It seems the little girl who starred at the Olympic opening ceremony was miming and only put on stage because the real singer was not considered attractive enough, the show's musical director has revealed.
Pigtailed Lin Miaoke was selected to appear because of her cute appearance and did not sing a note, Chen Qigang, the general music designer of the ceremony, said in an interview with a state broadcaster yesterday.
Photographs of Lin in a bright red party dress were published in newspapers and websites all over the world and the official China Daily hailed her as a rising star yesterday.
But Chen said the girl whose voice was actually heard by the 91,000 capacity crowd at the Olympic stadium during the spectacular ceremony was in fact seven-year-old Yang Peiyi, who has a chubby face and uneven teeth.
"The reason why little Yang was not chosen to appear was because we wanted to project the right image, we were thinking about what was best for the nation," Chen said in an interview that appeared briefly on the news website Sina.com before it was apparently wiped from the internet in China.
Lin was seen to perform the patriotic song "Ode to the Motherland" as China's national flag was carried into the stadium, a key moment in the three hour ceremony.
"The reason was for the national interest. The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression," said Chen, a renowned contemporary composer and French citizen.
"Lin Miaoke is excellent in those aspects. But in terms of voice, Yang Peiyi is perfect, each member of our team agreed," he said.
He said the final decision to stage the event with Lin lip-synching to another girl's voice was taken after a senior member of China's ruling Communist Party politburo attended a rehearsal.
"He told us there was a problem that we needed to fix it, so we did," he said, without disclosing further details of the order.
The Beijing Olympic organising committee confirmed the episode with spokesman Sun Weide saying the decision was taken in the interests of providing the best possible show.
"A number of girls were on the short list for the show and Lin was the best actress while Yang had the best voice," he said. "So at the end of the day they decided to have both."
The ceremony directed by China's Oscar-nominated filmmaker Zhang Yimou and featuring more than 15,000 performers won high praise in China and overseas for its breadth, scope and flawless execution.
However criticism began to build after it emerged that another part of the opening ceremony had been faked.
Supposedly live pictures of fireworks depicting footprints moving from central Beijing's Tiananmen Square to the Olympic stadium in the north of the capital were actually partly computer-generated or pre-recorded for TV, organisers have admitted.
Wang Wei, vice president of the organising committee, Tuesday insisted the fireworks had actually exploded on the night and that most of the television images used were genuine.
"However, because of the poor visibility of the night some previously recorded foots may have been used," he said.
Xiao Qiang, the director of the China internet project at the University of California at Berkeley and former dissident, said the two incidents illustrated the political nature of the Games for China.
"I do not think the Chinese state realises how unethical this is, they don't understand what kind of values they are reflecting," he said.
Earlier this year Olympic organisers preoccupied with the right image for the country were criticised for insisting that only tall, slim, young and attractive women could serve as medal award ceremony hostesses.
So what message is this sending out to our children,it seems almost hopeless when all we are wanting to show the world is a squeeky clean version of our true selves!Beauty is in the eye of the beholder no longer ,IT SEEMS BEAUTY IS JUST THE COVER,EVEN THOU THE CONTENTS MAY BE FULL OF MAGGOTS!!!(not that I have anything against maggots I bet they think they look just fine.......rr)
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Beauty skin Deep in China
Friday, August 8, 2008
Afghanistan the "'GOOD WAR""
While some, including US presidential hopeful Barack Obama and the Australian government of PM Kevin Rudd, attempt to present the US-led occupation of Afghanistan as a “good war” counterposed to the disastrous occupation of Iraq — seen as a distraction from the “war on terrorism” — the bloodshed and repression in the service of the US-installed warlords in Kabul continues.
According to Canadian CTV News on July 28, Canadian troops opened fire on an approaching car the previous day, killing a two-year-old boy and four-year-old girl. CTV News reported that, “A gunner, apparently fearing a suicide attack, fired a giant round from a 25-millimetre cannon after the car came too close to the Canadian convoy”. “The round tore through the girl’s skull and left an open wound in the boy’s chest”, according to the report. The Canadian armed forces released a statement that expressed regret for the incident and blamed suicide bombing attacks carried out by anti-occupation fighters for causing the soldiers, fearing a car bomb attack, to open fire. Of course, the surest way to prevent a car bombing attack against occupation forces, and incidences of occupying soldiers killing civilians, would be to end the occupation — which has escalated suffering for the Afghan people and been responsible for an unknown number of civilian casualties, as the total Afghan dead has not been counted. CTV News reported that US-based Human Rights Watch had claimed that in 2007 at least 300 civilians had been killed by occupying forces, and thousands since the 2001 invasion. “At the Kandahar city hospital, the children’s mother was frantically pacing the hallways shrieking and cursing foreign soldiers”, according to CTV News. “‘My innocent children have been killed by foreigners — for no reason!’ said the mother.” According to CTV News, another hospital visitor stated that if he were the children’s father, he would personally launch a suicide attack against Canadian troops in retaliation. CTV News quoted a shopkeeper, Din Mohammad, warning that if such deaths continued, the occupation forces would end up being defeated like the Soviet army was in Afghanistan two decades ago. “They must stop this”, Mohammed stated. “Otherwise the day will come when everybody will stand up against the foreigners … If things continue like this, history will repeat itself.” Other incidences involving Canadian troops included the killing of a 90-year-old man on a motorbike — who turned out to be a mentor for President Hamid Karzai — and a young man and his passenger also on a motorbike. Outrage at massacres of civilians has grown to such an extent that even the puppet government in Kabul had criticised the US military after it murdered 47 civilians at a wedding on July 6. According to a July 20 AFP report, nine Afghan police had been killed that day by occupation forces in air strikes. The previous week, the US military admitted to killing eight people in air strikes that it claimed was targeting the Taliban, according to AFP. Afghan officials reported that nine women and a boy had died. According to a July 28 news report posted on
According to Canadian CTV News on July 28, Canadian troops opened fire on an approaching car the previous day, killing a two-year-old boy and four-year-old girl. CTV News reported that, “A gunner, apparently fearing a suicide attack, fired a giant round from a 25-millimetre cannon after the car came too close to the Canadian convoy”. “The round tore through the girl’s skull and left an open wound in the boy’s chest”, according to the report. The Canadian armed forces released a statement that expressed regret for the incident and blamed suicide bombing attacks carried out by anti-occupation fighters for causing the soldiers, fearing a car bomb attack, to open fire. Of course, the surest way to prevent a car bombing attack against occupation forces, and incidences of occupying soldiers killing civilians, would be to end the occupation — which has escalated suffering for the Afghan people and been responsible for an unknown number of civilian casualties, as the total Afghan dead has not been counted. CTV News reported that US-based Human Rights Watch had claimed that in 2007 at least 300 civilians had been killed by occupying forces, and thousands since the 2001 invasion. “At the Kandahar city hospital, the children’s mother was frantically pacing the hallways shrieking and cursing foreign soldiers”, according to CTV News. “‘My innocent children have been killed by foreigners — for no reason!’ said the mother.” According to CTV News, another hospital visitor stated that if he were the children’s father, he would personally launch a suicide attack against Canadian troops in retaliation. CTV News quoted a shopkeeper, Din Mohammad, warning that if such deaths continued, the occupation forces would end up being defeated like the Soviet army was in Afghanistan two decades ago. “They must stop this”, Mohammed stated. “Otherwise the day will come when everybody will stand up against the foreigners … If things continue like this, history will repeat itself.” Other incidences involving Canadian troops included the killing of a 90-year-old man on a motorbike — who turned out to be a mentor for President Hamid Karzai — and a young man and his passenger also on a motorbike. Outrage at massacres of civilians has grown to such an extent that even the puppet government in Kabul had criticised the US military after it murdered 47 civilians at a wedding on July 6. According to a July 20 AFP report, nine Afghan police had been killed that day by occupation forces in air strikes. The previous week, the US military admitted to killing eight people in air strikes that it claimed was targeting the Taliban, according to AFP. Afghan officials reported that nine women and a boy had died. According to a July 28 news report posted on
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Iran, West use sanctions AND dialogue..WTF???
Well it seems the latest negotiations over Iran’s uranium enrichment program were held in Geneva between the five UN Security Council members (the US, Britain, France China and Russia) and Germany on one side and Iran on the other.
The outcome was similar to previous talks: the six powers gave Iran two weeks to halt expansion of the enrichment program — which the West alleges is to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran maintains it is for power generation — or economic sanctions would be tightened. Western opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, which meets International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and is not contrary to international law, stands in contrast to its endorsement of Israel’s illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons, developed in secret with Western assistance. Shift in position However, the presence of senior US state department official William Burns at the negotiations represents a shift in US policy. Previously, the US had refused to deal directly with Iran in the uranium enrichment negotiations. Furthermore, there has been a change in US rhetoric, with US officials discussing the possibility of a US diplomatic presence in Iran, while previously it was the possibility of military action that was mooted. There has been no US diplomatic presence in Iran since the occupation of the US embassy by students following the 1979 revolution against the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. On July 22, British foreign minister David Miliband ruled out a military attack on Iran, contradicting the impression created by British PM Gordon Brown a week earlier when he told the Israeli parliament that Britain would not stand by while Iran acquired nuclear weapons. This followed Israeli military exercises in early June that simulated an attack on Iran. The Iranian response was a very public test firing of medium-range ballistic missiles on July 9 and 10. The US initially used this missile test to justify the “son of star wars” missile defence system that it is imposing on Europe, with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling a press conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, “I see it as evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”. However, the Western media has since been dismissive of the Iranian tests, saying that the Iranian claims of the missiles range was exaggerated and the photographs released doctored. “The net increase in the threat to U.S. interests in the region, including Israel, is approximately zero”, the July 11 Los Angeles Times quoted a Harvard security expert as saying. Western hostility Western hostility to Iran stems from the 1979 overthrow of the monarchical dictatorship of the Shah, who was a close Western ally in the region and whose armed forces had acted as a proxy for the West in putting down regional insurgencies. However, while the Shah’s overthrow was the result of a mass anti-imperialist revolution, driven by workers, peasants and students, the establishment of the Islamic Republic by the religious hierarchy was a political counter-revolution that included the imprisonment and murder of thousands of leftist and worker activists. The new regime represented broader layers of the Iranian ruling class than the CIA-installed Shah. The Islamic Republic’s bellicose anti-imperialist rhetoric is both an appeal to popular sentiment and legitimacy from the overthrow of the Shah, and a reflection of the regional ambitions of the Iranian ruling class. Unlike the anti-imperialist governments in Latin America, however, the Iranian regime has not rejected the neoliberal economic policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Western aggression against Iran following the overthrow of the Shah included tacit support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion and assistance to Iraq in the eight-year war that followed. This war was devastating for both Iran and Iraq, with a death toll exceeding a million. However, the external threat helped the religious regime in Iran consolidate. It also left the Iraqi dictatorship militarily strengthened but with serious economic problems, leading to the clash between Hussein and the West that ended with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the US bogged down in an unpopular war of occupation. The change in Western rhetoric toward Iran reflects the failure of the Bush administration’s project to impose direct military control over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that invading a country and overthrowing its government does not automatically translate into actual control. In both countries the ongoing US-led military presence has only fuelled chaos and instability. With undiminished occupation force casualties in both wars, the dreams of Bush administration hawks that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be the first in a series of militarily imposed regime changes in the region have proved unrealistic. Furthermore, the US and Iran share many of the same enemies. Like Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan before the 2001 invasion were hostile to Iran. While the US has consistently accused Iran of arming the anti-occupation resistance in both countries, the Sunni Muslim fundamentalists — who form the core of the Afghan resistance and one section of the resistance in Iraq — have violent sectarian antipathy to the Shia Islam that predominates in Iran. Also, the Iranian dictatorship is wary of the mass-based, popular Shia anti-occupation forces led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Iraqi groups with the closest links to Iran are the Shia parties in the US-installed Iraqi government. With both major US presidential candidates recognising that the occupation of Iraq cannot continue indefinitely but are unwilling for occupation troops to leave without a stable, friendly regime in place, the possibility of seeking Iranian cooperation in establishing a post-occupation order in Iraq is becoming more attractive to US imperialism. Similar factors exist in Afghanistan. Sanctions However, the US is unlikely to accept the strategic strengthening of Iran as the main outcome of its Afghanistan and Iraq adventures. The tightening of economic sanctions simultaneously with talk of resuming diplomatic ties suggests that rapprochement will depend on Iran making concessions. And, while a full-scale US-led invasion of Iran to achieve regime change is highly unlikely in the immediate future, US and Israeli politicians have not ruled out a bombing strike, despite the cooling in rhetoric. The July 30 Los Angeles Times reported that US officials had reassured visiting Israeli PM Ehud Barak that military aggression against Iran was still a possibility. One concession that the West is likely to demand is an end to Iranian support for the anti-imperialist movements in Lebanon and Palestine, Hezbollah and Hamas. However, Iran agreeing to this concession would not significantly alter the situation in Lebanon or Palestine. Despite Western portrayal of Hezbollah and Hamas as Iranian puppets, they are both independent, popular movements deeply rooted in their own countries’ resistance to Israel. Despite having vast reserves of oil and natural gas, Iran’s ability to benefit from rising fuel prices is dependent on its ability to refine its own fossil fuel output, something that sanctions are impeding. Iran is currently importing natural gas from Turkmenistan. The sanctions, combined with the global food and fuel crises, are having a devastating effect on Iran’s economy. For example, there is a 238% inflation rate for rice. This comes against a background of an upsurge in workers’ struggle in Iran that began with the imposition of IMF and World Bank-pushed neoliberal economic policies in 2001. Furthermore, while the European Union has implemented less harsh sanctions than the US, with European oil corporations taking advantage of the absence of US competitors, the July 10 announcement by French oil giant Total that it was disinvesting from Iran indicates that European policy is moving in line with the US. The BBC reported on July 23 that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was insisting that Iran’s nuclear energy program was not negotiatiable, saying Iran “will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers”. However, while its military potential has been exaggerated by the West, the benefit to Iran of a nuclear energy program is doubtful.
The outcome was similar to previous talks: the six powers gave Iran two weeks to halt expansion of the enrichment program — which the West alleges is to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran maintains it is for power generation — or economic sanctions would be tightened. Western opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, which meets International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and is not contrary to international law, stands in contrast to its endorsement of Israel’s illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons, developed in secret with Western assistance. Shift in position However, the presence of senior US state department official William Burns at the negotiations represents a shift in US policy. Previously, the US had refused to deal directly with Iran in the uranium enrichment negotiations. Furthermore, there has been a change in US rhetoric, with US officials discussing the possibility of a US diplomatic presence in Iran, while previously it was the possibility of military action that was mooted. There has been no US diplomatic presence in Iran since the occupation of the US embassy by students following the 1979 revolution against the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. On July 22, British foreign minister David Miliband ruled out a military attack on Iran, contradicting the impression created by British PM Gordon Brown a week earlier when he told the Israeli parliament that Britain would not stand by while Iran acquired nuclear weapons. This followed Israeli military exercises in early June that simulated an attack on Iran. The Iranian response was a very public test firing of medium-range ballistic missiles on July 9 and 10. The US initially used this missile test to justify the “son of star wars” missile defence system that it is imposing on Europe, with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling a press conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, “I see it as evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”. However, the Western media has since been dismissive of the Iranian tests, saying that the Iranian claims of the missiles range was exaggerated and the photographs released doctored. “The net increase in the threat to U.S. interests in the region, including Israel, is approximately zero”, the July 11 Los Angeles Times quoted a Harvard security expert as saying. Western hostility Western hostility to Iran stems from the 1979 overthrow of the monarchical dictatorship of the Shah, who was a close Western ally in the region and whose armed forces had acted as a proxy for the West in putting down regional insurgencies. However, while the Shah’s overthrow was the result of a mass anti-imperialist revolution, driven by workers, peasants and students, the establishment of the Islamic Republic by the religious hierarchy was a political counter-revolution that included the imprisonment and murder of thousands of leftist and worker activists. The new regime represented broader layers of the Iranian ruling class than the CIA-installed Shah. The Islamic Republic’s bellicose anti-imperialist rhetoric is both an appeal to popular sentiment and legitimacy from the overthrow of the Shah, and a reflection of the regional ambitions of the Iranian ruling class. Unlike the anti-imperialist governments in Latin America, however, the Iranian regime has not rejected the neoliberal economic policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Western aggression against Iran following the overthrow of the Shah included tacit support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion and assistance to Iraq in the eight-year war that followed. This war was devastating for both Iran and Iraq, with a death toll exceeding a million. However, the external threat helped the religious regime in Iran consolidate. It also left the Iraqi dictatorship militarily strengthened but with serious economic problems, leading to the clash between Hussein and the West that ended with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the US bogged down in an unpopular war of occupation. The change in Western rhetoric toward Iran reflects the failure of the Bush administration’s project to impose direct military control over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that invading a country and overthrowing its government does not automatically translate into actual control. In both countries the ongoing US-led military presence has only fuelled chaos and instability. With undiminished occupation force casualties in both wars, the dreams of Bush administration hawks that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be the first in a series of militarily imposed regime changes in the region have proved unrealistic. Furthermore, the US and Iran share many of the same enemies. Like Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan before the 2001 invasion were hostile to Iran. While the US has consistently accused Iran of arming the anti-occupation resistance in both countries, the Sunni Muslim fundamentalists — who form the core of the Afghan resistance and one section of the resistance in Iraq — have violent sectarian antipathy to the Shia Islam that predominates in Iran. Also, the Iranian dictatorship is wary of the mass-based, popular Shia anti-occupation forces led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Iraqi groups with the closest links to Iran are the Shia parties in the US-installed Iraqi government. With both major US presidential candidates recognising that the occupation of Iraq cannot continue indefinitely but are unwilling for occupation troops to leave without a stable, friendly regime in place, the possibility of seeking Iranian cooperation in establishing a post-occupation order in Iraq is becoming more attractive to US imperialism. Similar factors exist in Afghanistan. Sanctions However, the US is unlikely to accept the strategic strengthening of Iran as the main outcome of its Afghanistan and Iraq adventures. The tightening of economic sanctions simultaneously with talk of resuming diplomatic ties suggests that rapprochement will depend on Iran making concessions. And, while a full-scale US-led invasion of Iran to achieve regime change is highly unlikely in the immediate future, US and Israeli politicians have not ruled out a bombing strike, despite the cooling in rhetoric. The July 30 Los Angeles Times reported that US officials had reassured visiting Israeli PM Ehud Barak that military aggression against Iran was still a possibility. One concession that the West is likely to demand is an end to Iranian support for the anti-imperialist movements in Lebanon and Palestine, Hezbollah and Hamas. However, Iran agreeing to this concession would not significantly alter the situation in Lebanon or Palestine. Despite Western portrayal of Hezbollah and Hamas as Iranian puppets, they are both independent, popular movements deeply rooted in their own countries’ resistance to Israel. Despite having vast reserves of oil and natural gas, Iran’s ability to benefit from rising fuel prices is dependent on its ability to refine its own fossil fuel output, something that sanctions are impeding. Iran is currently importing natural gas from Turkmenistan. The sanctions, combined with the global food and fuel crises, are having a devastating effect on Iran’s economy. For example, there is a 238% inflation rate for rice. This comes against a background of an upsurge in workers’ struggle in Iran that began with the imposition of IMF and World Bank-pushed neoliberal economic policies in 2001. Furthermore, while the European Union has implemented less harsh sanctions than the US, with European oil corporations taking advantage of the absence of US competitors, the July 10 announcement by French oil giant Total that it was disinvesting from Iran indicates that European policy is moving in line with the US. The BBC reported on July 23 that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was insisting that Iran’s nuclear energy program was not negotiatiable, saying Iran “will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers”. However, while its military potential has been exaggerated by the West, the benefit to Iran of a nuclear energy program is doubtful.
American Hypocracy over China
Once again the yanks are at it accusing China of Human rights violations when in fact, as history and maybe not the current media, will show they are the worst offenders by far...check this hypocracy out....
"US President George W Bush has raised "deep concerns" about China's detention of dissidents and respect for human rights as he headed to Beijing for the Olympic Games.
Speaking in Bangkok, Bush insisted that his criticism was not intended to "antagonise" China on the eve of the Games, and expressed optimism about the future of the world's most populous nation.
But he repeatedly highlighted Washington's "deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights" in China.
"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings," Bush said in the speech, given just hours before leaving for Beijing.
"America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists," he said.
"We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labour rights - not to antagonise China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential."
"We press for openness and justice, not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs," he said.
Critics had called on Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremony on Friday because of China's record on human rights, which has been in the international spotlight in the run-up to the Games.
China has meanwhile insisted that the world sporting showpiece should not be politicised, something Bush has pledged not to do.
The United States has already protested China's treatment of international activists who are pressing Beijing to exert its influence over Sudan to end the conflict in Darfur.
US Winter Olympic speed-skating champion Joey Cheek, a prominent member of the Team Darfur activist group, saw his Chinese visa allowing him to attend the Games cancelled.
"We were disturbed to learn that the Chinese had refused his visa," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Bush has defended his decision to attend the Games, saying during a stop in Seoul on Wednesday that he would cheer US athletes while paying his respects to China.
In his speech on Thursday, Bush praised China's economic growth, saying the country presented an enormous market for the world's exports.
"China and the United States share important economic interests," Bush said.
The president said China's economic growth would also fuel change in the country.
"Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas, especially on an unrestricted internet," he said.
"Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and traditions. Yet change will arrive," Bush said.
"And it will be clear for all to see that those who aspire to speak their conscience and worship their God are no threat to the future of China. They are the people who will make China a great nation in the 21st century."
Bush noted that the United States and China were cooperating on other important issues, including the denuclearisation of North Korea.
As Beijing prepares to showcase its rising global influence with the Olympics, Bush said Washington was also pressing China to assume greater responsibility in world affairs.
"We are making clear to China that being a global economic leader carries with it the duty to act responsibly on matters from energy to the environment to development in places like Africa," Bush said.
"Ultimately, only China can decide what course it will follow. America and our partners are realistic, and we are prepared for any possibility. I am optimistic about China's future."
So as you can see even thou they have caused havoc around the world,the latest of course being the idiotic invasion of Iraq,when Bin Laden was supposedly responsible for 9/11,they continue to ignore their own atrocities and Geoge W Bush has decided to have a holiday in China as his ""protest" against oppression there and in Tibet,WHAT A JOKE AMERICA IS
"US President George W Bush has raised "deep concerns" about China's detention of dissidents and respect for human rights as he headed to Beijing for the Olympic Games.
Speaking in Bangkok, Bush insisted that his criticism was not intended to "antagonise" China on the eve of the Games, and expressed optimism about the future of the world's most populous nation.
But he repeatedly highlighted Washington's "deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights" in China.
"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings," Bush said in the speech, given just hours before leaving for Beijing.
"America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists," he said.
"We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labour rights - not to antagonise China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential."
"We press for openness and justice, not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs," he said.
Critics had called on Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremony on Friday because of China's record on human rights, which has been in the international spotlight in the run-up to the Games.
China has meanwhile insisted that the world sporting showpiece should not be politicised, something Bush has pledged not to do.
The United States has already protested China's treatment of international activists who are pressing Beijing to exert its influence over Sudan to end the conflict in Darfur.
US Winter Olympic speed-skating champion Joey Cheek, a prominent member of the Team Darfur activist group, saw his Chinese visa allowing him to attend the Games cancelled.
"We were disturbed to learn that the Chinese had refused his visa," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Bush has defended his decision to attend the Games, saying during a stop in Seoul on Wednesday that he would cheer US athletes while paying his respects to China.
In his speech on Thursday, Bush praised China's economic growth, saying the country presented an enormous market for the world's exports.
"China and the United States share important economic interests," Bush said.
The president said China's economic growth would also fuel change in the country.
"Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas, especially on an unrestricted internet," he said.
"Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and traditions. Yet change will arrive," Bush said.
"And it will be clear for all to see that those who aspire to speak their conscience and worship their God are no threat to the future of China. They are the people who will make China a great nation in the 21st century."
Bush noted that the United States and China were cooperating on other important issues, including the denuclearisation of North Korea.
As Beijing prepares to showcase its rising global influence with the Olympics, Bush said Washington was also pressing China to assume greater responsibility in world affairs.
"We are making clear to China that being a global economic leader carries with it the duty to act responsibly on matters from energy to the environment to development in places like Africa," Bush said.
"Ultimately, only China can decide what course it will follow. America and our partners are realistic, and we are prepared for any possibility. I am optimistic about China's future."
So as you can see even thou they have caused havoc around the world,the latest of course being the idiotic invasion of Iraq,when Bin Laden was supposedly responsible for 9/11,they continue to ignore their own atrocities and Geoge W Bush has decided to have a holiday in China as his ""protest" against oppression there and in Tibet,WHAT A JOKE AMERICA IS
Robert Elliott Lang
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)