If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?

[David Floyd]

Fine, but sometimes that's not the case, for example, if he's pulling out a gun. Any competent law enforcement officer/soldier/commando will tell you not to try to shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot him in the kneecap or anything ridiculous like that - give him 3 in the chest and be hasty, that's the right answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

First off:

I am not competent with a firearm. It's been sometime since I have used one. Even though I grew up on a farm, soft city living slowly drains the country boy out of me.

That is why I will call the police and report the mugging rather than shoot the mugger and potentially hit the woman.

If I were a policeman, I might follow your example of proper police procedure.

[MRT144]

id shoot both of them and let god sort it out

[mindseye]

Hey, Urban Ranger, I'm still hoping to hear from you in the other Tiananmen thread. I want to hear your reaction to seeing photos of an event you claimed never took place!

It took me a long time to paste together those photos, dang it!

[Adam Smith]

It appears that we have an object case going on right now in Burma.

Where Is She?
Washington Post
Friday, June 6, 2003; Page A26

AWEEK HAS PASSED since one of the world's most courageous women, Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, came under attack by goons controlled by the military regime in her Southeast Asian nation of Burma. No credible source has seen her since. She is reported to be injured and in custody at a military facility. Many of her supporters also were attacked, in many cases reportedly killed or seriously injured. [my emphasis] A number of members of Congress, including Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have expressed eloquent outrage, but world leaders have been slow to follow suit. Reactions, in fact, have ranged from the inappropriately cautious to the unspeakably fatuous. [my emphasis] We're thinking in the latter case of Japan, whose foreign minister responded to the attack on and arrest of Burma's rightful leader with an expression of satisfaction in the pace of democratization.

.....

Now those generals undoubtedly are watching to see whether they can get away with their latest crackdown. In addition to scooping Aung San Suu Kyi back up, they have shuttered universities and party offices and added to their store of 1,400 or more political prisoners. Every reaction such as Japan's is, as Mr. McCain said, "music to the junta's ears," increasing the danger to Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters. China and Burma's Southeast Asian neighbors similarly have pursued a policy of "engagement," now quite obviously failed. [my emphasis] A different approach is in order.

Mr. McConnell [who will never be mistaken for a liberal -AS] showed the way to such a different approach this week when he introduced legislation banning imports of goods (primarily textiles, clothing and shoes) made in Burma. Such economic sanctions sometimes hurt workers more than rulers, but they could be effective in Burma -- particularly if other nations join in -- because most businesses there are controlled by the junta and its cronies. [my emphasis]

....

Read the entire editorial HERE

Seems to me the US government got a foreign policy issue about right, for once. Seems to me these actions would be a lot more effective if other countries participated. So where is everybody else on this issue, especially those governments which think everything is just ducky in that part of the world?

[Q Classic]

nail burma. or as they want to call it myanmar, nee?

either way, they're a nasty lot, and i hope that the people do manage to find a very public, very strong way of making their feelings known en masse.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The first thing I'd do, as a Master's degree student at Missouri School of Journalism, would be to rush a correspondent to the city in question and place him or her on a rooftop to make reports. It doesn't matter if we can actually see anything from that rooftop - people want the drama of on-the-spot reporting, and they don't really care what is actually occurring.

Okay, now that we've established the illusion of timeliness, we need to get some grainy footage of something terrible happening. The picture of the guy in front of the tank in 1989 was amazing and rightly stands as the most moving image of the late 1980s. I mean, come on - I think the CNN cameraman who got that is a freaking millionaire by now, all for taking one picture. That's even better than Ian Fleming's James Bond film royalties. Speaking as a journalist myself, who wouldn't be moved by that sort of economic efficiency in your organization?

Now we need a few shots of people running through streets, and maybe a picture of the president of the country in question looking shifty (perhaps with a "would you buy a car" logo beneath him). Oh yes, it's important to get the viewpoint of whatever political party or movement most closely matches our own and to carefully omit any representation of the other side because when you're working for a broadcast media outlet, you have about 5 minute slots available to make your point known and it's not like the paying public actually cares about the complexities. They want black vs white, heroes vs villains, and the ratings prove it.

(All right, so we know that you'd actually have 7 minutes to tell the story if your anchors didn't engage in inter-report banter like complimenting each other on their ties, but again the ratings prove that viewers like friendly, approachable anchors and if that means cutting your news output window by 28% then so be it - check Nielsen for further such findings.)

Most importantly, it is vital that the story continues to run 24 hours around the clock for at least three days. Play back old footage if you have to. Hold media non-events in memoriam of non-current history if you have to, even if the story itself has died long ago. Never forget the immortal words of William Randolph Hearst to his photographer during the non-existent Cuban insurrection: "You provide the photos, I'll provide the war".

It is vitally important that an event like this never be forgotten, as the maths indicate - 7000 casualties for democracy in the late 1980s is clearly more important than remunerations or even an apology for 250,000 casualties in the rape of a Southern Capital fifty years ago, or 200,000 killed in the only nuclear attacks ever committed. History is all a matter of subjectivity and reminding our viewers of this uncomfortable fact is bound to confuse them. Better to leave their pacifiers in, if you ask us.

Maybe one day if the country in question started loving democracy and God and McDonald's like the rest of us civilized places, we could forget this terrible tragedy inflicted on innocent individuals (whom we were quick to condemn and label en masse as the enemy during the South Sea spy plane incident). Maybe the perpetrators of this terrible act could be punished (never mind the fact that they've been out of power for the last two leaderships). Either way, we'll just have to see.

I guess we could be outright friends - if they weren't so clearly unAmerican in ethnicity, in politics, and in culture. I guess we could be outright enemies, too - if our trade didn't depend so heavily on their cheap labor and willingness to test our FDA-unapproved drugs for us.

(Note that the above rant applies much more to broadcast news than print. But that's a whole new thread in and of itself.)

[DinoDoc]

Someone seems bitter.

[loinburger]

I blame UR -- it's his job to toss out red herrings. He's been slacking.

[DinoDoc]

I think that he's hiding from the pics mindseye posted.

Oh and I blame Skanky.

[chequita guevara]

If we start trying to assassinate the leaders of other governments, other government will start trying to assassinate our leaders. While I would simply laugh and smile were that to happen today, theoretically, there may someday be a US leader I like. I don't want him or her assassinated.

[Sava]

I doubt there is much that the US could do, short of starting WW3, that would have any positive effect.

1. Assassinations - Starts a cycle. You think China wouldn't try to retaliate with assassinations?

2. Boycotts and economic sanctions - maybe if this is Serbia, Iraq, or some other small country. But China is home to many Multi-National-Corporations' factories. By putting sanctions on China, you'd only create a massive economic problem. That type of action would definitely hurt the global economy. It would be like blowing up your arm in order to get rid of a bee.

3. Military action - WW3... China has the bomb. Personally, the rights of a few political dissidents in China don't seem all that important when compared to the lives of billions.

My suggestion. Deal with it, express outrage. And put what pressure you can on China in response. When you get down to it. China is a sovereign nation. They have laws. Despite your opinion on how "just" those laws are, they're still laws. If you respect "rule of law", you must also accept that government's right to enforce it's laws. Democracy isn't something that can be forced on a people. Look at the problems in Iraq. Trying to "liberate" China would create problems much worse than the problems we're seeing in Iraq. The only thing that the Democratic world can do, is slowly influence Democratic change in China. The Chinese culture has been around a long time, if they don't want to change, forcing them to do so won't bring positive results.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
... (Note that the above rant applies much more to broadcast news than print. But that's a whole new thread in and of itself.)

Well, that's a relief.

Gatekeeper

[St Leo]

If Tiananmen Square Happened Today, What Should We Do?

Make an internet petiotion asking governments to not drive tanks over people. What else could we do when dealing with a nuclear superpower?