None of this means or even implies that people here in the west would not like to see China become a democracy. This is sidetracking the issue.
Which means that gov always focus on interest instead of moral in any relationship. My point is these western gov could not be more "friendly" towards China than today unless China can give something more.
What about the US? Canada? England? France? Germany? Australia? New Zealand? You picked only a couple of countries to make your point, but there are still many more free countries that enforce proper labor laws.
Did you read my word "afford"? Check your list, all of them are developed countries. Base on their productivity, they can AFORD that.
Who is 'Morgen'? Provide a link please.
Sorry, it is "Morgan". I learned from a TV program about the riot happened in a coal controlled by Morgan. The riot lead to the conflict between company's paid army and coal miners. Many people including children and women died after the private army made a raid to miners' town.
But I found this: Battle of Blair Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
"Beginning in 1870-1880, coal operators had established a system of oppression and exploitation based around the company town system.[2][4][5] To maintain their domination and hegemony, coal operators paid "private detectives" as well as public law enforcement agents to ensure that union organizers were kept out of the region.[2] In order to accomplish this objective, agents of the coal operators used intimidation, harassment, espionage and even murder."
They were under martial law for a period of time, but ever since they have become more democratic and free; as well as more wealthy too. So yes, my point still stands.
Under Martial law? Even koreans and Taiwanese think they were under a dictatorship during that period!
Naturally most revolutions and major government changes do not occur without the intervention or influence of another major power. If China went to war tomorrow with any of its ASEAN neighbors, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea; it would have the rest of the world jumping down its throat. This is the scenario the CCP wanted, and their wish is coming true. The independence of Tibet is not up to the Hans, it is up to the people of Tibet.
CCP wanted a war? Japan & South Korea? Prove yourselves!
With Taiwan, you know there is a big difference between threatening and wanting a war, right?
In terms of Tibet, you are making my point: Hans believe they should be involved in the decision making while Tibet would not accept it because they know any result of their vote would be overwhelmed by 1 billions hans' vote. So democracy would not resolve this problem.
As I said before; this would become less of a problem if China wasn't run by the CCP. China already has 1 billion people who live in poverty, how is it any better than India?
I would not argue with you about who is better between India and China. If after 60 years democracy, india is still on the same powerty class as China. How do you explain it? You also have to notice that India was in a far superior position comparing to China when they got independence. And in 1978, every economic figures of these 2 were very close. China has already catched up even before reform.
No, I would say that Chinas lack of human rights has oppressed just about everyone there for far too long, including the Tibetans.
So, you agree there is no culture and religious inequality. Everyone is in the same status, right?
China has received the highest FDI than most other countries on the planet in the last 20 years. It is thanks to this investment that the Chinese economy has progressed to where it is today, and no amount of ad hominems on your part can change this fact.
Yes, FDI is one of reasons that China reachs its economic success. There are lots of other factors: Chinese gov's economic policy, industry fundation built up before 1978 and chinses' hard working, etc.
It has to do with cheating the system, and none of those countries you listed are still doing it today in the way China is.
But you cannot deny that they did it when they were democratic countries.
Which is unsustainable from an environmental and economics point of view.
Yes, but it is the fact and democracy cannot change it. The only way out is moving up the production chain.
Actually it isn't. All of these points have little to do with the economic status of China as I am talking about democracy there to help fix the political and social aspects of the country. You brought it up, because all you seem to care about is your own prosperity; even if its at another Chinese persons expense. It is true though that China would receive less resistance on various foreign issues if it was democratic, especially over Taiwan.
No, what I am arguing is the conclusion of yours: the west would be more friendly towards China if China becomes a demcratic country. I am not arguing what China should do. Besides, I am an australian citizen living in Oz. So China's future has nothing to do with my own prosperity, my countryman.