Posted on 07/20/2002 6:45:09 PM PDT by vannrox
Commentary: A Warning to Certain US Media Presumptuous CommentatorsWe often call the act of those, who have done evil things and yet countercharge others, as playing the trick of a thief crying "Stop thief" or "making unfounded countercharges".Perhaps it is most appropriate to use these two common sayings to describe distorting comments on China by certain US media, a case in point is the article entitled "China: An Economic Power, but a Political Maze" recently published in the summer issue of the US Washington Quarterly. The first half of the article can be regarded as objective when commenting on China's economy, the author, however, made arbitrary comments on China's diplomacy: In certain aspects, Beijing's foreign policy is increasingly becoming something like a unilateralist, and more and more dangerous. A comprehensive analysis of the whole article shows that none of the three examples cited by the author can bolster up his argument. The first example: China once indicated that the use of force against Afghanistan should have the approval of the United Nations and "an irrefutable basis for this" should be put forward. As everybody knows, in doing so, China aims to safeguard the authority of the United Nations and the norms of international law universally accepted by the international community, thinking that taking transnational military actions should be legally grounded. At that time, this was not only the demand of China, it was also the common voice of many countries. In fact, the US government later had also, to some extent, satisfied these reasonable demands. The second example: A certain Chinese media company has made a tape in the form of "taking pleasure in" the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Even if there was really such a tape, it could not represent the Chinese government's stand and the viewpoint of the society's mainstream media. Similar things have occurred in many countries around the world, including the United States. But this does not represent the mainstream public will, still less be regarded as a government policy. The third example: China's crackdown on terrorism and national separatism in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is also branded as an act of unilateralism. This is a bit too puzzling. Could it be that only assassinations and explosions that occurred on the territory of the United States be counted as terrorist actions whereas similar incidents happened in China, Russia or other places cannot be regarded as terrorist acts? Is it that only America's counter-terrorism can be counted as a stately act while others' fight against terrorism becomes an act of unilateralism? How can there be such a reason in the world? This is not only a downright double standard, it is all the more an unreasonable logic as manifested in "Everything I say, counts". Over the past year, it is none other than the United States itself that has been practicing a foreign policy of unilateralism. Defying the opposition of world opinion, the United States has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol on restricting the emission of greenhouse gases, unilaterally torn up the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty and obstinately engaged in the development of the NMD (national missile defense) system, refused to sign the additional protocol on the prohibition of biochemical weapons and opposed the proposal on the establishment of an international criminal court. The theory of "axis of evils", the theory of "taking preemptive action", as well as the unreasonable demand for replacement of the Palestinian leader, put forward recently by the United States fail to have the endorsement from even its allies. No matter how some US media have confused black and white, it is exactly they themselves that should make self-examination. The above commentary published on page 3 of People's Daily on July 12 was written by Li Xuejiang. |
| People's Daily Online --- http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/ |
Hey China: Phuc Hu!
Maybe I'm dense. But I don't understand your comment. I said "enlightened" also. I agree there is a big difference between "enlightened" and "entertained." I am genuinely curious about how this article could have enlightened anyone about anything.
But as I said, maybe I'm dense.
you are trying to bullshit some of the most bullshit immunized people in the world. (speaking only for myself.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.