Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Spirit of Freedom: From Tiananmen to Iran to the Berlin Wall


The Spirit of Freedom: From Tiananmen to Iran to the Berlin Wall



Over 140 people packed into the Almansor Court Banquet Center in Alhambra, Calif., to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre and to celebrate the Fall of the Berlin Wall that same year. Simultaneously, the Visual Artists Guild’s Art and Democracy V is exhibiting human rights art at the Bergamot Station Arts Center (suite F2) in Santa Barbara.
Ann Lau, chair of the Visual Artists Guild, welcomed the audience at the banquet center and announced who would be speaking at the event.
Unlike prior commemorations that focused on single events or activists, this year’s activity, held May 25, brought together representatives from countries that had been deprived of freedom by communism. This year the countries included China, Poland, and East Germany.
In the spring of 1989, Beijing erupted with the largest spontaneous demonstrations the Peoples’ Republic of China had witnessed in its 40-year history. The pro-democracy movement quickly spread to over 30 cities around China before the world witnessed the horrors of the regime’s brutal crackdown in Tiananmen Square. As the Chinese people fled from the tanks and guns, they asked the international press to let the world know the truth. They asked the world not to forget.
On the other side of the world, the iron curtain divided Europe for more than 40 years and “the Berlin Wall” surrounded East Berlin for more than 28 years. In 1989, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania all collapsed under their own repressive weight. The fall of the Berlin Wall became the symbol of the Miracle Year of 1989.
Hans Eberhard, president of the German-American Tri-centennial Foundation, discussed the history of the take-over of East Berlin and its effects. During a personal interview he said, “You don’t know what it is like. In one day [Aug. 13, 1961], I could no longer visit any of my family members on the other side of the wall … for almost 30 years!”
West Berlin had at that time 2.2 million people, while East Berlin held 1.1 million people captive.

The Struggle for Democracy

Dr. Xu Wenli was honored with the Champion of Freedom of Speech Award at the ceremony. He was involved in both the 1979 Democracy Wall that became the inspiration for the 1989 Pro-Democracy movement. Twice imprisoned by the Beijing authorieis, Dr. Xu was sentenced to a total of 28 years, of which he served 16. Through the efforts of the United States, Xu was released early both times. Nancy Pelosi has called him the “Conscience of China.”
Dr. Xu discussed the unprecedented large parade during 1979. He said, “Many of you may not believe on October 1, 1979, the CCP allowed this large parade. But this was the situation. At that time the Chinese Communist Party, because the Chinese economy was on the brink of collapse, allowed such a large parade.”
Dr. Wenli lamented the long prison sentences the CCP inflicted on them. “It now has been 25 years since the 1989 June massacre, yet the Chinese Communist Party shows no signs of change,” said Dr. Wenli. The CCP imprisoned numerous democratic leaders; most are still in prison 25 years later.

Hypocrisy of Xi Jinping

Dr. Wenli has little faith in Xi Jinping. “Xi Jinping recently said in the meeting in Shanghai that what he likes most are the two sentences of Chinese philosophy called ‘He Qi,’ meaning harmony.”
“Take a look everyone; is he being harmonious to the Chinese people? Is he being harmonious to Christians? Is he being friendly to Falun Gong practitioners?” asked Dr. Wenli
Wenli goes further in his condemnation of the CCP’s leaders. “The communist leaders have extensive power yet they pocket large sums of money [illegally]. They are only friendly to the Russians occupying Chinese territory. They are not friendly to the United States or their [China’s] own neighbors,” said Dr. Wenli, “They present a peaceful demeanor but they actually have an evil character.”
“China will eventually become a country of freedom with a democratic constitution,” said Dr. Wenli.

Spirit of Tiananmen Awards

A Spirit of Tiananmen Award was given to Ross Altman, a folksinger and activist, who recounted the days of the Free Speech Movement at University of California, Berkeley, in the sixties. He sang some of his songs of stories from the movement, and told of Jack Weinberg, a student leader of the Free Speech Movement, who clashed with the university authorities in their attempt to silence the movement during the Vietnam War because it was not consistent with the U.S. position on communism. UC Berkeley then became a hotbed for the movement.
Chen Weiming, a Tibetan activist, was also awarded a Spirit of Tiananmen Award. He introduced himself: “Freedom has no boundary. I am an artist. An artist requires freedom in order to create better artistic products.”
China has blocked any form of freedom or democracy in surrounding countries. “There is no freedom or democracy in China, there is no freedom or democracy in Tibet. The same thing is happening in the state of Syria, people over there have no freedom and many people have been killed,” said Chen.
“This is one of the reasons I’m getting this award is because I worked with my Syrian friends over there, working with them together,” said Weiming.

The Spirit of Tiananmen in Iran

Esha Momeni, Iranian student activist, presented an award honoring those participants in China’s 1989 protests whose identities remain unknown. Ms. Momeni was arrested for her involvement in Iran’s protests in 2009.
In 2009 the results of the Iranian presidential election was highly contested. The Iranian people took to the streets to express their complaint and demanded an independent audit of the vote, which was seen as shameful by the Iranian people. Ms. Momeni, a student activist, shared her people’s experience and the effect of the Tiananmen spirit.
“In Iran, the spirit of Tiananmen has extended itself beyond time and geography and has touched the human collective spirit,” said Momeni.
“After the Iranian presidential election in 2009, waves of protests started that continued for over a year. During that time we Iranians couldn’t express ourselves in public. We would get arrested if we did. We could only whisper in our heads, we couldn’t talk about our martyrs, we could only think about them, we couldn’t say out loud, ‘Hey we’re here, we’re not scared, we’re standing firm, we’re countless, we’re together and we will not stop resisting the oppression until your fall.’”
Eventually, the students decided to use the Internet to fan the flames of freedom and hope by posting photos of the 1989 Tiananmen experience.
They had no voice or creditability in Iran. “There was no space for our words. Instead, we let the tank man speak for us in that moment of our fight. We posted the story of Tiananmen resistance and the students and the photos of the tank man on our Face book pages. We would email them to each other, to our email list, we talked about it,” said Momeni.
“The students of Tiananmen Square came and stood by us and spoke for us and protected us. The students of Tiananmen Square are part of the history of Iranians fight for freedom,” said Ms. Momeni. “And today as a student and as an activist, I’m deeply honored to present this award to all the nameless students of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in China.”

Thursday, May 8, 2014

China: what arrogance


China blames Vietnam for sea collisions, but calls for talks

BEIJING/HANOI Thu May 8, 2014 8:08am EDT
A Chinese ship (R) uses water cannon on a Vietnamese Sea Guard ship on the South China Sea near the Paracels islands, in this handout photo taken on May 3, 2014 and released by the Vietnamese Marine Guard on May 8, 2014. REUTERS-Vietnam Marine Guard-Handout via Reuters
3 OF 4. A Chinese ship (R) uses water cannon on a Vietnamese Sea Guard ship on the South China Sea near the Paracels islands, in this handout photo taken on May 3, 2014 and released by the Vietnamese Marine More...
CREDIT: REUTERS/VIETNAM MARINE GUARD/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS

RELATED TOPICS

(Reuters) - China accused Vietnam on Thursday of intentionally colliding with its ships in the South China Sea, but called for talks to end a bitter row sparked by Beijing's parking of a giant oil rig in contested waters.
A senior foreign ministry official in Beijing demanded that Vietnam withdraw its ships after its southern neighbor asserted that Chinese vessels used water cannon and rammed eight of its vessels at the weekend near the rig. Hanoi said two vessels were badly damaged and six people were wounded in the worst setback to ties between the two Communist nations in years.
China said the drilling operations were being carried out in its territory and it had acted with the "utmost restraint" in using water cannons in response to rammings it blamed on Vietnam.
Yi Xianliang, deputy director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, said China had only sent civilian vessels to the area while Hanoi sent several armed ships.
"Our aim, our only aim, is to guarantee our reasonable, legal, normal drilling operations," Yi said, adding China had no choice but to increase its security measures in response to what he said was Vietnam's provocations.
"The operations by China in the waters off Triton Island in the Paracel Islands are China's sovereign right and have nothing to do with Vietnam," he told reporters at a hastily-arranged press briefing, referring to the part of the South China Sea where the rig has been operating.
China has parked about 80 ships around the rig, Vietnamese officials have said, adding that seven of them were military. Its foreign ministry has shown reporters what it said were video clips of Chinese ships hitting Vietnamese Seaguard vessels.
"We don't care about what China said," Ngo Ngoc Thu, vice commandant of Vietnam's coast guard, told Reuters on Thursday.
"We have been only doing our job which is protecting our territory and sovereignty. We only sent ships following the laws but China has missile ships supporting its civilian ships."
Yi's comments were a departure from earlier remarks by Vice Foreign Minister Cheng Guoping, who said he believed there had been no "clash" at sea, although he said he did not have detailed knowledge of what had happened.
China was willing to try and resolve the issue with Vietnam via talks, but Hanoi had to withdraw its ships, Yi added.
"We can appropriately resolve this issue. We have the ability, the confidence and the wisdom to do so," he said.
The two Communist nations have sought to put aside border disputes and memories of a brief border war in 1979. Vietnam is usually careful about comments against China, for which it relies on for political support and bilateral trade that surpassed $50 billion in 2013.
Still, Hanoi has strongly condemned the operation of the drilling rig, the first such action by Beijing in contested waters, and told the owners, China's state-run oil company CNOOC, to remove it.
LEGAL ACTION
Hanoi has also hinted at international legal action and said it had requested dialogue with China's leadership, but was awaiting a response.
Daniel Russel, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific, reiterated Washington's concerns about "dangerous conduct and intimidation by vessels" in the disputed area. He met senior Vietnamese leaders on Thursday and said the row had been discussed at length.
"It's fair to say both Vietnam and China have rights to claim sovereignty over the Paracels (islands)," Russel told reporters in Hanoi.
"It is not for the U.S. to say which position is stronger. It's within the rights of the United States and the international community to call all parties to address the dispute in a peaceful way."
The row with its neighbor sent Vietnam's stocks markets plummeting on Thursday. The benchmark VN Index in Ho Chi Minh City closed down 5.9 percent, its biggest one-day fall in nearly 13 years, while the smaller Hanoi bourse dropped 6.4 percent, its biggest slump since May 2010.
The row comes days after U.S. President Barack Obama visited Asia to underline his commitment to allies including Japan and the Philippines, both locked in territorial disputes with China.
Obama, promoting a strategic "pivot" towards the Asia-Pacific, also visited South Korea and Malaysia, but not China. Washington has been trying to court Vietnam as a new ally in the region with trade and military incentives, ostensibly to lessen Hanoi's uneasy dependence on Beijing.
However, regional military and diplomatic sources who have been briefed on U.S. navy movements said Washington had not deployed any warships close to the disputed area, although routine surveillance flights over the South China Sea were on-going.
Tensions are also brewing in another part of the sea, with Beijing demanding that the Philippines release a Chinese fishing boat and its crew seized on Tuesday off Half Moon Shoal in the Spratly Islands.
Philippine police said the boat and its crew were seized for hunting sea turtles, which are protected under local laws.
(Additional reporting by Greg Torode in Hong Kong, Sui-Lee Wee in Beijing, Mai Nguyen in Hanoi and Manuel Mogato in Manila; Writing by Michael Martina and Martin Petty; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
FILED UNDER:

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

I just got this idea

I've been hearing a lot about Boca Haram which is a terrorist group from somewhere in Africa.  They apparently stole some children and intend to sell them as sex slaves or some other ungodly purpose.  It occurred to me that Terrorist groups do this stuff for one purpose - to get attention to their  perceived problems.  Why should I give any terrorist ANY reason to do this again?

SO what is their problem?  I am now vaguely interested in what they could possibly justify as a reason to kidnap school girls.   But I really don't have time to find out.  I am too busy.  Other people are on the job.  People I pay for so that I can focus on liberty and the right earn money.  But Thats what they want right?  They want me to be so concerned about their perceived problems that they "threaten" my neighbors so that I distract myself from being the best that I can be, and I will be FORCED to pay attention to their problems based on their threats, rather than focusing on my own problems.

But what can I do?  I, you WE have already done something about it.  WE payed for, through our taxes,  the greatest military that is trained to deal with these problems. The only reason I should know about TERRORISM is if they pose a DIRECT threat to me or my neighbors, like the guys in BOSTON who were loose after blowing up those homemade bombs at the Boston Marathon. Other than that, thats why we have a military - Thats why we pay taxes  - have intelligence agencies to protect us, find out about threats, investigate them and determine what seriousness of threat they possess.  That's their job.  Its a distraction for me to worry about it. It takes energy away from my purpose in the U.S.A.  Freedom,  and the right to make money.

SO.  why HAS so much attention been placed on AL quada  FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS?  I DON'T want them to get attention.  THEY ARE A TERRORIST GROUP.   WHY ARE WE GIVING ATTENTION TO THESE PEOPLE?     ITS Like giving attention to a kid that is crying because they did not get what they want.  Every PARENT KNOWS that this is a bad idea. and THAT'S for teaching KIDS responsibility.  BUT we allow TERRORISTS that kind of attention?   Worse,  IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

People who we pay to fight bad guys are on the job.  They are on the job.  My job should continue to be FREEDOM and the RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY.  So why splash AL quada and their problems all over the place for ten years?  Given that the purpose of terrorism is to get attention, and thus to give it to them not only doesn't make any sense, it's stupid, yet it still happens, I can only conclude that some people here in the USA want us to pay attention TO AL QUADA FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.

 I HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.  I HAVE PAYED MY TAXES FOR MY GOVERNMENT TO WORRY ABOUT IT, yet these problems are blasted at me for ten years.   they are interfering with my ability to be a productive american citizen.  THIS UPSETS ME.  DOES this upset any of you?    You might say "what do you want me to do about it?"  You are my neighbors and I am concerned about you.  I would suggest eliminating the influence of people who play up these threats.  


Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying would not speculate, but promised "strong and effective measures to earnestly protect social stability."



"At present, the Chinese police are investigating the relevant case. I believe they will publish the investigation results in a timely manner. What I want to stress is that no matter what reason it is for or no matter who it is, it's unacceptable to harm innocent people with violence. It's also a criminal activity that should be punished by law."



Really? tell that to the peaceful people who practice Falun Gong and have been tortured to death because of their belief in trying to be a better person.  

Democracy, War, and the Myth of the Neutral State


Democracy, War, and the Myth of the Neutral State



Edtor’s Note: This is a selection from “The Problem of Security: Historicity of the State and ‘European Realism’” found in the collection The Myth of National Defense edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
The constitutionalist claim to justify the State’s monopoly of violence has been challenged directly by the radical libertarian tradition (Molinari) and by individualist anarchists (such as Lysander Spooner). However, an important role in bringing the modern State into perspective has also been played by European political realism and, in particular, by Carl Schmitt and the Italian elitist scholars (Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto).
Schmitt’s importance rests very much on his intuition that in every State there is first a political dimension and then a decision, which cannot be obscured by the so-called “impersonality” of law and the “super-individuality” of orders. Beyond the apparent abstraction of the State (as described by Hans Kelsen and other positivists), Schmitt uncovered choices, interests, and, in short, people that impose their will on others.[1]
The constitutional thought of classical and contemporary liberalism has constantly tried to neutralize politics, but it has failed. In Schmitt’s opinion, the real sovereign is the political group that has the final decision about the critical situation, in the state of emergency.[2] The locus of sovereignty thus becomes the political entity (which in our time is the State), and the decision on the state of emergency is the ultimate test of sovereignty. Legal positivism tried hard to refute the importance of this notion, but critical decision making is paramount in the development of human relations.
Therefore, the “liberal” neutralization of politics sought by classical constitutionalism is simply impossible. When the State — every State — is recognized as a structure of decisions and an instrument of domination wielded by some rulers, political modernity displays itself with no clothes and one can understand the illegitimacy, as well the irrationality, of the monopoly of protection. There is nothing “neutral” or “innocent” in the power of a group of men that Italian elitists called the ruling class.
Hobbes was wrong (as a philosopher) when he asserted that law comes from authority. However, we can agree with political scientists using Hobbesian theory that State decisions are the result of conflicts of interests and opposing views. In statist societies, where the law is controlled by a monopolistic institution, it is force that dictates law.
This is especially true in democratic countries, where social life is marked by the competition for the control of the political “center,” i.e., the power to distribute resources, favors, and privileges. Schmitt’s critique of the hypocrisy of liberal democracy is confirmed by the Italian elitists. The latter were convinced that in every political system there is a small group of men (an organized elite) dominating the large disorganized mass.
As Pareto noted, “the corruption of the parliamentary system meant that the interests of the majority were seconded to the interests and passions of a small and highly organized group. These were ready to use any means to extend their influence and dominate the country.”[3]
“For this reason, democracy exists only as a political ideology devoted to protecting and legitimating the power of a minority capable of taking advantage of its higher organization.[4]“
Bruno Leoni adopted political realism (and the lessons of the Italian elitists) in his critique of majoritarian democracy. In his opinion, eliminating all group decisions taken by aggressive coalitions, “would mean terminating once and for all the sort of legal warfare that sets group against group in contemporary society because of the perpetual attempt of their respective members to constrain, to their own benefit, other members of the community to accept misproductive actions and treatment.”[5]
In juridical and political philosophy, the hypothesis of a neutral State is often supported by the suggestion that this political institution is eternal. However, European political realism refused this arbitrary identification between State and politics. Social orientations generally support contemporary democracy, defining all forms of juridical organization as part of the all encompassing category “State.” A major contribution of Schmitt, as we noted, is his placing the State in historical context, i.e., modernity. For all these reasons, “European realism” has contributed to uncovering the fabrications of constitutionalism, the conceptual frauds of democracy and the fallacious idea that State is an institutional reality as old as mankind. To be sure, Schmitt was the most theoretically sound expounder of the crisis of the State, but he did not identify a solution.
Another protagonist of “European realism,” the Lombard scholar Gianfranco Miglio, tried to go beyond Schmitt. In some of his works, he has explained the crisis of the Soviet state model. This was the downfall of the modern political system that showed the greatest confidence in the rationality of orders imposed with violence. Given that the Soviet Union has broken up, Miglio asserted, the other State systems (especially the ones governed by democratic parliaments) would suffer growing criticism and dissent, and might also collapse in the near future.
The State is declining also because of its internal contradictions. In its attempt to appear as a nonaggressive provider of individual rights, the State has created a deceitful contractualism, which is continually sapping its existence. From a theoretical point of view, as Miglio observed, “the modern State is a construction entirely based on the contract. It has extended into the non-political area of “private life.” Therefore, the State is historically a complex of services and provisions, a gigantic entity of contractual relationships.”[6]
In fact, in spite of its ideological self-representation, the democratic State is an illustration of violence and monopoly unparalleled in human history. It exists because it is the only institution authorized to use force in a given territory. However, the notion of political obligation has lost vigor and consistency, while economy and communications are growing together with the rationality of free exchange, free markets, and free discussions.
____________________
Notes:
[1] Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University press, 1946).
[2] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932), translation, introduction, and notes by George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
[3] Vilfredo Pareto, Libre-échangisme, protectionnisme et socialisme(Geneva: Droz, 1965), p. 33.
[4] Gaetano Mosca, Saggi politici (Torino: Utet, 1980), p. 621.
[5] Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1961), p. 140.
[6] Gianfranco Miglio, Le regolarità della politica (Milano: Giuffrè, 1988), p. 757.
____________________
Carlo Lottieri is an Italian political philosopher with the University of Siena and Istituto Bruno Leoni whose main interests are in contemporary libertarian thought. Most recently he edited an anthology of writings by Bruno Leoni, “Law, Liberty, and the Competitive Market” (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2009).