Irresponsible China

Are you so naive as to think that there is morality in international relations? If the Saudi gov't is on the brink of collapse due to anti-American and anti-gov't marches, and it starts to a mini-massacre to keep itself in power, do you think the Americans will start a resolution condemning it in the UN? When faced with the possibility of a Saud gov't collapse, no sane US foreign policy advisor would say "that's the force of democracy at work, let's encouage a regime change in Saudi Arabia", instead they would say "we have to do everything to stabilize the Saudi regime". Well of course if the same things were happening in Iran, then it'll be a different story.

Simple question, will the US trade an anti-American democracy with a pro-American dictatorship?

I wish some people could be more mature in these discussions.

Are you so naive as to think that there is morality in international relations? If the Saudi gov't is on the brink of collapse due to anti-American and anti-gov't marches, and it starts to a mini-massacre to keep itself in power, do you think the Americans will start a resolution condemning it in the UN? When faced with the possibility of a Saud gov't collapse, no sane US foreign policy advisor would say "that's the force of democracy at work, let's encouage a regime change in Saudi Arabia", instead they would say "we have to do everything to stabilize the Saudi regime". Well of course if the same things were happening in Iran, then it'll be a different story.

Simple question, will the US trade an anti-American democracy with a pro-American dictatorship?

I wish some people could be more mature in these discussions.

FYI

There is a buzz that says that America has vetoed more resolutions than the rest of the perminant members combined.

Are you so senseless that you believe there shouldn't be? Are you so stupid that you can't see the bigger picture? Are you so blinded by nationalism that you fail to grasp the immense threat to world peace posed by an expansionist and aggressive China?

I'm prepared to forgive the fact that you have clear delusions about the state of your own adequacy; your ignorance, however...

Unfortunately, in international dealings, too many countries after their own interets first and only care about others when it is convenient for them.

Sorry (again) the above was me.

China I think (and hope) does has principles, it's just that it currently costs them too much to act on it. Countries generally do have principles in international relations. The issue is that they get offset by 1) economic incentives and 2) the country’s existing activities that are in conflict with other nations principles.

On the first point, absent economic incentives, democratic countries want to facilitate the spread of democracy, and reduce oppression, ethnic cleansing, etc , since they believe it as helping them. There are some examples of this.

China could potentially have principles of its own in international interactions, pushing for a "harmonious world" or whatever that means, (I don’t think anyone knows what that means).

Point two relates more to China’s situation. Absent the economic incentives, the democratic international community has some kind of position on human rights, oppression, Tibet, Taiwan, etc. Positions that currently may be at odds with China’s. China’s worst worry is that someone uses principles (not on ethnic cleansing, but certainly on human rights and representative government) to affect what China plans to do regarding these issues.

Therefore, China won’t be championing any principles until it doesn’t feel threatened “internally.� Their primary rule will be “don’t get into another country’s business no matter how dirty or nasty it gets.� The world knows this though – when there’s ethnic cleansing, no one says “Why isn’t China doing something to help?�

So whats your point ?

Should we not purchase any diamonds because the people of Congo, Liberia, South Africa by en masse suffer because of this trade?

Do you know what coltan is?! Its in all of our cell phones, computers, iPods and playstations - people in Congo dig this stuff up, carry it by basket and hike miles to drop it off on an airstrip to be transported for pennies a day. Should we not buy and use any electronics?

Do you even know what suggesting?

Sadly enough you've just summarized the almost universal stance on foreign intervention. Basically, "I stay out of your sh*t, and you stay out of mine." Thank you treaty of westphalia.

Does anyone even know what you are asking?

LOOK, peole,

America is just as guilty as China, or even more so for supporting despotic regimes around the world. If you believe for 1 second that America is not a self-interested nation, then I can call you NAIVE, or simply brain-washed by American propaganda.

Just look at the regimes in central America, Latin America, even many Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Even IRAQ !!! Saddam Hussein is a TYRANT NOW, but did you know that he received hundreds of billions of dollars from America while he was using chemical weapons on Shiites, Kurds, and Iranians??? Where was America??? The fact was America has a history of supporting tyrants to further its own interests. This is a FACT of LIFE. Nations are kind of like people, like YOU and ME. It's KILL or BE KILLED, it's get ahead of the CURVE, or get SWALLOWED by the CURVE. It's that simple. So don't be a jackass...ALL we can do is to better the conditions for our nation, our people...with minimal damage to others...that's the rule to go by. AND as far as I'm concerned, right now, America is doing FAR FAR FAR more damage in the world by causing misery and destruction in Iraq (100,000+ dead) than China is.

Wow, Chosen, way to just put China in the "rogue state" box without even using the word.

Of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council, China gives the impression that the concerns of other nations and the suffering of non-Chinese are of no importance as long as the motherland gets whats she wants.

And it gave that impression how? I'm assuming from your later comment you're thinking of Sudan. There's plenty of resolutions that are considered pro-save the world that the US blocks. Intl Criminal Court, for example. China actually vetoes less than any other permanent member. But hey, why let that stand in the way of making an unsubstantiated generalization?

While the rest of the world is trying to pull the plug on some despotic regimes (yeah, and we're so good at it too!) China is stepping in to turn the power back on and secure the business opportunities. "turn the power back on"? Huh? Totally unscrupulous behaviour of this sort is not a good sign from a country with a growing influence in the world. Yeah, if those Chinese would just get on board, they're the only ones holding back world peace.

Can anybody enlighten me on the activity of Chinese troops in Sudan and their role, if any, in the slaughter of citizens? I want to learn more about this. Yeah. The only Chinese troops in Sudan are UN peacekeepers. About 35 of 'em. Oil facilities are guarded by the Sudanese government. Granted, China does do some arms deals and training with the Sudanese... which the US does too by the way. But don't let these facts get in the way, go right ahead with your unfounded insinuations.

No one said any country is completely altruistic.

Efforts of the cold war (and funding middle eastern fighters was part of this), is in a completely different context. A country feeling immediate threat would easily compromise principals.

This was the US during the cold war, and it's China today.

When the communists had a really tight grip on China, and really believed communism was the best way to go, it went on efforts such as supporting the Khmer Rouge. Of course, millions died as a result, but that's another story.

But today, China has too many things to worry about.

So the US might go into Somalia to try to do something it feels just, but China just won't meddle in anyone's else's affairs unless benefits are clear and short term.

And for whoever mentioned Saudi Arabia vs Iran, the fact is that neither is a democracy. One has a government friendly to the US, while the other has a religious fundamentalist leader that believes he's the the 12th Imam, and sees an Islamic revolution. Ahmadinejad's been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of hsitory is only two or three years away. China might be okay with Iran having nukes to balance power against the US for now, but there's no long term sustainability of such an alliance.

As ever, you make some fair points. That said, China is an irresponsible nation that professes to be tolerant, peaceful, and reasonable. I'll grant you she's not the only 'rogue' out there, but you're kidding yourself if you believe China isn't pursuing an aggressive foreign policy.

Is that aggressive - Proactive and self interested - or aggressive - Militaristic and predatory?

I don't believe those choices to be mutually exclusive.

I think we'r playing a bit fast and lose with the definition of "rogue state" (i don't even like the term) here. If China's a rogue state, does that mean I can consider the U.S. to be one too?

It's true China's more of a dissatisfied power than a status quo power, but to say that it's an "imminent threat to world peace" is quite overstating the case.

Agree with Nausicaa. And, unfortunately, I think America under Bush just might qualify for rogue state status. Almost.

As ever, you make some fair points. That said, China is an irresponsible nation that professes to be tolerant, peaceful, and reasonable. I'll grant you she's not the only 'rogue' out there, but you're kidding yourself if you believe China isn't pursuing an aggressive foreign policy.

As compared to who? In what way? Using what methods? Or do you just mean that they actually are starting to have a foreign policy period and you're freakin' out about it? Let's start with this: define "aggressive" foreign policy. Aggressively signing trade deals and scouring for resources... ooooh, big scary capitalists.

How about some concrete evidence to back up your frivolous claims?
What is "agressive" and "irresponsible" about China's foreign and economic policies?

Give me some examples of how China is behaving responsibly towards its neighbours Taiwan and Japan. For those who consider Tibet an independent state, there is very little about China's policy in that region that can't be regarded as aggressive.

Further, please explain your government's territorial claims in India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, and the South China Sea. I look forward to your reply with interest.

I know you were addressing Chairman Yao, Chosen, but a quick note -

Territorial disputes happen between countries all over the world. More than you think. LIke many countries, China is settling (or attempting to settle) hers through negotiation. I hardly see how this automatically equates to military expansionism.

Will get back to your other points when I have the time.

ETA: China's stance on Taiwan is no doubt aggressive and perhaps even warmongering. But what do you mean when you say its foreign policy towards Japan is "irresponsible"?

China's foreing policy towards Japan is 'not condusive to peaceful relations'.

You can't act like that towards your neighbor, no matter how offensive they are, and then expect them to see eye to eye with you about your complaints.

For example, China ran a record number of missions to probe Japanese air defenses last year, and snuck two submarines into Japanese waters, then got upset when Aso called China a potential threat.

Had China done that to the US, it would have been an act of war.

Well said ACB. Although with Japan, China can claim they got lost. Not that easy if you're off San Francisco :)

US wouldn't claim that as act of war. More likely is that you'd see a backlash of americans against mainland China and then even more money going to defense.

Give me some examples of how China is behaving responsibly towards its neighbours Taiwan and Japan. For those who consider Tibet an independent state, there is very little about China's policy in that region that can't be regarded as aggressive.

Further, please explain your government's territorial claims in India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, and the South China Sea. I look forward to your reply with interest.

Territorial disputes is your *evidence* of China being "irresponsible"? Beijing's foreign policy is simply based on rigid defense of it's national sovereignty, if this is somehow *aggressive*, you probably need to demonstrate more competence in the subject before you go toe to toe with me (or anyone) on discussion such as this.

BTW - In case you haven't been up to date with the news, not even his holiness considers Tibet an independent state.

Isn't the dispite generally what is actually soverign to PR China?

We've seen way too many posts that essentially go:

Position 1: China's just defensing what is theirs.
Position 2: Leave Taiwan, etc alone.

It doesn't go anywhere.

Suffice it to say that China running subs into Japanese water might be a good military exercise/experiment for the PRC sailors but hardly shows sincerity in diplomatic relations. If you're going to try covert ops, at least get good at it first.

BTW - In case you haven't been up to date with the news, not even his holiness considers Tibet an independent state.

I couldn't possibly take seriously the opinions of anyone who feels the need to be addressed as 'his holiness'. Besides, I don't do titles. Further, you shouldn't lose any sleep over my competence, you'll always be my intellectual subordinate. Border issues are not the same thing as national sovereignty. Toe to toe? That sounds just like China's attitude toward some of its neighbours.

I thought "His Holiness" was the Pope.

And what's an "intellectual subordinate?" Is that like South Park's "Mister Slave" performing at a think tank?

I think the "chosen one" is very confused; I was referring to his holiness the dalai lama not myself, since Tibet was mentioned in the message. :wink:

You, an intellect?! Please . . . don't flatter yourself - the only you've done on this forum - and most likely many others - is throughly demonstrate your ignorance by flipping the question back to the person who asked it without addressing any of the issues raised by the forumites. (6 times in this thread alone)

You should proabably whine about something you know more about, ehe?

And what's an "intellectual subordinate?" Is that like South Park's "Mister Slave" performing at a think tank?

Stop confusing him, why do you have to be so irresponsible and aggressive?

In reply to the first question, I've no idea - something I read on the back of a matchbox. Perhaps 'his holiness' can enlighten us. South Park? Never watch it.

You know I don't do titles.

Never have; never do; never will.

You need to differentiate between opinion and 'fact'. I have given you my opinion and fanned the flames of debate. For these services you should be grateful, although I'm personally not in the business of accepting gratitude.

Then how will I ever learn anything?

http://www.burmatoday.net/burmatoday2003/2003/09/030913_china_bt.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1451392.htm

http://www.glocom.org/debates/20050425_kovalio_abusing/index.html

Hey, are those links to show how China hasn't been a responsible Security Council member? Oh, no. One is China's support of the Burmese junta (unpleasant), one is to how Australia is going to sell them uranium because they won't be irresponsible if Australia sells them uranium (coopting, I think it's called) and the last one is on that old chestnut, Chinese history lessons.

So I guess you're trying to say, more or less, that the Chinese government is evil? Is that the point, Chosen? I fail to see why you've gotten all diva bitchy on Chairman Yao to make a point that's neither new nor interesting. Let's concede the point to you and say: yes, the PRC is a bunch of soulless bastards. What's your plan? And how should we deal with a country that has directed populist venom at a neighbor, played fast and loose with nuclear non-proliferation and propped up corrupt regimes for geostrategic interests? What about when the country's neighbor is Mexico, nuke friend is India/South Africa/Israel and corrupt regimes are places like Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Oh wait, sorry - I started thinking of the U.S. I can't remember again, who were the good guys?

What's the plan? is exactly what i'm posing in the "Movin China Forward" thread.

Not that we can actually do anything directly, but what forces do we believe necessary for improvement.

Yes I agree that China has been irresponsible. It's highly irresponsible of China to allow the island of Japan still float to this day, it's highly irresponsible of China to adhere to some pact of nuclear non-proliferation so the US can live in peace, it's highly irresponsible of China to be still dealing with Chen Shabi.

-------

"If the Japanese have trouble comprehending human language, maybe they'll understand the noise of diesel submarines."

--Hu Jintao, during an internal meeting of the Central Military Commission, 2004.

Panzi, try to cool down. The anger will only destroy yourself and make you all bitter and have no friends.

Cheers

Lightyear, I think Panzi's already too far gone.

Chosen, you're like a broken record. Stop yer bickering in the vein of "I know what you are, what am I?"

Although, this sentence in the last article you linked cracked me up:

Uh, and Australia will ensure that how, Mr. Downer?

Otherwise, what dave said.

Uh, and Australia will ensure that how, Mr. Downer?

Nausicca, thanks for bringing this up. Many of you may have noticed that I haven’t been around much at the Duckpond in the past few days. It’s because I’ve been busy at another front trying to voice my objection to the Australian Federal Government’s decision to sell uranium to China first and then India to follow. I live in Western Australia where a substantial amount of high quality uranium mines are located. The majority of people in Western Australia are very determined not to be a part of any uranium trade. It’s not because we are against China or India. But basically we are skeptical about the environmental impact of nuclear wastes. We do not want to be a nuclear waste dump. Neither do we want other people’s home to be made into a nuclear waste dump. We also felt uncomfortable selling a substance that has the potential of turning into a powerful and destructive weapon. This intention of the people of Western Australia has been communicated very clearly via our Premier Alan Carpenter to the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he visited us last week. Decisions with regard to natural resources are, according to our Constitution, a State rather than a Federal matter. So from our point of view, the Australian Federal Government’s signing of a contract with the Chinese Government to sell uranium is against the Constitution. And this decision will be challenged in Law Courts – I’m sure of that. The Federal Government is now attempting (1) to vilify the people of Western Australia by accusing us of depriving the nation of a valuable source of income, and hence hindering economic development at a national scale; and (2) to mount a case to make uranium trade an exemption from Constitutional stipulation. John Howard's government argued that uranium trade should come under the jurisdiction of Corporate Laws rather than State Laws. In Australia, Corporate Laws come under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Perth Station aired a very good current affairs report on this issue in its Stateline program last night. I am hoping that the transcript of program will be posted on the Web later today. I’ll give you the link once this appears. I’m urging you all to write to politicians in charge of foreign affairs in your countries to voice strong objection to this and any future uranium deals between Australia and China. The major of people in WA will be grateful to you for your help.

Not really. Just thought I'd run them up the flagpole and see if anyone was prepared to salute.

If you'll permit a juvenile moment: well, he started it!

When I was in the States they got the stick they deserved. Now I'm in China and my idealistic sensibilities are tuned to the shortcomings and hypocrisies of my present location. It could be 'Yang Rui Syndrome' - not a life-threatening condition, but certainly enraging; that man is such a w*nker.

Maybe we should look at this another way -

If a Tibetan wants to put a picture of the Dalai Lama up on his wall, he will be thrown in jail. If he waives his national flag, he will be thrown in jail. If he publicly says that he wants Tibet to be independent, he will be shot.

If a Texan puts up a picture of a famous anti-federalist on his wall, he won't be thrown in jail. If waive his flag, he won't be thrown in jail, nd if he publicly says that he wants Texas to cede from the unions, guess what, he won't be shot.

Even if Tibet were an indisputable component of China, behaving in such a way would be irrisponsible.

Folks, this is the link to the transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's current affairs program on uranium mining in Western Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/wa/content/2006/s1612644.htm

So, where the hell does morality fit into international affairs? A lot of people here are saying it doesn't, I don't buy that.

What's the purpose of foreign policy? To enhance your country's power and position in the world. Ok, so how do you do that? What's the central organizing principle?

For China it's sovreignty. Having been invaded, had their territory carved up and people knocked around all within living memory, there is nothing more important for China than protecting what goes on in your own house. If we don't respect each other's sovreignty, the right of a country to do what it likes within it's own boarders, then there is no basis for interacting as nations.

There's an ugly flaw with putting sovreignty first though. It implies that if you hear your neighbor murdering his family, you have no right to bust in and stop it. Furthermore, you should actively discourage other neighbors from doing so, perhaps even punishing them if they try to help the victims.

It's different for the US. Most presidents since Wilson (Bush II and Nixon aside) have established international law, international engagement and human rights as the central organizing themes in US foreign policy. Sovreignty is important but may be violated to stop far worse crimes such as genocide.

Naturally, such standards were ignored almost from the moment they were established. Not always out of greed though, mostly out of fear. During the cold war, the US was locked in a global struggle against communism during which it feared for it's national and even physical survival. A lot of non-Americans don't really understand how afraid of Russia Americans used to be. My mother used to hide under the desk during nuclear attack drills. Even in the 80's, when I was growing up, we ended all discussions of the future with "if we survive the next 10 years." This kind of fear made the US do stupid, even criminal things that violated what should have been inviolable principles. Same idea with the war on terror. We've put our principles aside and are buddying up some awful regimes, doing horrid things. Meanwhile our government encourages national fear for cynical political and financial gain.

Even so, say what you want about the Americans but give them credit for aiming high and missing (though they occassionally do get it right). The Chinese aren't even trying.

China's still in "survival mode."