Mutual Understanding

China Executes Briton Despite Appeals
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/asia/30china.html?ref=asia
-------
It's interesting how people all of a sudden start showing clemency to drug dealers when it's about China. Ok, MAYBE a mentally ill drug dealer. Buh who knows? The news implies that neither side has provided solid proof to the suspect's mental state (but the suspect did claim that he and his family have no history of mental illness--ok, this might be all crazy talk, but again, WHO KNOWS?). All the British side said was that the family members claimed him to have a history of mental illness. But ESPECIALLY because this is an international crime, Britain really have to provide more than mere "family members'" talking--otherwise of COURSE the suspect's own words are more believable. And no one is obliged to believe words of professional issue from the mouths of likely biased nonprofessionals.

“The U.K. is completely opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances,” Mr. Miliband said in a statement. “However I also deeply regret the fact that our specific concerns about the individual in this case were not taken into consideration, despite repeated calls by the prime minister, ministerial colleagues and me.”

This quote makes me absolutely angry. First of all, this is another typical example where the self-righteous "democratic" Big Name trying to impose its own values onto another culture. These big names think that they are the only ones on earth who know and exercise human rights the best--and all other "heresies" must change and follow them. In some articles it even said that Britain called for elimination of death penalty in China. But the thing is, THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! First, China is certainly not the only country that uses death penalty, so does USA. Second, this is obviously an attempt to digress from the main road (is the drug dealer guilty and deserving of punishment) to an irrelevant attack on China. This is a political digression aimed to demonize China subtly. And then the same person says: "I also deeply regret the fact that our specific concerns about the individual in this case were not taken into consideration." WHAT?! To me, Mr. Miliband is implying that his way is the only MORAL way. If you don't follow his way, it's deeply disappointing to human conscience. Really? That sure sounds like some, again, self-righteous commander/leader/demagogue from movies and TVs who think that they are the ones that know what's the best for YOU. Their way is the best way for YOUR survival. ...yes...I am surprised too that these people are actually real.

I think when Britain tries to demand consideration and understanding from China, they should also try to understand others. Ultimately, these are two very different cultures. Like what happened in Avatar, horrible things happen when the strong (although Britain is not necessarily THE Strong anymore) tries to exploit the weak without any real understanding of the weak's culture beyond numbers and data. Yes, China has a very harsh regulation on drug trafficking. China also has a humiliating history of being exploited by European's (yes, BRITAIN) opium trade. Back then China was too weak to defend itself. And European criminals in China are rarely punished. Imperialists and colonists did whatever they want. Certain areas designated for foreigners are exclusively for them, with signs that say "No Chinese and Dogs Allowed" on the very land owned by Chinese. Perhaps we were once the sick men of Asia. But that's not the case anymore. There is no reason that any foreigner should be exempt from punishments for crimes. Things like diplomatic immunity is bullshit. And in this case, it's not just any crime--it's drug dealing. How DARE you come to other people's land trying to indirectly kill more Chinese people? Yes, I might be exaggerating but this is JUST like the Opium Trade. HOW DARE YOU do this again to China and demand clemency just because YOU SAY that the person is delusional and duped to carry to suitcase? Actually, most of the serious offenders of law are somewhat mentally ill.

NY Times is once again pissing me off by posting such biased article. It includes extensive quotes from self-righteous Britons but not one complete quote from Chinese authority (ex. about how Britain has no right to mess around with its own jurisdiction). Just like the Uighurs rebellion, this article is written based on the perception that China is at fault. That is ridiculous. BOTH sides are somewhat at fault. Chinese authority should have done some sort of psych test just to shut the Britain's mouth off. But how can an international but possibly mental drug dealer getting caught and punished in China (Thank God) be completely an immoral action done by the Chinese? Any logic here? Once someone decides to do something illegal in ANOTHER country, a responsible person would definitely prepare for whatever consequences his or her action would bring about. Again, things like diplomatic immunity (although not directly relevant to the current topic) is bullshit. You can't do something harmful and then expect to be exempt from the price that you have to pay just because you're from another country. In fact, you should be punished even more harshly if you're deliberately doing something harmful in another person's country. Knowing that your action is bad, and knowing the consequences that your actions would result in while still committing the action is purely taking advantage of the other country (and that's try to replace another country with your friend, neighbor, etc.)--THAT is IMMORAL.

I think the City on the Hill/manifest destiny needs to end SOMEWHERE. You can't impose your values on everyone else--and then call whoever doesn't follow your value (democracy) evil and THEN assume that whatever bad happen to whoever is whoever's fault and then try to demonize whoever whenever possible just because you don't like whoever.

And this is where mutual understanding comes in--people should go for the "middle way" and try to understand both sides' story. No one is ever absolutely right or absolutely moral--the person who is like that is god, but god does not exist. People should not be accustomed to thinking in that kind of patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude to anyone, to kids, teenagers, to followers, to the weak--the kind of attitude so common in adults and the ones who lead. There is value in everyone's opinion. And if other people's value isn't the same as yours--as long as it's not destructive (one may argue that killing a possibly mentally ill drug dealer who is possibly not a drug dealer is destructive--but I think that it's just justice doing its work to save more people from being "destructed" by drug) -- then people should try to live harmoniously alongside these different values. This is my utopia--a world of peace, harmony, and mutual understanding. I really don't think it's THAT hard to come about, but war and conflict still happen.