern Africa are due in large part to the 'restructuring' of agriculture into corporate plantations for Hanes, Libby, etc., and are thus victims of capitalism.
Around the world, millions of people die every year from hunger, malnutrition-related illnesses and easily preventable ailments. The exact numbers are likely well below 25 million annually (the largest estimate that this poster could find) and probably well above 5 million per year (a very conservative estimate). Since most of the planet, with the exception of Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and a partial exception of China, is capitalist, we can safely say that people living under the tender ministrations of market economics are prematurely dying by the millions every year.
Add to this the many hundreds of thousands 'disapeared' and murdered by fascist regimes in South America, the millions more victims of right wing death squads and paramilitaries in Central America and the Caribbean, and the couple hundred thousand here and there in places like East Timor, or Iraq and pretty soon you are getting up into significant numbers without even including the victims of Hitler and Hirohito.
This poster would as well be interested in knowing if those killed by American bombs in Vietnam are also considered 'victims of communism'. How about the ones who died prematurely in the decade or so after the US war against Vietnam while the country was trying to put itself back together? Somehow, this poster suspects that those deaths are also included in the 'victims of commmunism' tally.
Yes, this poster would like to see a 'victims of capitalism' monument. One wonders, however, if the capitalist media would give it the same shrill coverage that this 'victims of communism' monument is getting. Anyone want to place bets?
This attempt by capitalism to 'humanize' its image is pathetic.
For the post who mentioned Iraqi deaths at 3,500. You are not including Iraqi deaths which are equally important. While that number is not known, the number ranged between 60,000 and over 400,000 depending on whether you are talking to the President or International Human right groups (extreme cases). So don't disregard that. The USA has been responsible for many terrible things in the past 50 years since we have divulged from our policy of non-economic international intervention.
'At least the soviet union had the elegance to vane into history without a single shot, I doubt that the same will hold true when the united states will face the same fate. I hope soon.'
I had a great laugh at this one. Yea, as soon as they finished murdering tens of millions and their hundred million slaves started showing signs of revolting and with a coalition of the most powerful states in the world arrayed against them (including China, an ex-communist country which kept only the fascistic form of government) they managed to not plunge the world into a nuclear war as they expired unlamented. Of course I've never seen anyone describe it as elegant.
Interesting that you seem to think / hope that the United States faces 'the same fate', which apparantly seems to include getting richer, a tiny bit less reviled, and a little bit freer as its main internal effects. Perhaps one percent as many people would rejoice at the end of the United States as rejoiced at the end of the Soviet Union. That's because for anyone not raised in the Western World (and hence completely inexperienced about life under the boot of the Soviet Union or its minions) the idea that the United States and the Soviet Union are somehow criminally equivalent is laughable.
Expatriate just for this reason Jun 14th, 2007 - 08:34:34
'So I wonder what the figure would be for the 'SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY' and when are they going to write that book? Did no one in the Bush Admin. realize the irony of his speech and his effort to 'SPREAD LIBERTY' to the world.
This just all makes me real sick.'
Perhaps I can help you with your tally, all we have to do is list the events that can be attributed to the 'Spread of Democracy'. Vietnam is out, as it started as a war to defend Imperialism by the French and ended up a war to slow or stop the spread of Communism by the U.S. In any event it remained a defensive war for its long duration, which seems to miss the spreading democracy idea.
Iraq? I thought that was a war to steal oil (lefty view) or to disarm Iraq of its WMDs (Administration view). I never heard much about spreading democracy until both of the previous views were discredited. Let's be generous and take the administration at their word (now that is). What percentage of the Iraqi casualties do you think are due to the U.S. trying to force democracy down the throats of Iraqis? Certainly most casualties are the result of purposeful murder by sectarian militias and groups like al Qaeda. While al Qaeda is spending some of their energy trying to derail the possibility for democracy in Iraq (ie defensive warfare) they are also trying to further their aim of restoring the Caliphate (ie The Spread of the Empire of Sunni Islam). They are every bit as much invaders of Iraq as the U.S. is. Even a generous helping of blame on democracy can't be responsible for more than half of the casualties suffered so far in Iraq, less so if you are disinclined to accept the administration's rationale on the matter and see it instead as a naked power play.
What other incidents shall we ascribe to democracy's butcher's bill? Frankly I'm having a hard time seeing others despite a good working knowledge of history. The U.S. ostensibly entered WW1 in order 'to make the world safe for democracy', but we came in late and are responsible for only a tiny percentage of the casualties of that war. What other items are on your list? I mean I'm sure democracy is awful and all. I guess its most chilling attribute must be its amazing ability to hide its culpability in what I'm sure are the greatest crimes of the past 200 years or so.
Do we include the 200,000-250,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A 'defensive' war perhaps, but there is no question civilians were targeted, and there is no question it was in the name of protecting Democracy; I can't see how we would leave them out.
And why wouldn't we count victims in Vietnam simply because it was a 'defensive' war? We are simply talking about 'victims of Democracy' regardless of who believes their deaths were justified. If a Democratic nation targeted and killed someone, regardless of motivation, they are very much a victim of Democracy.
It would be daft to assume Bush's source ruled out killings that Communist nations felt were justified, leaving only the statistics for those they felt were purely whimsical.
Hahaha, you guys are such yokels. Beginning with the first comment (erupted monuments? gross). Unlike you, I've lived under communist rule. So all of you Western ivory tower idiots can take your theories and shove them into your collective chocolate starfish. That being said, while fascist and communist regimes led to the deaths of hundreds of millions, Bush, while not nearly as heinous, is one to talk. Of course, he wouldn't be the first American president to start a pointless war. What's interesting is that while many people were very much aware of the stupidity and manipulativeness of the communist system, Americans are largely oblivious to the often much more subtle manipulation conducted by both the left and right. There are those that hate Bush, but in all honestly, most of those don't hate Bush for any real damn good reason other than it being somehow expected or cool within their social sphere (spineless maggots!).
Anyway, what I'm saying, is that all of you can basically go to hell.
Maybe the Chinese will build a monument to the staggering failure of democracy in the west, over 130 millions have died in the world wars and other lesser conflicts initiated by the 'civilized' west. with a clear agenda of piracy and neocolonialism, America and western Europe have engendered more misery in the earth enslaving and deconstructing societies to steal their wealth. Shut up for shame!
I would bet that more people have died from the cause of spreading Christianity in general, and Catholicism specifically, than have died from any other cause. Let's face it, the fundamental problem is human behavior. We want every other human to agree with our values...or else. We are a failed species and the evidence is all around us.
I think Bush has seriously damaged the image of capitalism worldwide-----he has made it look like rape,pillage and plunder-------and we will probably reap the results for a long time to come.
As baffling as the monument and Bush's comments are, you all posting here seem to be linking two completely different situations (or more) in an attempt to make some sort of conclusion about the Iraq war and how it relates to communism, I guess.
Muslims have shown the world that they don't WANT to live in peace. Look at Gaza, look at Iran, look at Afghanistan, look at Pakistan, look at Somalia, look at Sudan. Even the Koran emphasizes that a devote Muslim's duty is to convert or kill non-Muslims. It's not a peaceful religion, and therefore any part of the world that lives by Islamic law will never be a peaceful region. Why is this so hard to understand?
In regards to communist China, if the Chinese government wasn't so willing to mercilessly repress the people, the communist regime would have been long gone. Instead, since the people can not actually rise up against the government without real fear for their lives, the government exists. I think people that only think 'Commies' or 'Reds' without understanding the concept of communism are very short sighted. Not that I'm promoting communism, mind you, but if you apply Darwin's survival of the fittest concept, there is a REASON communism still exists in the world. Otherwise, it would have gone extinct long ago.
What the reason is, I cannot say. But I would suspect that, considering the Chinese position in the global economy, it is counter-communist agenda (i.e. wealth and corruption) that is holding the reigns, while keeping a facade of true communism up for the people to see (and fear).
How is this any different, really, from the U.S., where we have 'Democracy' (but not really, our system is a democratic republic...otherwise, we could have gotten rid of the electoral college system that put Bush in office to begin this whole mess) that is routinely subverted by the money and agendas of the wealthy, the special interest groups and the lobbyists, who convince the politicians to act in their best interests, which are often counter to the interests of the American people that put them in office.
I think it's safe to say, all problems on this planet today are the direct result of human beings. Personally, I'd like to have a lot less people around and more trees, honey bees and polar bears, but that's just me.
make it a certainty that dictators and the death they bring will continue for all time. That you've placed those who fight dictators on the same moral plane as the Stalin's, Mao's, and Pot's of our time is the most fallacious argument of logic that could be conceived. If Dictator 'A' kills 100,000 people for political, economic, or religious reasons, and then 'Country B' comes to assist those whom Dictator 'A' is killing, the resultant deaths caused by the ensuing fight are not the same moral wrong. To say they are is to say those who are criminals are every bit as legitimate as the police who fight them. The murderer has every bit as much 'right' to take a life, as the cop who must shoot the murderer in a fight. That is sheer stupidity.
Capitalism has caused NO deaths. Or rather, the deaths you attribute to capitalism would have occurred in any event. There were never any government sponsored programs that mandated those who did not subscribe to the capitalist economic philisophy were rounded up in camps and shot. The deaths that you cite are natural events that occur in all life-forms. The Great Hunger in Ireland was caused by a series of events (including greed by landowners) but differs little from the starvations that occur in other species that result from natural events. Ask any biologist. There's aren't capitalistic herds of antelope who cause the deaths of the weaker elements of their society because those antelope failed to provide access to socialist healthcare.
People die...duh. But unless you can point to a single capitalistic dictatorship that systematically rounded up people or forcibly starved them into submission to believe in the 'State' or 'Capitalism', your argument is idiotic. There is NO right to healthcare. And man's evolution over the last 5 million years (before capitalism became a formal 'system') pretty much indicates that people die in the absence of capitalism. Or are the barter systems and early forms of trade just as evil? And which pre-capitalistic, pre-Marx economic system from the dawn of time until say 1917 DIDN'T result in the accumulation of wealth by the top 1% (hello?....ROYALTY. Chinese emporors, tribal kings, Roman Cesaers, Japanese emporors, the feudal systems, slavery...all pre-capitalism).
This is made even more so by the fact that your hatred of the US and of Bush in particular is SO profound, it blinds you to everything. To even mention the deaths of those in Iraq (which militarily is miniscule, while tragic nonetheless), or even the 30-50K civilian deaths, while ignoring the 500,000 deaths caused by the dictator Sadaam, goes to my first point above. Deaths in the name of liberty ARE justified. Liberty IS better than tyranny. These are objective facts. To say they aren't ensures tyranny and oppression will be around a very long time. And while you may wish for the end of the U.S. as a superpower, you need to explain 'who' is going to come to the aid of those seeking liberation from oppression (the oh-so-impotent UN perhaps? I'm sure the folks in Darfur would disagree). You need also explain who will fill the vacuum created by the end of U.S./U.K. leadership. China??
Hmmm...100,000,000 dead in the name of communism, and 65,000,000 of those due to Chinese 'revolution' and their regional hegemony.
Shall Islam fill the vacuum? They'd like to. But then you and your suicidal fellow travlers would be begging for U.S. help as they force you under threat of death to submit to Sharia law and convert to Islam.
It is sad indeed that the West has become so politically correct and subscribed to the lunacy that is 'moral relativism' that it can't even tell right from wrong, good from evil any more.
The truth is that democracy and capitalism are the worst forms of government and economy ever devised...except for every other form of goverment and economy.
Get over it.
To: idiots like those posting here....
You are the first sane and logical comment in this discussion. I applaud you. I would also like to comment on the idea of people dying for democracy. In real war, unlike this current video game war in Iraq, both military and civilian people die. To have this preoccupation of worrying about 'collateral' damage or civilian deaths on the side of the enemy IS IMMORAL. You either fight a war like a barbarian or you don't play the game. Your soldiers and citizens should be protected at all costs and those on the enemy's side who should die must die. The last moral war the US fought was Word War II when no sacrifice at home or on the part of the enemy was too great to complete the mission.
In addition to Americans not knowing right from wrong anymore, they also don't know how to fight a war to win. It is not some fictional humanistic game. First, the military legal consultants need to be eliminated. Then fight like hell and win. This is nothing new, just a forgotten science.
page: 1
MichaelJun 14th, 2007 - 05:35:49
Sure a momument for those dead in US invading IRAQ should be erupted somewhere. Stupid Bush, an idiot.
Report this comment