香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "緬甸屠殺中國政府難辭其咎"

jane tse，別自鳴得意了

引文？不用了，反正你這五毛黨近來除了玩奴才習作又不回文，引了你會有反應嗎？管理員，請您刪除jane tse的帳號及其文章，免得令人誤會獨媒是垃圾收集站啊！

世界秩序與中國

在這裡,希望大家有個認知,就是現行的世界秩序以現實主義為基礎。這個世界秩序是以搞平衡,以強權由其是以軍事威嚇來維持。這種種以暴力與強權為中心的世界秩序並不是由中國所建立起訴的。大家因此應該明白到中國祇是為了維持自身國家安全而必須要依從的遊戲規則。相信以中國人幾千年的傳統文化,中國在古代國力如日方中之時,並沒有產生出一套強權撂奪其他弱小國家的資源與領土，中國所有的領導人以至我們全體中國人都是巴不得大家放棄了軍事競賽,齊齊賺錢，齊齊享福的一個新世界秩序。因此,中國對西藏、台灣、新疆的主權寸步不讓是必要的。其維護領土統一的方法,除了用國際慣例的軍事威嚇,我們更可以見到在台灣問題上領導人的創新。當然,盲目依從西方主流學派是比較容易,有大量書籍可照背,有國際媒體日日將西方的觀念免費向我們輸送。要尋求事件的真理是困難的,要培養另外一番解讀也是困難的。不排除這些困難,是不能培養出獨立的思維與自由地創建自己一套的價值觀。我們就祇可以被西方妄自尊大的理論牽著鼻子走,人云亦云，妄自菲薄。

Reply to Terayau

I have many things to do. I'm not always available to answer every question. I have not given a reply to your question that "Billion dollars of made-in-China killing weapons still constitute "limited" military support? Then how much is "unlimited"?, it is because I have been insisting that it is not the problem of how many weapons China had sold to Burma. My emphasis is that arms trade is a global phenomenon. China is selling far less arms than the US. Your question is therefore not making sense.
Again to save my time, I have copied an article for sharing. China is actually vigorously integrating to the global culture and economic system, which has is predominately value and organization of the West. China is only emulating the developed countries. This is what China can do before it is strong enough to challenge the single global power, the US. So, do not blame China alone for the killing of monks in Burma.

************************************************
Arms Around the World

It was the early 1990s and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton was on the campaign trail making promises: "I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."
Ah, campaign promises. But the economy was in the doldrums, and the prospect of cutting arms sales -- sugar daddy to one of the nation's largest industries -- didn't thrill either labor or corporate America. What's more, the Gulf War had just ended the previous year, and it was the best extended commercial an arms salesman could ask for. (Indeed, some arms manufacturers incorporated bombing videos into their promotional materials.) Countries were clamoring for the high-tech weapons that made for such good TV.
So, once elected, Bill Clinton did what he does best: He took advantage of the opportunity. Rather than insert human-rights concerns into the arms-sales equation, as did his Democratic predecessor President Carter, Clinton decided to aggressively continue the sales policies of President Bush, himself no slouch when it came to selling U.S. arms.

Early on, Clinton required our diplomats to shill for arms merchants to their host countries. The results were immediate: During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.
The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle.
To examine the Clinton administration's eagerness to arm the world, the MoJo Wire has compiled a detailed look at America's top weapons customers during the Clinton years, tallying their total 1993-97 purchases through both the Pentagon (so-called "Foreign Military Sales," or FMS) and U.S. manufacturers ("Direct Commercial Sales," or DCS).
What we found is that while the U.S. obviously sells weapons to NATO countries and relatively democratic allies like Japan and South Korea, it also has a nasty habit of arming both sides in a conflict, as well as countries with blighted democracy or human-rights records, like Indonesia, Colombia, and Saudi Arabia.
All of this might be justified as a way to maintain a strong manufacturing job-base in the U.S., but some of these sales actually result in jobs being shipped abroad -- while arms manufacturers get tax breaks for merging, resulting in further layoffs here at home.
We examined the top dozen of these arms-exporting corporations, showing which does business where and how each has taken advantage of myriad federal tax breaks, reimbursements, and golden parachutes -- as well as the eagerness of Congress to keep one of the economy's largest employing segments happy.
In a separate story, we detail the arms industry's lobbying strategies in Washington: how it keeps the export pipeline wide open, and easily outmaneuvers Congress' occasional attempt to tie arms sales to human-rights records.
Lastly, we list organizations that you can join or support to help influence U.S. and corporate policies toward arms sales around the world.

U.S. market share of worldwide arms sales
Source

Below is a sample of some of our most interesting findings:
Shipping Jobs Overseas
According to the Pentagon, the defense industry laid off 795,000 American workers between 1992 and 1997. At the same time, many of these corporations were sweetening their arms deals to other countries by offering "offsets" -- incentives provided to foreign countries in exchange for the purchase of military goods and services. The programs often include agreements to manufacture some or all of the products in the purchasing country.
Turkey, for example, agreed to buy 160 F-16s from General Dynamics in 1987 (for delivery through 1994) for an estimated $4 billion -- on the condition that most of the planes be built in Turkey. The offset resulted in 1,500 jobs going to Turkey. In 1992, General Dynamics entered into a similar F-16 offset deal with South Korea and brought 400 Koreans to its Fort Worth, Texas, plant for training, after having laid off 10,000 workers in the previous two years.
Lockheed Martin has continued the trend since it bought General Dynamics' F-16 program in 1993: In vying for a contract to supply fighters to Poland, it is offering to build an assembly plant there for all future F-16 sales to Central Europe -- so the planes won't be made in the U.S. at all. Makes you feel patriotic, doesn't it?
Corporate Pork
Under a Defense Department policy initiated in 1993, U.S. taxpayers wind up covering a big chunk of the cost of defense-corporation mergers. The tally so far has reached $856.2 million in perfectly legal write-offs, including $405 million for the Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger, to name one example. Because of the policy, Lockheed was able to bill the Pentagon up front for $2.4 million of CEO Norman Augustine's salary.
In 1996, Congress created the Defense Export Loan Guarantee program to finance U.S. weapons sales to foreign countries. Its first beneficiary? A United Industrial sale of pilotless aircraft and training systems to cash-strapped Romania. If Romania defaults on its payments (not a bad bet for a country in economic turmoil), U.S. taxpayers will be left holding the bag: $16.7 million. But United Industrial gets paid either way.
Arming Both Sides
The Clinton administration has not been shy about arming potential foes in regional conflicts. For example, two of America's biggest arms customers are Greece and Turkey, which have been threatening to go to war with each other for decades over the tiny Mediterranean island of Cyprus.
Both countries stake a claim to the island, more than a third of which has been occupied by Turkish forces since 1974, and the two have clashed hundreds of times in the 25 years since.
Though barred by Congress from selling offensive weapons to Cyprus itself, in 1997 the U.S. sold (or allowed American corporations to sell) more than $270 million worth of weapons to Greece and nearly $750 million worth to Turkey. Now if there's a war, the two NATO allies can blast away at one another with far greater efficiency, thanks to the U.S. defense industry and its cheerleader, Bill Clinton.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/

賣軍火

// 賣軍火本身並無道德問題，地雷可以救命，子彈可以殺人，這個大家都知道。但係，一定要看你賣俾邊個，唔可以賣左俾個唔負責任的黑社會式統治者，就話唔關事，這是什麼態度？//

用回百佳賣刀的例子﹐如果有個人走來﹐說要買刀砍人﹐道德上百佳有責任不賣刀給他。但如果個人走來﹐說買刀砍豬肉﹐回家卻走去砍人﹐百佳就沒有道德責任了。

軍隊和警察要買武器﹐完全合理合法合道德。緬甸向中國買武器﹐也說是用來保衛國土對付罪犯﹐不會說是拿來屠殺平民吧。為什麼百佳賣刀沒有道德責任﹐中國賣槍就有道德責任﹖

賣軍火的責任

//你去百佳買把豬肉刀回家﹐忽然神經失常拿來砍死鄰居。不道德的責任在你﹐並不在賣把刀給你的百佳。

你所講賣的係戰略武器，唔係豬肉刀。

賣軍火本身並無道德問題，地雷可以救命，子彈可以殺人，這個大家都知道。但係，一定要看你賣俾邊個，唔可以賣左俾個唔負責任的黑社會式統治者，就話唔關事，這是什麼態度？

如果唔係，ＡＩ做乜要鼓催軍售限制？軍售限制講的不是軍售量，而係賣俾乜野人。一顆子彈就可以令人半身不遂，這個與子彈值幾多錢無關，唔係貴Ｄ就罪行大Ｄ，而係賣俾乜野人用。

中國的責任

中國向別國軍隊販賣軍火﹐本身並不是一件不合道德的事。緬甸軍隊用中國賣給他們的軍火去屠殺平民﹐是緬甸軍隊不合道德﹐不關中國軍火商事。

打個比喻﹐你去百佳買把豬肉刀回家﹐忽然神經失常拿來砍死鄰居。不道德的責任在你﹐並不在賣把刀給你的百佳。

恨鐵不成鋼呀

文章一直在討論中國在緬甸問題的責任，我不明白為什麼扯上了美國及東盟各國?!雖然文章沒提及其他國家在緬甸問題的責任，但亦不等於作者認為這些國家非常正義。文章只在一個中國公民的角度，批評自己國家在國際正義問題上失德，這個主旨很清楚。我理解jane tse的意思是：你們只顧批評中國，難道其他國家沒有錯嗎? 有，當然有，不過這也無減/無關中國政府縱容(反對聯合國譴責)，甚至支持(賣軍火予緬甸軍政府)殘暴政權的罪行。

有人話：你不賣，也有別國賣；你不和緬甸做生意，也有別國做~~
是這樣沒錯，可這完全不是一個抗辯理由。正如，賊人說：「我唔打劫，都有其他人做賊ga啦；我只打劫不傷人已經好好架喇，有d賊殺人越貨tim啦! 」可見這種抗辯和強盜邏輯一樣荒謬!~

我不想看美國或其他國家，他們自有許多批評來自他們自己的公民。我不想說什麼以國家/制度為先(事實上這個對立是詭辯)，就讓我們單單以國家出發，作為一個中國公民自身，我對中國在緬甸事件的所作所為實在非常痛心。愛之深所以責之切。基於地緣的親近、生於斯長於斯的情感，我固然希望我們的國家是一個文明理性、擁戴公平公義、尊重人民人權名政治權利的國家。所以，當我看見緬甸軍人拿著中國提供的機槍屠殺人民的時候，我感到特別失望憤怒。美國做各樣壞事，我也會批評、會不齒，但這萬萬不及我目睹中國的敗壞的痛心，所以不要說我仇視中國，套句老話，是「大大傷害了人民感情」。

難辭其咎 =/= 造成

在這裡討論的人, 均沒有指緬甸問題是由中國造成, 而是其軍火買賣, 非法伐木和石油的生意, 間接支援了緬甸軍政府的粗暴統治.

一群人看著一個老人給人打死而不上前勸止, 又不報警阻止其行為, 這些人均難辭其咎. 很簡單的邏輯.

全世界都知道美國是世界最大的軍火買賣商, 連美國的國人都對此不斷的批評. 若有人指責這些批評美國政府的美國人, 支持外力散播美國威脅論, 你又會如何回應呢? (事實上, 美國右派一直在批評 chomsky 等唱衰美國, 使其他國家憎恨美國!)為什麼我們支持美國本地批判國家政治道德的力量, 卻不容自己的地方對國家不公義的行徑進行批評呢?

快餐文化

//我倒想問，快餐店的本質是為了迎合極端資本主義而來，這根本不是自然人的生活，這那裡值得我們學習？//

怎麼把快餐與資本主義拉上關係﹖要省吃飯時間的地方﹐就自自然然產生對快餐的需求﹐就算社會主義也需要食快餐。還是你認為要慢慢吃﹐一頓飯至少要食個幾鐘﹐才算自然人的生活﹖

至於不健康食壞人的指控﹐只是快餐文化還未完善的問題﹐並不是文快餐文化本質上的問題。外國有很多注重健康快餐店﹐其中一個例子就是專賣三明治的Subway。

// 如果你有去美國鄉鎮，根本佢地有空閑都唔會食麥當勞啦。//

快餐故明知義就係食得快省時間﹐有空閑又何需吃快餐﹖

jan tse: weapons again

Since "jan tse" still hasn't answered my question asked one week ago, I have to remind her again:

Terayau 於 October 11, 2007 12:57 AM asked:

>"你為何不未能對橫行全世界的美國加以鞭撻，竟然數落中國對緬甸有限的軍事支援"

>Billion dollars of made-in-China killing weapons still constitute "limited" military support? Then how much is "unlimited"?

Also, I have replied to the English version of the article jan tse posted here titled "中國領導人對緬甸出名不妥協而且仇外的軍隊的實際影響力有多大？" under 朱凱迪's article:
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=259652&group_id=11

I hope jan tse can respond to my challenge before repeating her points.

美國的極端資本主義哪裡值得中國與香港學習？

Ｈ君以一種 exactly the opposite 的方式回答 jane tse，我相信這是Ｈ君的真心回答而不是包拗頸式鬥氣。不過，我倒想問，快餐店的本質是為了迎合極端資本主義而來，這根本不是自然人的生活，這那裡值得我們學習？（我唔會扣佢帽子做文化霸權，實行口號式反對，但其本質卻應三思）

如果你有去美國鄉鎮，根本佢地有空閑都唔會食麥當勞啦。

錯本身唔在麥當勞，亦唔在大快活，佢地只係為實際環境提供需要。錯的係係極端資本主義的價值本身，唔只中國與香港不應走此歧途，而且係唔適合全世界。

亂用 pluralism, 歸邊叫做虛心學習？

jane tse 如果不是沒有讀過『歷史終結』，恐怕就是不明白『歷史終結』有幾 pluralism。

不了解別人的論點，便隨意說別人沒有論點，而且為了加強自己的說服力，索性將別人歸邊，亂套「大美國主義霸權」，因此，唔怪得你的眼見咁多「大美國主義霸權」，可謂目凶一切。

抵制奧運叫「霸權」，歷史終結又叫「霸權」，別人的意圖是唔重要的，一味「不是中國就是美國」，這樣的中美對立論，真係睇大公報就多，係 inmedia，都真係第一次見，唔怪得李柱銘係漢奸走狗賣國賊，唔怪得早前外國傳教士叫做帝國主義先頭部隊。

將 pluralism 用成 cultural relativism，真係發神經，pluralism 都唔容許性侵犯，唔容許功能組別，更重要係 pluralism 本身係普世價值，唔係相對價值，這個根本原則唔可以錯。你如果跟足大公報的指定詞語，那叫做「多極國際」，不過，所謂「多極國際」，只係有些國家多元，有些國家極權。這些都不是公民社會所要的國際，唔只係因為佢「包容」獨裁與極權，而且仲係這個國際模式係毀滅世界的的永遠戰爭模式。

你用快餐文化舉例，亦顯得你濫用「霸權」一詞。你覺得人地有乜唔好味，反式脂肪多，食壞人，你可以俾意見佢或者投許佢，亦可以用腳投票，唔買，甚或至鼓吹採用較高的產品水準法律（但前提是對中式食物也一視同仁）。以「文化霸權」扣帽子，這根本是排外主義，種族主義。

你可以因為人地壓低工資而抵制人地，但唔可以因為輸出文化而老屈人地係「文化霸權」。

反霸權文化的霸權文化

// 所以，我可以大膽對閣下說，沒有我挑戰霸權文化，閣下最多咪吸引多幾個人一起鬧中國和緬甸，又點會知道事情有多面睇，(pluralism) 才是民主世界的精粹。//

可是閣下的想法﹐卻正正是宣揚Pluralism的霸權文化。

文化霸權有什麼問題﹖文化有優劣高下之分﹐隨著全球一體化﹐文化互取所長進化﹐優質文化淘汰劣質文化﹐這是人類的進步啊﹗

用麥記做例子﹐快餐文化讓城市人更有效率。再者會對文化霸權﹐也不是完全只能坐以待斃。看看香港的大家樂(和菲律賓的Jolly Bee)﹐是少數可以在本土市場打低麥記的對手。他們吸收了麥記的快餐文化﹐創造出東西合壁的新快餐文化。大家樂甚至可以作文化反攻﹐攻入美國本土的快餐市場。在美國很多商場food court中的乜乜Wok中式快餐連鎖店﹐大家樂就是背後的主要投資者。

回應阿藹

阿藹，我仍然要重申，緬甸的事並不是由中國造成，否則，聯合國特使金巴利就不會去東南亞遊說。緬甸也是東盟成員國，為何不說東盟難辭其咎？我再要指出的是全世界最大軍火商是美國，中國拍馬也追不上。這是否祇許州官放火，不准百姓點燈。世界上有幾多國家正在做不見得光的交易？你又憑什麼“相信(中國)較其他國家更多”？美國已經拉攏日、韓、印度及澳洲圍堵中國，又用緬甸事件來鼓吹杯葛中國的奧運，將運動作政治用途，身為中國人推波助瀾，我認為不智。中國改革開放，創造出人類有史以來在最短時間幫助超過2億的貧窮人口脫貧，我認為繼續保持中國的安定和繁榮是幫助餘下的2千9百萬貧窮人口脫貧的先決條件。

回應麥當勞

假如麥當勞不將有助於建構知識的理性討論來呈強，就不會覺得我要將閣下矮化和打壓，而我之所以來，沒有善意與惡意之分。請問知不知道什麼是文化霸權(麥當勞文化就是美國快餐文化，霸權文化之一種)？我最討厭的就是文化霸權。因此，不需要作什麼假設，我來這裡，絕對是要批判這些被霸權支配著，失去了獨立思考能力的論點。假如閣下認為我故意矮化閣下的論點，就大錯特錯了。因為閣下沒有自己的論點，論點祇是反映出你所知的大美國主義霸權文化。我用來攻擊閣下的，也不是我個人可以想到的論點，也是從書本上得出來的知識。假如閣下真的對民主政制有作深入的研究，就會知道我所舉出的是一些與民主政制共存的自身的矛盾。就因為有太多閣下相類似的衛道之士，對知識不存疑的全部接收，複製再複製，就有FUKUYAMA的『歷史終結』出現。根本民主仍然有很多未完善的地方，未理順自身的矛盾，就要橫行天下。任何人要批判它的，都是不民主，跟小布殊及香港很多所謂政客一樣有問題。所以，我可以大膽對閣下說，沒有我挑戰霸權文化，閣下最多咪吸引多幾個人一起鬧中國和緬甸，又點會知道事情有多面睇，(pluralism) 才是民主世界的精粹。矮化也可以看作是提升的前奏，祇要肯虛心學習。

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "緬甸屠殺 中國政府難辭其咎"