From the quote they're not saying we have to be friends with China, or even approve of their politics; only that we cannot change them into a Western democracy. I think the report is calling for a new form of detente - we have profound differences with the other powers in the World, but those differences should not prevent us from engaging with them on matters of common concern.

"they're not saying we have to be friends with China, or even approve of their politics; only that we cannot change them into a Western democracy"

Present evidence is that the UK and US THEMSELVES are far from democracies, they're just pretending, so there's a pot - kettle problem here.

Both countries were OK on the road to democracy and getting along with the planet in general (a few brushups happen in the best of setups) until Bush - Blair happened. A bigger nuke to democracy doesn't exist.

"those differences should not prevent us from engaging with them on matters of common concern."

Or common profit perchance?

If I was writing a report, I'd probably have said that after the downfall of the USSR, we should have engaged in a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China while we still could. This would have made Taiwan secure, solved the human rights issue of Tibet, and generally allowed China to take its place as a constructive democratic partner in world affairs, say, like India. But you can hardly expect someone in an official capacity to say things like that. What with Hong Kong to look out for, Britain recognized Red China much earlier than most other Western countries as well.

Of course, one would have expected the report to express no doubt that the Western democracies would remain, for the foreseeable future, the unchallenged masters of the planet, and that if any appearances indicate that China, Russia, or even Japan are catching up, this just means we need to stop being lazy and work harder. That is what's surprising about the report, but being "realistic" is in fashion these days.

If this lot had set out to design a mouse they would have come up with an elephant, oversized, impractical and no fucking use at all for putting in mouse holes.

Does anybody with even a basic knowledge of human nature seriously think it is possible to do away with nukes now that we have them? If it is possible to make a weapon, some one will, so if those who currently have nukes disarm, what do they do when some despotic, lunatic third world country suddenly develops their own nukes and threatens the world or a neighbour or a corner of their own country where there are dissidents? I suppose we will just have to ask them nicely to desist.

The only good thing about this ,is that it will be ignored like all committees of this type, in reality putting these people on such a committee is so that they are out of the way and kept busy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has rather little to do with things that are _actually_ human rights. Most of the things it lists are in fact privileges which cannot be secured "universally" without stepping all over the true freedoms, which are life, liberty, and property.

Well us colonials did kick Hs. Majesty arse about 250-y ago for such foolishness. The Queens ministers are still unrepentant ? Damnme ! And damn-their-eyes.

Whatever happened to that red-hair gal with-a-temper? I thought SHE was supposed to be Queen . Have a feeling she would have cleaned-muskets and sent those power-hungry slaggards to The Tower !

From 1945-89 the "west" was constrained in its ability to take military action by fear of terminal conflict with Russia, plus the fact that (as in Vietnam) anyone we did take on would be backed up by said Russians.

I think that actually made the world *more* secure. We'd be much better off having armed forces in reserve for real threats to national territory and reducing our reliance on dubious totalitarian states for energy.