This entry was posted on Thursday, March 20th, 2008 at 5:47 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Yeah – then they will turn around and say ‘Well, National supported it.’ when the negative results become apparent. Selectively choosing a bipartisanapproach, evidence of a new look, pro-democratic Labour? PS someone on the radio did ask yesterday ‘Where did the mandate for this agreement come from?’ Same place as the EFA and s. 59 repeal? Or am I just being a nay-saying sucky-baba? I am honestly keen to know………..
NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT
Which is really ironic when you consider where kiwifruit came from.
It is useful to take him I suppose it underlines that this is a bi-partisan issue between Labour and National. But I would be very very reluctant to come to a bi-partisan arrangement on anything with Labour. Time is up for them and they should piss off and let National do things.
I thought Mr Groser was highly regarded when it came to trade deals and he believes the FTA with China is a good thing. I just hope he has read and understood the fine print as I doubt Dear Leader has a clue.
As someone who votes Green and who also supports free trade on the basis that it provides hope for those in the developing world – where it fairly includes agriculture, conservation of resources, environment protection (and foreign aid support for this), regulation of basic minimum labour conditions and respect for the economic sovereignty of developing nations in their choice in the matter of provision of public services … some thoughts.
The People’s Republic of China and the “Government of Tibet in Exile” disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
As an exclusive mandate, Tibet is also officially claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan). However the claim of Taiwan is now somewhat historic and relating to the time when they claimed to be a rival government of China to the communist “usurper”. Those days have ended and at most Taiwan’s government claims authority in Taiwan and as such is faced with two options – a formal declaration of independence (based on prior popular support expressed in a referendum) or to remain an autonomous self governing region of China until any consent to normalisation/unification occurs.
China points to Tibet being “governed” by the Chinese central government since the Tang Dynasty. A first king of Tibet (united tribes in the 600’s/7thC), Songzain Gambo, married a Chinese princess of the Tang dynasty and received titles from the government of China. Tibet was autonomous in later centuries, but then under the Yuan dynasty, Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty. During the 1911 revolution by Sun Yat-sen, the Tibet government agree to join the “new” China. So throughout its history, the government of Tibet has been in relationship with China, from the first King’s marriage to the mutual recognition of the two respective governments (but the contention is over whether this implies, an autonomous zone under over-rule suzerainty or an independent nation sometimes under “protection”. A similar dispute to that of England and Scotland prior to 1603. The British sought a direct relationship with Tibet in the 19th C early 20th C (1888-1911) and this further confused the situation.
However, from the early 1600s the Dalai Lamas, commonly known as spiritual leaders of the region, have been heads of a centralised Tibetan administration (at least nominally), thus building another claim to leadership of the people of Tibet than that of being the “local” government recognised by China. Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama and his regents were the predominant political power administering religious and administrative authority over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa. The 1950 to 1959 period is indicative of an acceptance of China’s latest assertion of suzerainty. Thus the period since seems a dispute to two leaderships over their historic arrangement. No doubt the latest Chinese regime, the “communist party”, has difficulty with another leadership authority, especially someone in a position of religious leadership, being involved in an administrative role.
The sovereignty problem in Tibet results from not taking up an opportunity to apply to join the UN before the country was occupied in 1950 by China. Then it could have been claimed that any subsequent attempt to occupy their land was an annexation (the UN banned annexation of land in 1949) in breach of their declared self-determination.
It seems Han Chinese migration into Tibet (to change the situation on the ground) is to ensure the locals become a minority. I guess that’s because the Beijing regime is not confident of any recognition by the people of Tibet, of China’s right to primacy over the region. The latest events seem to be provocation (in the sense of a policy of intolerance of protest and in the resort to violence) to show the world that over-rule of Tibet occurs by the use of Chinese greater force. The use of this force and then the subsequent disowning of it by religious/political leadership, follows a similar pattern to that of political and military wings of other struggles (especially where religions are involved). In this case fortunately, it seems to be of a temporary promotion of the Tibet self determination cause to the wider world.
Canada is a good example of how the world has reacted to events since 1950.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1353 (1960), 1723 (1961), and 2079 (1965) call for the end of practices that deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination. The resolutions also called upon all UN Member States to use their best efforts to achieve the purposes of the resolutions.
In 1970, the Canadian government officially recognized the People’s Republic of China. Despite its earlier support for the UN resolutions, Canada’s position on Tibet’s political status now endorsed Chinese policy: “In 1970 when Canada established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, it recognized that China had effective control over the Tibetan territory. Thus, the Canadian Government’s view is that Tibet’s legal status is that of an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, as set out in the Chinese constitution.” (Letter from Hon. Joe Clark to the CTC, July 21, 1988).
Following the November 1990 visit of the Dalai Lama to Ottawa, Canada’s official position on Tibet’s political status was amended as follows: “In 1970, when Canada established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, it recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Canada takes no position with regard to specific Chinese territorial claims; it neither challenges nor endorses them.” (D.E. Waterfall, Director, North Asia Relations, Department of External Relations to the CTC, May 27, 1991).
On November 26, 1999, Canada completed its bilateral trade agreement with China, which included technical assistance provision to facilitate China’s entry to the WTO. The agreement prioritized specific sectors of interest for Canadian investment, including telecommunications, financial services and agriculture.
On the issue of China – the facts are, does the UN recognise today in 2008 that an independent Tibet exists or that such a Tibet should exist – have the right to self determination as a people? (it does not in the matter of Taiwan, even though it is the only truly self governing democratic part of China). Such is always problematic where there is no democratic vehicle for the expression of this self determination (as in Scotland and Wales).
It is simply unwise for New Zealand to take a position independent of the UN/other nations on this. As unwise as having a policy on Northern Ireland (republican nationalism) or Basque independence and then relating this to a revision of trade relations with the EU until they agreed. As for our policy on human rights in nations we trade with; the rights of women in Saudi Arabia; freedom of religion in Moslem (no right to convert to another religion) countries; freedom of speech and right to protest in Singapore, the USA neo-imperialism and Cold War era activity in Latin America, its behaviour in the war against terrorism, its illegal occuptaion of Iraq …
In our country people who had no plan of any action, but merely had broken gun laws were treated in what way …, in Tibet clearly some of the uprising involved use of violence, if that had actually happened here, what would the armed offenders guys have done on the ground when the violence was happening … . I guess its just lucky for us, we were not negotiating this trade treaty in the 1860’s.
Given the Greens stated awareness of continuing injustice to Maori, one wonders whether they would see some point to the Chinese lecturing us about our behaviour, in reply to whatever Clark says to them? Or even applaud their integrity, if they refused to sign a trade Treaty with a country still oppressing their indigenous people?
Oh and if the word length made understanding my point difficult Murray, it’s that the Greens of all parties (but the MP) should know the hypocrisy they are asking of the government to make criticism of China for how a local ethnic minority is being treated and in the idea of holding only one country to some test for free trade.
To whom, the text generation and those who live in the world of sound bites?
Do you know why the USA is in Iraq? … is it because Bush lacked the patience to read any in depth briefing and only heard the arguments in sound bites …
This sound bite. Modern hard hitting forces can do the job in a few weeks and then remain while we remove the Baath Party from any place in rule of Iraq (Rumsfeld) and then after some American governorship and economic reform (ending the socialist state economy, Halliburton) holding elections – setting a model for the rest of the ME and allowing the USA to use Iraq as a regional base to contain Iran and project US power over Syria Lebanon and ther Gulf – to secure peace in the region and cheap oil for the global economy (PNAC).
That’s all he heard.
You see the problem is that there are many totally contradictory ideas which can all be convincing within 100 words or less … but as any philosopher or scientist would know, that means nothing …