China's poor

[MAYURA]

CCP pay negligible effort to fight Japan during WW2 while they are salary by KMT. All this happen while KMT soldiers were fighting in front line. Even Mao himself credit Japanese for CCP's success, he said without Japan, CCP can not rule China. We can clearly see who is backstabbing China.

This is correct and i have been told by a hui chinese that Mao thanked Japanese for the invasion. he hated chinese culture and was a curse on name of great chinese people with confucian morality . his brutality is too much but he was a communist after all.

look at cambodia and malaysia how they are different.


Tangxiaoping must be regarded as one of the great chinese men but let us not forget LIU SHAOQI whose economic and administrative policies are the basis for chinese people's progress. he is most under rated man in your history.

 

[MAYURA]

CCP pay negligible effort to fight Japan during WW2 while they are salary by KMT. All this happen while KMT soldiers were fighting in front line. Even Mao himself credit Japanese for CCP's success, he said without Japan, CCP can not rule China. We can clearly see who is backstabbing China.

This is correct and i have been told by a hui chinese that Mao thanked Japanese for the invasion. he hated chinese culture and was a curse on name of great chinese people with confucian morality . his brutality is too much but he was a communist after all.

look at cambodia and malaysia how they are different.


Tangxiaoping must be regarded as one of the great chinese men but let us not forget LIU SHAOQI whose economic and administrative policies are the basis for chinese people's progress. he is most under rated man in your history.

 

[hello_10]

China is richer, but most Chinese are still poor

Now that China has surpassed Japan to become the world's second-largest economy, economists predict it's on track to replace the US as the world's biggest by 2025. But what does the higher rank really mean for the average Chinese citizen?
There is no doubt China has achieved impressive growth over the past decade. But even though the country has averaged about 10% growth over the past several years, that doesn't mean the average Chinese citizen is necessarily eating or sleeping better than the average German or Frenchman. In fact, with GDP per capita at $3,744 in 2009, China placed #86 out of 164 countries ranked according to 2009 World Bank data. This was just below much smaller economies such as Tunisia, Albania and Jordan.
While Japan might have lost its place to China, the average citizen there is still generally much richer. In 2009, Japan's GDP per capita, at $39,727, ranked it 19. What's more, even while the size of the U.S. economy ranks just one notch above China's, it's nevertheless one of the richest countries in the world with GDP per capita in 2009 at $45,989. In 2010, Japan's GDP per capita rose to $42,500 while in the U.S. it rose to $47,100.

Even while China's population is still poor relative to most developed countries, many of its citizens must be feeling flush with wealth. Its GDP per capita surged from just $3,744 in 2009 to $4,300 in 2010, according to the CIA Factbook, a 15% jump

There is little doubt that China's economy will eventually surpass the U.S., mostly because of its sheer size -- its population is 1.3 billion, versus just 300 million in the U.S. Starting in 2000, China's economy began its aggressive climb through the top ten economies, surpassing many of the world's most advanced economies. In 2000, it bumped Italy to become the sixth-biggest economy in the world. Five years later, China unseated France, rising its way to be the fifth-largest economy. Then in 2006, it trumped the United Kingdom, then Germany the next year.

China stayed in third place for the next three years until 2010. It was the year when Japan's economy – hampered by weak demand and a rapidly aging population – contracted by 0.3% during the fourth quarter, marking the first time in five quarters that its economy has ever contracted.

China is richer, but most Chinese are still poor - Term Sheet

********************************************

How far is this correct?

sir, its true that China is still a developing country, leading the developing countries on most of the world platform, mainly on the Climate Change issue. but please have a look on the GDP Per Capita as below. its now very close to the countries like Turkey, Brazil, Venezuela, and would go above the countries like Peru, Thailand, South Africa within 2 years only, even if they maintain only 7.5%+ growth rate till 2014 :ranger:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...ina&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&rank=122#ch

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

As the months ticked by in 2012, economic indicators released in China disappointed, fuelling speculation of a crash landing for the economy. The worst fears were not realised though as activity regained momentum in the final quarter and the downward growth trajectory came to a halt courtesy of classic reflationary recipes for boosting construction spending and lending. China's GDP expanded by 7.8% over the whole of 2012, with the tempo quickening noticeably in Q4 2012 to almost 9% q-o-q.
Q1 2013 GDP growth surprised to the downside at 7.7% y-o-y from 7.9 % in Q4 2012. We believe 2013 looks set to be a challenging year with the economy in the full throes of its transition.
The steadily sliding rate of GDP growth since 2009 highlights just how tired the model for economic growth founded on capital spending has become. We believe the new yardstick for annual GDP growth in the years ahead is likely to work out around the 7%-mark.

GDP growth weakened on the back of weak industrial production growth. Industrial production growth, which accounts for 40% of GDP, slowed to 8.9% y-o-y in March from 9.9% for the January February period and 10.4% in Q4 2012. Retail sales decelerated to 12.4% y-o-y in 1Q13 compared to 14.8% in 1Q12 reflecting slower growth of household disposable income. Fixed asset investment declined slightly to 20.9% y-o-y from 21.2% in January February.

http://perspectives.pictet.com/2013...owed-to-7-7-yoy-despite-strong-credit-growth/

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

 

[hello_10]

boss, it has two reasons. First Chinese economy is now very big, 10%+ growth won't be possible from now.... i mean, a Middle Order Economy can't growth 'very fast', and now China has go this status . Second, have a look on the growth rate of rest of the world in 2012 as below. here, tell us which G20 or any other major economy really performed better than China either last year, or even this year when China would achieve at least 7.5%+ growth???? US/EU markets are broken and 7.5%+ growth is quite good for a Middle Order Economy like China :thumb:

there is not even one economy which has size of even 10% to that of China's economy and it could outperform China last year, not even this year, as per the report for Q1 2013 :ranger:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...hina&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&rank=18#ch

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

boss, it has two reasons. First Chinese economy is now very big, 10%+ growth won't be possible from now.... i mean, a Middle Order Economy can't growth 'very fast', and now China has go this status . Second, have a look on the growth rate of rest of the world in 2012 as below. here, tell us which G20 or any other major economy really performed better than China either last year, or even this year when China would achieve at least 7.5%+ growth???? US/EU markets are broken and 7.5%+ growth is quite good for a Middle Order Economy like China :thumb:

there is not even one economy which has size of even 10% to that of China's economy and it could outperform China last year, not even this year, as per the report for Q1 2013 :ranger:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=18#ch

They predict China's economy will grow at 8.231% and an inflation rate of between 3-3.1% depending on whether you use average or end of period consumer prices. This would suggest they believe the RMB depreciates in 2013. In 2012 it appreciated by around 1.7%, but I have seen predictions between 2-3%.

The IMF will publish revised predictions in April of every year, so we can see if there is any difference then.

 

[no smoking]

A sort of alliance did come after 1969 so it was possible even then.

In 1969 the USA dropped all those conditions, which means USA accepted China as a weak partner against USSR instead of puppet country.

I do not want to take away chinese genetic capacity to be on top but you do owe USA a lot for your great economic miracle.

It is business, we paid what we got. I don't think anyone owe anything to anybody!
Can you say that india owes USA for the economic growth since 1990s?

 

[mylegend]

What is your source for the conditions?

In 1969 the USA dropped all those conditions, which means USA accepted China as a weak partner against USSR instead of puppet country.



It is business, we paid what we got. I don't think anyone owe anything to anybody!
Can you say that india owes USA for the economic growth since 1990s?

 

[amoy]

What is your source for the conditions?

I wish u had learned some history and done a bit analysis. Just look at this Sino-US treaty in 1946
<ÖÐÃÀÓѺÃͨÉ̺½º£ÌõÔ¼>µÄÄÚÈݼ°ÆÀ¼Û_°Ù¶ÈÖªµÀ
中華民國與美利堅合眾國間友好通商航海條約

Just think about the damage it may have incurred to nascent Chinese home grown industries, needless to mention "free travel, free access of commodities, mining navigation freedom of warships, . India even up to date hasn't been that opened. Pls browse how India blocked FDI in multi-brand retailing.

 

[mylegend]

Before you accuse me of not learning history and did not research. Please check what was I and no smoking were talking about. Where did I mention KMT's treaty with USA? I hope our difference in political position will distort your understand of what I was saying. I still hold my respect that both you and I love China, the people, the land and the culture.

Do you know what was USA's pre-condition for setting up diplomatic relationship with PRC in 1949?

That was what I was referring to. I did not find any credible reference of pre-condition for diplomatic relationship with newly form PRC.

The treaty you mention is well discussed in other forums. The treaty itself was fair but unfair because China does not have economic power to protect itself. Also some of CCP interpretation of the treaty was not the true interpretation for the actual enforcement. However, this was not my concern, and not no smoking's concern.

What you are talking about was not what no smoking was talking about, he was talking pre-condition.

1. Bearing all the debt KMT borrowed from USA (including those for civil war against CCP)
2. Accept the treaty KMT signed with USA, which was another version of Sino-Japan 21 terms
3. CCP cut all its relationship with any communism countries, which actually ripe of China's diplomatic indepence

May be I did not search hard enough. I can not find credible source for that.

I wish u had learned some history and done a bit analysis. Just look at this Sino-US treaty in 1946
<�����Ѻ�ͨ�̺�����Լ>�����ݼ�����_�ٶ�֪��
中華民國與美利堅合眾國間友好通商航海條約

Just think about the damage it may have incurred to nascent Chinese home grown industries, needless to mention "free travel, free access of commodities, mining navigation freedom of warships, . India even up to date hasn't been that opened. Pls browse how India blocked FDI in multi-brand retailing.

 

[mylegend]

I also hope you really research the treaty and find out that how much of treaty is being distorted by CCP sponsored propaganda. Some of accusation can not stand ground. For instance,

社论》指责的第三部分："第三，美国船舶可以在中国'开放之任何口岸、地方或领水内'自由航行，可以无限制地一只船停泊几处口岸。其人员货物可以经由'最便捷之途径'，有通过中国'领土之自由'，'不得课以任何过境税或予"‹"‹ä»¥ä»»ä½•ä¸å¿…要之迟延或限制'。而且，美国船舶（包括军舰）只要在遇到'任何危难'的借口下，就可以开入中国'对外国商务或航业不开放之任何口岸、地方或领水'，中国还须对它采取'友好之待遇及协助'。就是说，中国一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失，变成美国的航路、海港、陆道了。"



与此项指责相关的条约规定为第二十二、第二十四条。第二十二条，其一、二、三款被略掉，显然与指责无关，我们也跟着略掉。 "四、缔约此方，在现在或将来对外国开放之口岸、地方及领水内，应备有合格之引水人，引导缔约彼方之船舶，进入上述口岸、地方及领水。五、倘缔约此方之船舶，由于天气恶劣，或因其他危难，被迫避入缔约彼方对外国商务或航业不开放之任何口岸、地方或领水时，此项船舶，应获得友好之待遇及协助，以及必需与现有之供应品及修理器材。本款于军舰及渔船以及第二十一条第二款所规定之船舶，亦适用之。"ç¬¬å…­æ¬¾è¢«ç•¥æŽ‰ï¼Œæˆ‘们也不去讨论。



第二十四条规定第一款略去，我们也跟着略去："二、倘缔约此方，以内河航行或沿海贸易之权利，给予任何第三国之船舶时，则此项权利，亦同样给予缔约彼方之船舶。缔约任何一方之沿海贸易及内河航行，不在国民待遇之例，而应由该缔约一方有关沿海贸易及内河航行之法律规定之。缔约双方同意，缔约此方之船舶，在缔约彼方领土内，关于沿海贸易及内河航行所享受之待遇，应与对任何第三国船舶所给予之待遇，同样优厚，缔约任何一方与其所属岛屿或领地间之贸易，应视为本款所指之沿海贸易。"

我想，这两条无需解释都应该看得明白，开放口岸地必须"合格之引水人"é¢†èˆªè‡³æŒ‡å®šå¤„所，这是国际惯例，是"不自由航行"ï¼Œå´è¢«æ­ªæ›²æˆä¸º"自由航行"ï¼›æ¡çº¦ç¬¬äº”款规定的遇难船只的避险及救助，国际法有明确规定，必须遵守。该条所规定之两款，至今也是世界各国包括我国必须执行的准则，竟然也被说成"卖国"çš„证据了，滑天下之大稽！而条约明确规定对方船只进入本方领水，"不在国民待遇之例"ï¼Œå¿…须遵守特别法律规定，而且只与主权国授予第三国待遇同等享受。至于是否授予第三国这种待遇，完全是主权国自主决定的事情，怎么就能得出"中国一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失，变成美国的航路、海港、陆道了"è¿™æ ·è’唐的结论来呢？鉴于美国同样必须逐条对等执行条约，那么是否美国的"一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失"ä¹Ÿå˜æˆä¸­å›½çš„"航路、海港、陆道了"å‘¢ï¼Ÿ

无端歪曲之后，紧接着就大张旗鼓地声讨，这是毛氏惯用的战法，本《社论》也同样采用："中国完全断丧了关税自主权，断丧了沿海及内河的航行权。""把从水上到陆上的全部中国领土，中华民族的生存权利，拍卖得干干净净了！""在近代中国历史上，这是最大、最残酷苛刻的一个卖国条约。""在范围上包括了'中国领土全境'，内容上包括了中国人民在本国领土万难享受的各种权利。"

这就更令人不知究里了。就算是《社论》指控的三条全部成立，那也只是把本国人民才应该享有的权利让美国也沾光了，怎么就变成"中国完全断丧了关税自主权，断丧了沿海及内河的航行权"äº†å‘¢ï¼Ÿéš¾é“条约规定美国人来决定中国的关税？规定只许美国人来航行我们的沿海与内河，中国人反倒不许航行了吗？显然没有。

瞪着眼睛说瞎话的证据在于：本条约第二十九条明文规定如下：

"一、本条约一经生效，应即替代中华民国与美利坚合众国间下列条约中尚未废止之各条款：

"（甲）道光二十四年五月十八日即公历1844年7月3日在望厦签订之中美五口贸易章程；

"（乙）咸丰八年五月初八日即公历1858年6月18日在天津签订之中美和好条约；

"（丙）咸丰八年十月初三日即公历1858年11月8日在上海签订之中美贸易章程说明；

"（丁）同治七年六月初九日即公历1868年7月28日在华盛顿签订之中美续增条约；

"（戊）光绪六年十月十五日即公历1880年11月17日在北京签订之中美续修条约；

"（己）光绪六年十月十五日即公历1880年11月17日在北京签订之中美续约附款；

"（庚）光绪二十九年八月十八日即公历1903年10月8日在上海签订之续议通商行船条约；

"（辛）中华民国九年十月二十日即公历1920年10月20日在华盛顿签订之修改通商进口税则补约；及

"（壬）中华民国十七年七月二十五日即公历1928年7月25日在北京签订之整理中美关税关系之条约。

"二、本约中任何规定，不得解释为对于中华民国三十二年一月十一日中华民国与美利坚合众国在华盛顿所签订关于取消美国在华治外法权及处理有关问题条约及所附换文所给予之权利，优例及优惠，加以任何限制。"

也就是说，《中美友好通商航海条约》彻底割除了历史上美中之间所有不平等条约的最后一缕尾巴。其实，早在1928å¹´6月16日，当时美国尚未承认中华民国政府，但南京政府向美国提出废除协议关税，恢复中国自主关税的意见后，27日美国助理国务卿詹森就向法国表示美国准备单独商谈废除协议关税问题。 7月25日，《整理中美两国关税关系之条约》签字。条约规定："历来中美两国所订立有效之条约内所载关于在中国进出口货物之税率、存票、子口税并船钞等项之各条款，应即撤销作废，而应适用国家关税完全自主之原则。惟缔约各国对于上述及有关系之事项，在彼此领土内享受之待遇，应与其他国享受之待遇毫无差别。"ä»Žè€Œä»¥æ³•å¾‹å½¢å¼ç¡®ç«‹äº†ä¸­å›½çš„关税自主权，这是首个废除中国协议关税的国"‹"‹å®¶ã€‚恰是美国带头签订中国关税自主条约，英、法、德等随即也签订了中国关税自主条约，中国才实现了关税自主。

历来列强与中国签订条约，都是采取单方面享有"最惠国待遇"æ¡æ¬¾ï¼Œè™½ç„¶è¿™ä¸ªæ¡æ¬¾æ˜¯å›½é™…法规定的外国人待遇的一般原则，并且在17世纪就被国际条约所经常采用。但如果单方面享有此项待遇仍属不平等。 《中美友好通商航海条约》是完全彻底的对等享有，它显然是平等的。虽然美中两国经济实力与科技手段存在巨大差异，因此，即使条约的平等未必等于现实的平等。这也不能成为否定条约平等的理由，难道谁还指望签订对于先进、发达国家反向不平等的条约以补偿自己落后导致的劣势吗？显然不可能。 (编按:在中共的百度百科，也特别强调此点，说什么"条约表面上双方享有对等权利，而实际上由于当时中国的远洋运输不发达及生产落后，根本无法与美国平等地实现其中规定的权利。通过条约，全中国领土均向美国开放。美国企业在华享有种种特许的待遇，使中国部分地丧失了关税自主权、沿海及内河航行权。"但是中国不会进步吗?且在美国也有许多华侨与华工，且注意一下当时的年代1943å¹´!!!当时美国各州还有排华法案存在，此约可以保障在美国华侨华工生命与财产不受各洲排华法案威胁，就像黑人一样，黑人解放也是20世纪末才开始，当时美国除了日本以外，对于亚洲人种十分歧视，这算是保障，另外中国企业在美国也有公司啊!!!比方说被中共抨击的宋家集团!!，何来不平等之说!!)

http://www.greatroc.org/thread-4770-1-1.html

I wish u had learned some history and done a bit analysis. Just look at this Sino-US treaty in 1946
<�����Ѻ�ͨ�̺�����Լ>�����ݼ�����_�ٶ�֪��
中華民國與美利堅合眾國間友好通商航海條約

Just think about the damage it may have incurred to nascent Chinese home grown industries, needless to mention "free travel, free access of commodities, mining navigation freedom of warships, . India even up to date hasn't been that opened. Pls browse how India blocked FDI in multi-brand retailing.

 

[CCTV]

I also hope you really research the treaty and find out that how much of treaty is being distorted by CCP sponsored propaganda. Some of accusation can not stand ground. For instance,

社论》指责的第三部分："第三，美国船舶可以在中国'开放之任何口岸、地方或领水内'自由航行，可以无限制地一只船停泊几处口岸。其人员货物可以经由'最便捷之途径'，有通过中国'领土之自由'，'不得课以任何过境税或予"‹"‹ä»¥ä»»ä½•ä¸å¿…要之迟延或限制'。而且，美国船舶（包括军舰）只要在遇到'任何危难'的借口下，就可以开入中国'对外国商务或航业不开放之任何口岸、地方或领水'，中国还须对它采取'友好之待遇及协助'。就是说，中国一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失，变成美国的航路、海港、陆道了。"



与此项指责相关的条约规定为第二十二、第二十四条。第二十二条，其一、二、三款被略掉，显然与指责无关，我们也跟着略掉。 "四、缔约此方，在现在或将来对外国开放之口岸、地方及领水内，应备有合格之引水人，引导缔约彼方之船舶，进入上述口岸、地方及领水。五、倘缔约此方之船舶，由于天气恶劣，或因其他危难，被迫避入缔约彼方对外国商务或航业不开放之任何口岸、地方或领水时，此项船舶，应获得友好之待遇及协助，以及必需与现有之供应品及修理器材。本款于军舰及渔船以及第二十一条第二款所规定之船舶，亦适用之。"ç¬¬å…­æ¬¾è¢«ç•¥æŽ‰ï¼Œæˆ‘们也不去讨论。



第二十四条规定第一款略去，我们也跟着略去："二、倘缔约此方，以内河航行或沿海贸易之权利，给予任何第三国之船舶时，则此项权利，亦同样给予缔约彼方之船舶。缔约任何一方之沿海贸易及内河航行，不在国民待遇之例，而应由该缔约一方有关沿海贸易及内河航行之法律规定之。缔约双方同意，缔约此方之船舶，在缔约彼方领土内，关于沿海贸易及内河航行所享受之待遇，应与对任何第三国船舶所给予之待遇，同样优厚，缔约任何一方与其所属岛屿或领地间之贸易，应视为本款所指之沿海贸易。"

我想，这两条无需解释都应该看得明白，开放口岸地必须"合格之引水人"é¢†èˆªè‡³æŒ‡å®šå¤„所，这是国际惯例，是"不自由航行"ï¼Œå´è¢«æ­ªæ›²æˆä¸º"自由航行"ï¼›æ¡çº¦ç¬¬äº”款规定的遇难船只的避险及救助，国际法有明确规定，必须遵守。该条所规定之两款，至今也是世界各国包括我国必须执行的准则，竟然也被说成"卖国"çš„证据了，滑天下之大稽！而条约明确规定对方船只进入本方领水，"不在国民待遇之例"ï¼Œå¿…须遵守特别法律规定，而且只与主权国授予第三国待遇同等享受。至于是否授予第三国这种待遇，完全是主权国自主决定的事情，怎么就能得出"中国一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失，变成美国的航路、海港、陆道了"è¿™æ ·è’唐的结论来呢？鉴于美国同样必须逐条对等执行条约，那么是否美国的"一切航路、海港、陆道的自主权完全丧失"ä¹Ÿå˜æˆä¸­å›½çš„"航路、海港、陆道了"å‘¢ï¼Ÿ

无端歪曲之后，紧接着就大张旗鼓地声讨，这是毛氏惯用的战法，本《社论》也同样采用："中国完全断丧了关税自主权，断丧了沿海及内河的航行权。""把从水上到陆上的全部中国领土，中华民族的生存权利，拍卖得干干净净了！""在近代中国历史上，这是最大、最残酷苛刻的一个卖国条约。""在范围上包括了'中国领土全境'，内容上包括了中国人民在本国领土万难享受的各种权利。"

这就更令人不知究里了。就算是《社论》指控的三条全部成立，那也只是把本国人民才应该享有的权利让美国也沾光了，怎么就变成"中国完全断丧了关税自主权，断丧了沿海及内河的航行权"äº†å‘¢ï¼Ÿéš¾é“条约规定美国人来决定中国的关税？规定只许美国人来航行我们的沿海与内河，中国人反倒不许航行了吗？显然没有。

瞪着眼睛说瞎话的证据在于：本条约第二十九条明文规定如下：

"一、本条约一经生效，应即替代中华民国与美利坚合众国间下列条约中尚未废止之各条款：

"（甲）道光二十四年五月十八日即公历1844年7月3日在望厦签订之中美五口贸易章程；

"（乙）咸丰八年五月初八日即公历1858年6月18日在天津签订之中美和好条约；

"（丙）咸丰八年十月初三日即公历1858年11月8日在上海签订之中美贸易章程说明；

"（丁）同治七年六月初九日即公历1868年7月28日在华盛顿签订之中美续增条约；

"（戊）光绪六年十月十五日即公历1880年11月17日在北京签订之中美续修条约；

"（己）光绪六年十月十五日即公历1880年11月17日在北京签订之中美续约附款；

"（庚）光绪二十九年八月十八日即公历1903年10月8日在上海签订之续议通商行船条约；

"（辛）中华民国九年十月二十日即公历1920年10月20日在华盛顿签订之修改通商进口税则补约；及

"（壬）中华民国十七年七月二十五日即公历1928年7月25日在北京签订之整理中美关税关系之条约。

"二、本约中任何规定，不得解释为对于中华民国三十二年一月十一日中华民国与美利坚合众国在华盛顿所签订关于取消美国在华治外法权及处理有关问题条约及所附换文所给予之权利，优例及优惠，加以任何限制。"

也就是说，《中美友好通商航海条约》彻底割除了历史上美中之间所有不平等条约的最后一缕尾巴。其实，早在1928å¹´6月16日，当时美国尚未承认中华民国政府，但南京政府向美国提出废除协议关税，恢复中国自主关税的意见后，27日美国助理国务卿詹森就向法国表示美国准备单独商谈废除协议关税问题。 7月25日，《整理中美两国关税关系之条约》签字。条约规定："历来中美两国所订立有效之条约内所载关于在中国进出口货物之税率、存票、子口税并船钞等项之各条款，应即撤销作废，而应适用国家关税完全自主之原则。惟缔约各国对于上述及有关系之事项，在彼此领土内享受之待遇，应与其他国享受之待遇毫无差别。"ä»Žè€Œä»¥æ³•å¾‹å½¢å¼ç¡®ç«‹äº†ä¸­å›½çš„关税自主权，这是首个废除中国协议关税的国"‹"‹å®¶ã€‚恰是美国带头签订中国关税自主条约，英、法、德等随即也签订了中国关税自主条约，中国才实现了关税自主。

历来列强与中国签订条约，都是采取单方面享有"最惠国待遇"æ¡æ¬¾ï¼Œè™½ç„¶è¿™ä¸ªæ¡æ¬¾æ˜¯å›½é™…法规定的外国人待遇的一般原则，并且在17世纪就被国际条约所经常采用。但如果单方面享有此项待遇仍属不平等。 《中美友好通商航海条约》是完全彻底的对等享有，它显然是平等的。虽然美中两国经济实力与科技手段存在巨大差异，因此，即使条约的平等未必等于现实的平等。这也不能成为否定条约平等的理由，难道谁还指望签订对于先进、发达国家反向不平等的条约以补偿自己落后导致的劣势吗？显然不可能。 (编按:在中共的百度百科，也特别强调此点，说什么"条约表面上双方享有对等权利，而实际上由于当时中国的远洋运输不发达及生产落后，根本无法与美国平等地实现其中规定的权利。通过条约，全中国领土均向美国开放。美国企业在华享有种种特许的待遇，使中国部分地丧失了关税自主权、沿海及内河航行权。"但是中国不会进步吗?且在美国也有许多华侨与华工，且注意一下当时的年代1943å¹´!!!当时美国各州还有排华法案存在，此约可以保障在美国华侨华工生命与财产不受各洲排华法案威胁，就像黑人一样，黑人解放也是20世纪末才开始，当时美国除了日本以外，对于亚洲人种十分歧视，这算是保障，另外中国企业在美国也有公司啊!!!比方说被中共抨击的宋家集团!!，何来不平等之说!!)

駁斥共匪污衊的平等新約"中美友好通商航海條約"-大中華民國復興會（中興會）官方論壇 - Powered by Discuz!

Well , I think those " fair " treaties are just too " fair"......

 

[TrueSpirit]

In 1980s, you can prove Chinese poverty by comparing them to tailand, malaysia or indonesia;
In 1990s, you can prove Chinese poverty by comparing them to Hongkong, Taiwan or South Korea;
Now, you have to prove Chinese proverty by comparing them to Japan, Germany and USA;

I think this sums it up. Well said : no smoking.
This is one sensible & convincing post. Coming from our Chinese friends, such posts are a rarity or exception rather than the norm. Hope your country-men on this forum can learn something from this & start talking when confronted with facts, instead of being evasive & resorting to crude, diversionary tactics all the time.

 

[mylegend]

Well , I think those " fair " treaties are just too " fair"......

Too fair is the problem, China's industry can not compete with USA at the time. However, the treaty is still better than the previous treaty China was forced the sign. The only reason for KMT was forced to take this version is because they run out of cash to fund the civil war.

However, you can always renegotiate new treaty. If China side with USA, USA will want to strength China against USSR just like what they did with Japan.

 

[CCTV]

Too fair is the problem, China's industry can not compete with USA at the time. However, the treaty is still better than the previous treaty China was forced the sign. The only reason for KMT was forced to take this version is because they run out of cash to fund the civil war.

However, you can always renegotiate new treaty. If China side with USA, USA will want to strength China against USSR just like what they did with Japan.

1. US is not a angel,they offer things for free.
Japan, SK and Taiwan are pets of US , they can be trade with China any time.

2. Again, the resource of the world is limited, if China with 1 b ppl have the same life quality as Japan , SK Taiwan today, what do you think US's life quality will be.
What is price for food, gas and other resources? Do you think US will treat China as those much smaller country?

 

[mylegend]

Yes, US is not a angel, but they did offer Marshall Plan in Europe and they did help making Japanese Economy to compete with themselves. When you become more powerful, you will get your independence in foreign policy. Chinese was hardly gaining anything for so-call independence. China was still relying on USSR that steel way more Chinese territory then any other. By the way, if we are allying with USA, we do not need to use unreliable fighter jet engine from Russian.

1. US is not a angel,they offer things for free.
Japan, SK and Taiwan are pets of US , they can be trade with China any time.

2. Again, the resource of the world is limited, if China with 1 b ppl have the same life quality as Japan , SK Taiwan today, what do you think US's life quality will be.
What is price for food, gas and other resources? Do you think US will treat China as those much smaller country?

 

[CCTV]

Yes, US is not a angel, but they did offer Marshall Plan in Europe and they did help making Japanese Economy to compete with themselves. When you become more powerful, you will get your independence in foreign policy. Chinese was hardly gaining anything for so-call independence. China was still relying on USSR that steel way more Chinese territory then any other. By the way, if we are allying with USA, we do not need to use unreliable fighter jet engine from Russian.

1. Do you know the population or potential of China , EU and Japan?
US can control EU and Japan easily even EU and Japan are developed.
You can see what happen to Japan at end of 90's , who make them lost 30 years?
You can see the what happened after EURO just launched, a war happened in Europe on time to drive Euro to cliff.

2. We did had have ally with USSR at 60's and US in 80's base on equal partnership.

3. In history, Russia did took a lot of territory from China, and it is not our core interest to take them back now. For example , during the civil war, Taiwan ,Tibet, SCS are not our core interest. For now, out Mongolia and Siberia is not our core interest.

4. Use USA or Russian jet engines are the same thing. They have their own advantages and disadvantages. Btw, i don't deny American one are bit better.
The most important thing is to close the gap between our jet engine and theirs. You may see our WS- 20 , 10a, 13 is equipped or testing.

 

[mylegend]

1. Again, what is wrong with making alliance with USA? Japan's lost decade was meant to be, it is not the fault of USA. Bubble are meant to be broken regardless of speculator, Japanese Central Bank and Legislation are the one to be blame for lost decades if you do study about the economic history of Japan. Flies will not byte on seamless egg. Another problem in Japan is they only utilize half of their workforce by excluding women.

European must blame themselves for their failure, do you know what is the average work hours in the Pigs and France? The hard working German seem to excel.

2. There is old saying that it is never too late, however, some time things are too late. Are you sure Chinese Russian Alliance still meant anything in 60s? It was de-facto broken. USSR can never offer what USA can offer. Communism is meant to be a failure. Cultural revolution and great leap forward brought such a misery to China due to idiotic Mao.
.
3. Just saying at the end of WW2, USSR does not have nuclear weapon. They might as well bow down to both Chinese and USA pressure.

4. As long as we gone on Russian path, we can never made anything of decent quality. Russian may try to match thrust but their engine's life time is not even 1/5 of US.

Again, there is no if in history. We have to work with what we have. What I believe is the current system is outdated, and CCP should give up power gradually. There should be at the very least a secret time table. What is going on right now is the army and the party is being control by the 红二代. That is a shame.

1. Do you know the population or potential of China , EU and Japan?
US can control EU and Japan easily even EU and Japan are developed.
You can see what happen to Japan at end of 90's , who make them lost 30 years?
You can see the what happened after EURO just launched, a war happened in Europe on time to drive Euro to cliff.

2. We did had have ally with USSR at 60's and US in 80's base on equal partnership.

3. In history, Russia did took a lot of territory from China, and it is not our core interest to take them back now. For example , during the civil war, Taiwan ,Tibet, SCS are not our core interest. For now, out Mongolia and Siberia is not our core interest.

4. Use USA or Russian jet engines are the same thing. They have their own advantages and disadvantages. Btw, i don't deny American one are bit better.
The most important thing is to close the gap between our jet engine and theirs. You may see our WS- 20 , 10a, 13 is equipped or testing.

 

[tramp]

What i meant is China should have pick the better side, USSR will not able to offer the trade opportunity US and western world can offer. China should have sided with US much earlier to enjoy the honey moon before the unavoidable collapsed of Soviet Union.

USSR relation strained after death of Stalin. Soviet has gone through ideology changes that Mao did not support. As a result within few years, majority of Soviet support and its expert are gone.

Soviet did not support China in the 1962 conflict, that is one of reason along with supply line that cause Chinese retreat.

On 2 October, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev defended Nehru in a meeting with Mao. This action reinforced China's impression that the Soviet Union, the United States and India all had expansionist designs on China. The People's Liberation Army went so far as to prepare a self-defence counterattack plan.[2] Negotiations were restarted between the nations, but no progress was made.

A agree with you that earlier the reform, the better it will be for the nation.

Don't you think political reforms need to go hand in hand to sustain economic reforms?

Isn't this ten-year itch of the CCP that leads to corruption related purges coming a little too late after the damage has been done. Isn't the rigidity of the party machinery hobbling detection of corruption earlier than it is possible nowf after a total change of guard?