FWIW, Wen Jiabao is the more liberal figure and was pro-student in the Tiananmen Square protest. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Jiabao, "...and accompanied General Secretary Zhao Ziyang to the Tiananmen Square during the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests." Zhao Ziyang was removed from power and house arrested after the protest was crushed.

It's interesting to see how the governing-by-consensus-in-committee work in China, where each loosely formed faction having their representative in the committee. Even Wen Jiabao who was in the wrong end of a significant power struggle was able to become the prime minister later. Yet he's still unable to change the policies or reopen the Tiananmen case. It means no one faction gained upper hand and individual leader has little power. They have to get consensus from everyone else.

I would approach these speeches with a hefty dose of salt. Historically, communism has been one big systemic lie. For goodness sake, even in a democracy you can't take the leaders' rhetoric at face value! Do you think the Chinese who've read the translated speeches of George Bush now think that the invasion of Iraq was about human rights and nuclear nonproliferation? You have to look at the actions, not the words used to mask them.

Forgive my ignorance please; but- what exactly (in your own words though of course) was the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?

I'm not going to make a moral justification of the war, nor am I going to argue it was cost-effective, or that the ends justified the means, or that the purposes are even unquestionably good. But the invasion of Iraq served a number of purposes:

--Al-Qaeda was born out of discontent with the Saudi government. People are more willing to adopt violence when they don't have access to democracy. Converting a brutal dictatorship into a democracy represents a partial solution to that problem, and provides a positive example to the rest of the region. For this purpose, Iraq was merely the most convenient target--the US didn't trade with them, no alliances would have to be broken, the country lacked an effective military, and despite token outrage, none of Iraq's neighbors were going to miss Saddam after he was removed from power.

--Continued long-term enforcement of the economic sanctions against Iraq was unsustainable--it forced the country into severe economic hardship, and required an ongoing US military presence. The hardship only helped to fill the ranks of religious militants. On the other hand, immediately lifting sanctions would have only enriched Saddam's regime, representing a long-term threat to peace and stability in the region, given the fact that Saddam had attacked three of his neighbors already. The long term ramifications of Saddam and, eventually, his sons continuing to rule Iraq also represented a potential humanitarian disaster.

--Making an example out of Iraq served to intimidate other rogue states. Shortly after the invasion. Libya abandoned their WMD programs, renounced their sponsorship of terrorism during the 1980's, paid compensation to the families of the victims of their terror attacks, and moved to normalize relations with the West.

--It was uncertain whether or not Iraq still had WMD. It turns out they didn't, but Saddam's regime was exactly the kind of regime that could be expected to misuse them if they still had them. This would have been even more of a concern had the sanctions been lifted.

Frankly, it's hard to know for sure. But it seems unlikely it was exclusively, or even primarily, for the reasons officially stated. See, for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil_...

"In April 2001, President George W. Bush's Cabinet agreed to use military intervention in Iraq because it was considered a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East."

to wage war.

Please, again forgive my utter ignorance, do go on.

I wouldn't be so hasty regarding Chinese development and overall politics. You should take into account the fact they're Eastern country with Eastern mentality. They take different approach from most western countries because they're different.

I guess, we shouldn't point fingers and say "Too bad they aren't democratic" or "Too bad communism is a lie" because we cannot really guarantee that what's good for us will be good for them.

FWIW, I think they'll continue to develop on their very own historical path disregard whatever western countries try to do.

China's people will make it happen. Their government seems to be contributing. China has great strength, and they compete globally. They are in the game. The fact is, the Chinese would be stupid not to build a just, fair and democratic society, for the universal benefits it endows. They aren't stupid.

Dude, for fuck's sake. Intelligence and stupidity don't necessarily become key differentiators until after you achieve a reasonable measure of intellectual freedom and individual sovereignty. Where by 'you' I mean 'you and most people around you'.

On balance it's better to be a smart person, that only goes so far when you are malnourished and worked 18 hours per day in a gulag. Or when you simply had to quit school before puberty in order to obtain food for yourself or your loved ones.

Finally: go to China and ask the people you meet how stupid they think it would be not to build a 'democratic society'. You will be politely educated and/or ridiculed, and realize that you are projecting your own (basically correct) way of thinking onto people who don't think your way at all.

Easier said than done with a country that size with such a complex governance structure and history.

I think the will is only a small part of what's required, the competence to pull it off is the larger issue.

There won't be as much freedom as in the west as long as the millenia-old fear of rebellion continues to guide their decision-making. Note that this fear is part of what drives what little reform there is.

So they're self-critical when speaking to western media? That could just be a PR move and have nothing to do with their actual motivations. Is there anything to suggest that they're actually trying to increase personal freedoms?

If anything it seems that they're just continuing business as usual, with The Great Firewall and other similar efforts. But I'm not very familiar with China's politics.

I think there is a lot of evidence they are improving personal freedom and the rights of the individual, not dramatically so, not as fast as many would like.

Looking at property rights for example, the ability of people to appeal the decisions of local authorities, the ability of people to complain about local corruption and have action taken is reported to have improved greatly as compared to 10,20 or 30 years ago.

A couple of interesting things I've read about China.

Firstly many Chinese don't tie democracy and individual liberties together in the same way people in the west do.

Secondly I read that in China much is freeing up but the "3 Ts and an F" remain very sensitive. The "3 Ts and an F" are Tibet, Tiananmen, Taiwan and Falun Gong

It is quite amazing what totalitarian leaders are willing to say, but its always quite the opposite of what they will do. It always awes me when they speak, I think to myself "Yeah, exactly, they finally get it" but soon realize that its just talk.