【09.12.29 卫报】Why denouncing China is hypocritical

和解团结

【原文链接】http://www.guardian.co.uk/politi ... al-shaikh-execution
【作者】Michael White
【发表时间】2009年12月29日
【登载媒体】Guardian UK


                                                                    
I'm sorry too that the Chinese have just executed Akmal Shaikh, an apparently mentally ill Briton. He was clearly an expendable drugs mule, cynically exploited by traffickers who are still alive and well today.

But I'm also sorry about the international clamour to denounce China, which sounds at least as hypocritical and insensitive as the act itself. Can Gordon Brown and David Cameron – to name but two – hear what they sound like?

Let'sstart with the basics. Most of us (not all) deplore the drugs trade –from cultivation to distribution and sale – which is illegal in mostcountries (not all) and has spawned a huge and lucrative globalindustry.

Some think the "cure'' – the worldwide campaign againstthe trade – worse than the disease since it underpins major criminalenterprises on all continents. It has long been the case, though Iwould personally hesitate to risk legalising it and hoping for the best.

Differentcountries tackle the problem in different ways. China, which has arising drugs problem as it enters the modern consumer era, is one ofthose which takes a tough line. As the Guardian's Q&A points out today it is one of the few crimes to attract a mandatory death sentence.

Enterpoor Akmal Shaikh, who seems to have gone off the rails in middle ageafter leading a quiet family life as a north London taxi driver.Someone who struck acquaintances as very odd after he emigrated toPoland with grandiose ideas, he falls into bad company which exploitshis gullibility.

So he ends up landing in Urumqi, northern China,in 2007 and being caught at the airport with 4kg of heroin in hisluggage. He told police he knew nothing about it. It's a tragicallyfamiliar story and, in his case, it's probably true.

In the wakeof his execution the Chinese authorities sound quite angry at criticismof their judicial system. Shaikh had a fair trial, complete withinterpreter, they say. He was deemed fit to plead.

Mentalillness? Ah, that's a tricky one. But it's easy to see how the Chinesemight take a very different view of how it is defined. So do manyjurisdictions – as we all know – on this and many other legal issues:"self defence", "crimes of passion", "third degree homicide", "honourkillings", lots of scope for moral relativism in all of them.

Reprieveand other admirable campaigns which fight for the rights of prisonersin foreign jurisdictions have the virtue of consistency. Thus theyoppose the death penalty wherever it exists, including the US, where itwas abolished as a "cruel and unnatural punishment'' in 1972 – andrestored in 1976 when the supreme court changed its mind.

Thoughthey are pretty half-hearted about it compared with China's 1,700 or soknown executions (they are reported to sell body parts for medical use)a year, southern US states are keenest.

As governors both GeorgeW Bush and Bill Clinton – whom so many of us admire – signed off onquestionable executions of vulnerable, marginalised people like AkmalShaikh. A high proportion of the 3,000 or so Americans on Death Row –few actually executed – are black. Britain? We last executed a man called Peter Allen at Walton jail on 13 August 1964 for murder – three years before the final abolition of the death penalty.

Notso long ago really (our last Etonian PM, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was inNo 10) and, as China's very smart UK ambassador has probably toldBeijing, capital punishment still commands as much enthusiasm here 40years later as it does in China, ie lots.

So there's asovereignty issue. China – like the US – has the right to pass andimplement its own laws and governments, governments-in-waiting inCameron's case, should pause before getting too mouthy. Apparently 27representations were made to China by Britain over the past two years –mostly quietly, I assume, which is always the best way.

But theexecution took place during the Christmas news lull: hence the suddenhigh profile. Thank goodness Ivan Lewis, the junior foreign officeminister put up to talk about it today, saidL "I'm not going to makeidle threats" – or we might be starting 2010 going to war with China.

Talkingof which, the really toe-curling fact, of which neither Dr Gordon Brownwith his PhD in history, nor David Cameron with his 1st in PPE shouldbe ignorant, is Anglo-Chinese history.

When Europeans startedforcing the reclusive China of the late Ming and Qing dynasty to openits doors to trade in the 16th and 17th century the visitors wantedmore Chinese goods – all that tea, silk and lovely porcelain – than theChinese wanted of ours.

Sounds familiar? What the Chinese wouldaccept was silver, a better bet than the US dollars they now hold insuch vast quantities. This was unsustainable and in the 19th centurythe British East India Company hit on the idea of importing Indianopium to China – though it was banned by imperial Chinese law.
I hope you've spotted where I'm heading. If not here's Wiki's starter kit on the Opium Wars of 1839-42 and 1856-60which culminated in the so-called "unequal treaties" and the eventual overthrow of the Qing in 1912.

Result:China was forced to accept the trade with devastating socialconsequences. In fairness I should add that the stuff was legal inBritain at the time – as readers of Victorian novels can confirm. TheChinese governor Lin Zexu became a hero for opposing the trade – as didyoung William Gladstone at Westminster.

All the same, it is apretty shameful story. Perhaps it slipped your memory? It certainlyhasn't slipped theirs and is still unravelling: they only got Hong Kongback in 1997 and have never rebuilt the burned Summer Palace at Beijing– their Windsor.

So, one way or another, poor Akmal Shaikh wasthe wrong man in the wrong place. But China is likely to be imperviousto lectures from Europeans on the morality of the drugs trade.

Asthe world's rising power it's unlikely to be lectured anyway, butthat's another story – one we'll rapidly have to get used to. Nodeclaration of war this week, please Ivan.

和解团结

截图有1.52mb，放不上来

和解团结

00000000
青蛙小王子 发表于 2009-12-30 06:32

rhapsody

截图有1.52mb，放不上来
和解团结 发表于 2009-12-30 06:14

嗯？2M以内应该可以啊。。。偶来上传吧（裁剪了下）：

垃圾海

求翻译

台湾加油

这篇文章写得挺好的，难得的理性声音。

sin89

这篇文章有些难，如果有谁跟我合作，会比较好。
saidL是什么？拼写错误？就如一开始的I am sorry too that？

和解团结

这篇文章有些难，如果有谁跟我合作，会比较好。
saidL是什么？拼写错误？就如一开始的I am sorry too that ...
sin89 发表于 2009-12-31 15:47

转贴时候会出现粘词情况，几个词粘在一起

sin89

回复 8# 和解团结

我看原文了。原文也是saidL和too

和解团结

回复  和解团结

我看原文了。原文也是saidL和too
sin89 发表于 2009-12-31 17:19

那就不清楚了，没注意那个

空气稀薄

英国《卫报》网站30日发表在该报工作30多年的编辑迈克尔-怀特的文章，题目是“为什么指责中国是虚伪的”。文章说，对于现在国际上指责中国的噪音，他感到非常遗憾。不同的国家有不同的处理问题的方法。中国正在进入现代化，毒品增长是很严重的问题，中国采取严惩的方式是可以理解的。这是一个国家的主权问题，在这个问题上，中国和美国一样，有权通过和实施自己的法律。文章引述英国外交国务大臣伊万-刘易斯的话写道，幸亏刘易斯说“我并不准备做无聊的威胁”，不然“我们可能2010年要准备跟中国开战了”。文章总结说，阿克毛是一个错误的人遇到了错误的地点，而中国有完全的理由不理会来自欧洲的指责。而且作为一个正在上升的大国，中国已经不可能“被上课了”。“请刘易斯先生这个星期不要向中国宣战。”