Saturday, April 12, 2008
Chinese Ambassador walks out of Green convention…
It seems John Gormley’s call for China to talk to the Dalai Lama didn’t go down well… he got up and walked out… There’s concern here now that this might obscure the policy detail of John Gormley’s speech...,
Mick Fealty @ 09:14 PM
“There’s concern here now that this might obscure the policy detail of John Gormley’s speech.”
Bit late for the Greens to be concerned about that.
After all, I assume they did invite the Chinese Ambassador?
Or did the leader of the Green Party forget that he’s also an Irish Government Minister?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:31 PMSilly silly Gormley.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:41 PMIf I were the Greens I would be flattered by this.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:42 PMmaybe he just got bored listening to John Gormley’s speech.I certainly did.I was even tempted to turn over to X factor
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:48 PM“If I were the Greens I would be flattered by this.”
Flattered, Brian?
By a cheap political [set-up] stunt?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:50 PMPete,
Who are you blaming for the stunt there? The Greens or the Ambassador? I wouldn’t be surprised if the Greens didn’t realise this would happen.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:55 PMFlattered that one of the most brutal regimes on the face of the planet disapproves of me. And also proud to have stood by Tibet, as a fellow victim of imperial oppression, though in the case of Ireland I accept that was in the past.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 09:55 PMGaribaldy
Clearly the Greens, who invited the Ambassador, and their leader who subsequently, and publicly, attempted to embarrass him.
Brian
The offense was caused by an Irish Government Minister, not necessarily the Green Party leader.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:01 PMI agree that the Chinese will see it the way Pete outlines. This is a disgraceful way for a government party to behave. There are formal diplomatic channels for these things, or there is the option of holding the debate when the ambassador is not there. But again, I doubt they thought the ambassador would walk out. AS Mick says, it takes the focus away from the message they want to send out.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:15 PMHow is standing up for human rights “disgraceful” Garibaldy?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:18 PMI’m sure the ambassador can distinguish between a government position and a party position. If the ambassador walked out of a minister’s office instead of a party convention then the government would demand either a formal apology or expel him depending on the applicable protocol. It was probably a stunt by the Greens but China doesn’t deserve to get it’s shabby way by tossing its toys out of the pram at any mention of their imperial oppression of the Tibetans.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:19 PMA government party criticising the internal government of another country outside the formal diplomatic channels when you have invited them to attend your conference is disgraceful.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:21 PMNo, an amabassador having a hissy fit when an honest and correct comment is made is disgraceful. You’ve been too long under the imperial thumb.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:25 PMDave,
The total absence of any logic to that remark has given me a laugh anyway.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:30 PMGood for you. But if you were a little more attentive you would have grasped that hissy fits as China’s tactic of censoring criticism of their imperial oppression of the Tibetens and that your support of their tactic makes you a patsy, unwitting or otherwise.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:34 PMGaribaldy
If they didn’t anticipate that immediate reaction then they’re even more green than I thought.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:39 PMChina censored Gormely by walking out? I don’t think it did. Gormley is still free to criticise them in the press, to hand in a letter of complaint on behalf of his party to the embassy, or to use his position as minister to raise the issue the way it ought to be done.
Speaking of patsys, I take it then that you are a fan of feudal theocracies being restored everywhere, and not just in Tibet?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:41 PMPete,
I do think they are naive enough not to have expected it. Remarkable though that may seem.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:41 PMIf he did it as Green Party leader, that’s good. If he did it as a Minister of the Government, even better.
Garibaldy- you may prefer the niceties of diplomatic chin-wags, but as we’ve seen all too clearly, the Chinese regime couldn’t give a toss about diplomtic attempts to convince them to catch themselves on.
You say: “This is a disgraceful way for a government party to behave.” I’d say the behaviour of the government party in China towards the people of Tibet and the citizens of their own country is incomparably worse.
If given the choice of facing John Gormley with an energy saving lightbulb or a Chinese soldier with his execution pistol, I know which one I’d choose.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:43 PMI must have missed the bit where I said that I supported what was happening in Tibet. I’ve been talking about Gormley and the Green Party’s behaviour. Which was childish and disgraceful.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:45 PMdid someone lose their noodle?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:45 PM“China censored Gormely by walking out? I don’t think it did.”
Err, no… or is this pretend naivety on your part or the real deal? The idea is that China stamps its feet and throws a hissy fit anytime criticism is mentioned (as a mere glance at the media might inform you), this ensures that folks keep their mouths firmly shut as folks tend not to like to anger superpowers and emerging markets. The tactic is designed to ensure that criticism is censored but as a form of expedient self-censorship. Did that help get you up to speed or would you rather pretend that this isn’t a tactic by China which they have applied lavishly and that you aren’t a de facto patsy in the process?
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:48 PMGaribaldy-
Are you saying that the leader of a political party addressing its conference should not discuss, er, important political issues? I can’t see what’s childish and disgraceful about embarrassing the representatives of an evil empire. Then again, ‘embarrass’ is probably too strong a word- the Chinese government knows not what shame is.
What would have been more disgraceful would have been Gormley self-censoring because the Chinese ambassador decided to turn up. Thankfully he didn’t.
Political stunt, yes. But given the inability or unwillingness of the west to do anything about China’s record, political stunts seem to be the main thing that people can do at the minute to highlight these issues.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:54 PMThe Ambassador behaved the way any ambassador would have done in the same circumstances. Including the Irish. You can describe that as censorship if you wish (although it doesn’t meet any definition of censorship I’m familiar with). I’d say it was a protest at the violation of protocol, and insult to a supposedly honoured guest.
If I supported what the Chinese were at in Tibet I’d happily say it. What I’ll also say is that I am opposed to theocracies where a parasitic class of priests lives off the hard work of the people in the same way as the aristocracy and church used to do in Europe. How weird of me.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:56 PMThose concerned with the human rights of the people of Tibet would do better than to look to the Dalai Lama for such succour. All and ever that that the priest class which he represents ever concerned themselves with was their own human comfort while oppressing their people with the spiritual fear of their own god like status.
A bit like protestants and catholics with added knobs.
The shenanigans of the Greens comes as no surprise - they are really just LibDems without the experience but with with the same values - try anything that might appeal. It is simply X-Factor politics. “Next!”.
Posted by on Apr 12, 2008 @ 10:57 PM
