Raymond Duncan's article of July 28 quotes Brigadier Melville Jameson as saying that it was ''100% right'' to invite the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. It seems this would add to cultural understanding and respect between the two nations.
Amnesty International has no problem with cultural engagement, but we do wonder why it is ''100% right'' that the PLA carry out this task. There is more than a little irony in the PLA being asked to represent China culturally, when a large part of their duties is the violent suppression of minority cultures within China. Culture is not really the PLA's thing. Massacres are more in their line. But there must be many musicians and dancers in China who have no connection with the PLA and its ever-lengthening record of human rights abuse.
When I met Brigadier Jameson in May to discuss the PLA invitation he told me that it had the very strong backing of the prime minister, the British ambassador to China and the Ministry of Defence. Impressive backers, to be sure. But does the prime minister normally get involved in approving the Tattoo's programme? Also, what are the cultural functions of the Ministry of Defence?
Whatever the reasons for the invitation being issued in the first place, we must ask if the high-level support it has attracted has anything to do with helping the UK position itself more favourably for future arms sales to China. After all, the long-standing (and very necessary) EU embargo on arms sales to China is under attack and who knows what business opportunities may shortly arise? Is that one of the reasons why it was ''100% right'' to invite the PLA?
Bernard O'Hear,
China co-ordinator, Amnesty International UK, 6 Castle Street, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article