China is in a situation not far removed from the situation Gorbachev had over a breaking Soviet Union, so, in effect, the more China liberalises in its economy, the faster the CPC will break down. You can’t have it both ways, no matter how big its economy is.
The Chinese strategy is not similar to the Soviet strategy.
It doesn’t matter, because no Authoritarian regime can keep a lid on a people such as the Chinese forever, and its size only exaberates problems.
:dubious: And just which of Bolton’s many contemptuous and contemptible public comments about the UN to date would qualify as “constructive criticism”?
:rolleyes: In America, we have an old saw about a horse and a barn door . . .
We’ll see 
Good for you
We had a GD thread last July – “Is the Chinese government on its last legs?” The general consensus was, no.
Oh, and here’s the link: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=267456
The Emperors were more Authoritarian than anybody you ever heard of, & they kept a lid on the Chinese people for more than 2,000 years.
A coffin lid.
Mas extermination has always been a viable option in Chinese politics. Ignoring the history of that is delusional. Yoiu could believe in Pixies, & get more of my respect than if you deny that Chinese leaders keep that as a hole card.
I agree that the faster things grow… the harder it will be for the CPC… but so far they seem to have it both ways and quite well. They are creating a very different kind of capitalism… and democracy isn’t necessarily a requirement for strong capitalism.
I guess most Chinese prefer a strong government than a squabbling democracy too… a lot of course due to propaganda and nationalism.
True; very.
But the element that is new is that for the first time China must take into consideration outside opinions, because a huge percentage of their wealth is export generated. If the make themselves a human-rights pariah, even for a year or two, that will trash their economy, in turn possibly* increasing * unrest.
The problem is if the US/Europe cuts down on trade with China due to some human rights “punishment”… then the other party Europe or US might play smarts and take up that slack. I find it hard anyone losing commercial ground with China… unless its something quite nasty.
Within limits, the President should get who he wants in key positions. He is the President and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Mister Bolton is beyond even this liberal standard.
He lied to the Committee. He said he did not lean on State Intelligence officials, others have pointed out that he has. He is a loose cannon. He darn near derailed the six-party talks when at a critical moment he called North Korea names.
(Sure, the PDRK deserves it, but our objective is get the fools to sit down and talk.)
Further he treats career people like doggie dirt. He cannot be trusted. He would not get my vote.
Just to be a bit extra clear… I think most aren’t talking about not liking Bolton… but actually beleiving he will harm US interests more than help them. Unless Bush wants the UN in a turmoil over Bolton… but I hardly see that as constructive.
Turns out I used to work with one of the intel analysts that Bolton tried to get fired… err, “transferred,” after that analyst wouldn’t simply go along with what Bolton insisted. Although I haven’t spoken to him in years (he got another job, just lost contact with him), I remember him as an individual of high integrity.
At a time when there’s so much to-do about fixing our intelligence system, here’s a man who has clearly abused it. The President should have the decency to withdraw this nomination.
I suppose it all comes down to what the Bushiviks are communicating, the selection of an ambassador as a statement. Hardly any one seems to doubt that the statement of the selection of Bolton is “fuck you!, and the horse upon in which you rode…”
In that sense, there isn’t anything particularly noteworthy about the selection of Bolton, the Bushivik’s contempt and disdain for the UN is a declared fact, save for those rare instances when a UN resolution can be draped over US policy to lend an illusion of legitimacy. When we find the UN in general agreement with our goals and policy, we nod our heads in solemn acceptance of their wisdom and probity, when the UN disagrees, we brush them aside with contempt.
The nomination of Bolton is a digital salute with the middle digit, whether Bolton sits there or not, the message has already been delivered: We don’t care, we don’t have to care, we’re the Americans. Oh, and fuck you.
Voinovich, who the hell is Voinovich?
No vote til May now, and a new investigation of allegations in the meantime. The president’s “digital salute with the middle digit” is in deep trouble. The committee appears to be seriously considering amputation.
Voinovich was also the lone Senate holdout against Bush’s tax-cut giveaway, fwiw. Who is he? A former Ohio LG, then Cleveland mayor (cleaned up the mess Kucinich left), then capable Governor and long-time Senator, a bit to the right of center but completely sane and responsible. He might have made a good Presidential candidate but is probably too old now.
His very-public No position gives Chafee enough cover to vote No as well, ensuring that Frist can’t pull the out of committee anyway, as he could with a tie vote.
“Voinovich, who the hell is Voinovich?”
That cite further illustrates, if it were necessary, how casually the RW smear machine uses the word “traitor”, as well.
…and now that Colin Powell has expressed reservations about Bolton’s fitness for the post at the U.N., how much longer will this go on? Here is the relevant cite.