China, Myanmar, Suu Kyi, and Oppression

The dependency of Myanmar on China is understandable for China was the only state that stood by Myanmar since the military took over power in 1988. Myanmar is heavily dependent on China for all its military requirements as they have been buying them at “friendship prices�.

Chinese ambitions in the Indian ocean are evident by its help to Myanmar in modernizing its naval bases at Hanggyi, the Coco islands , Akyab and Mergui. Despite the professed economic interests of China, India believes that China (in developing Myanmar & Bangladesh) is pursuing its strategic interests to have a clear access to the Indian Ocean.

From http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper401.html.

China is clearly exporting oppression. So any whining about CIA or anyone pushing for color revolutions or democray overseas doesn't carry much water.

So are you saying that we should support and love the CIA because at least it's better than China?

Reminds me of the post about a certain political party and cannibalism...

If the CIA actually did push for color revolutions and democracy around the world, then that certainly is something worthy of support and love..

Unfortunately I don't believe this is the case.

I'm not sure that lightyear means that. I think what he's saying is that it's hypocritical to criticise the CIA for its overseas activities in pushing for regime change, or anyone else, when China also does the same.

Raj,

Yeah, my point exactly. There's always talk of "let countries evolve at their own pace and don't interfere." But just look at it from a game theory perspective and it's very clear that you need to market/export your system to other countries. And if there were only two major forces today, authoritarianism, or democracy, there's no question for me what should be more prevalent in the world.

But that begs the question as to whether democracy that is "encouraged" by an outside power (the most blatant example being Iraq) is actually democracy (as in the will of the people.)

It's really hard for an outside power to push anything without getting its interests involved, at which point it's not definitionally "democratic" any longer. Even the choice of countries where color revolutions take place (mostly post-Soviet countries with fossil fuel reserves or bordering the proposed pipeline from Kazakhstan to Turkey such as Ukraine) interferes, definitionally, with the will of the people then, because you're valuing putting democracy in one country more than democracy in another country.

You can't equate the CIA and China in this instance. One nakedly pursues its interests and exports nothing but those interests (ends justify means) while the other masks its interests under the guise of maintaining democracy/containing communism/islamism (you can argue with me on this, but I'll just pull out Nicaraugua, El Salvador, Chile, Egypt, etc. etc.).

As for which method is more moral or right, I'll leave that to you to decide.

It doesn't matter if someone encourages it. If people actively go out and vote in elections with the right characteristics (multiple parties, secret ballot, etc) then it's democracy.

If the U.S. wants to support democracy, then why oppose Hamas?

If Hamas = will of the Palestinian people, then the U.S., by witholding aid and trying to reroute through Abbas's office, is undermining the will of the Palestinian people.

Pretty hypocritical.

Err, because Hamas hasn't recognised Israel and officially wants to destroy it?

Well Hitler was elected to office. So you're saying that it was wrong for the Allies to oppose him because he = will of the German people. :P

If Hamas = will of the Palestinian people, then the U.S., by witholding aid and trying to reroute through Abbas's office, is undermining the will of the Palestinian people.

Pretty hypocritical.

Dude, are you just acting ignorant to try to fuzz concepts up and push through an argument without reason, or is this a serious argument?

Democracy is a system of government. Even if communist China goes into N Korea, cleans up the brainwashing (and how Kim Jun Il is the Sun and all that BS), set up instituions of democracy, and leaves, leaving N Korea to self determination via a truly democratic process, then this is a democacy.

The US will be happy to deal with Hamas as the leaders of Palestine if Hamas renounced using terrorist activities. But if the people of Palestine via democracy vote to be ruled by terrorists, then they will be further isolated by the free world. It's a tough choice the people have to make.

Personally I feel for the Palestinians. For the 20th century Palestinians, someone basically just carved their land out and made them second class citizens in their own country. For sure, the land has been everybody's in the last few thousand years, but it doesn't change my former point.

I'm not sure I get this logic. I can't criticize the Bush Doctrine and activist foreign policies because that means I support its alternative? Or something?

I'm not sure I get this logic. I can't criticize the Bush Doctrine and activist foreign policies because that means I support its alternative? Or something?

No, no one has said anything of what you're insinuating that at all.

Instead it means that you shouldn't support the authoritarian alternative.

I don't. But I found the way lightyear framed his sentence odd.

I'm not sure I get this logic. I can't criticize the Bush Doctrine and activist foreign policies because that means I support its alternative? Or something?

No, it's the complete reverse. I already clarified, but I'll say it again. He meant it's hypocritical of Chinese to complain about US foreign policy when they meddle in other countries' affairs too.

That still sounds...odd. How does it make one a hypocrite (not practicing what one preaches)? I mean, if I, a Chinese, criticize US foreign policy, it doesn't mean I'm implicitly condoning China's. Isn't this the same argument (i.e. "you can't criticize China for X because America does X too") that some Chinese commentators make against Western commentators, only in reverse?

Argh, no. You're a hypocrite if you say "US evil, but China do no wrong/China just make peaceful relation with other country"

Ok?

Dude, don't get exasperated when you're the one not making yourself clear in the first place.

Lightyear, I would argue that a state that would vote in a terrorist regime via majority rule is not truly a democracy, that its democratic institutions are merely cosmetic because it hasn't grasped the true spirit of democracy, which is equality, as opposed to terrorism, which is a fundamentally unequal and unfair strategy.

nausicaa, it seems you're the only one that doesn't have this clear. And if I can be more clear, I will certainly try.

Clearing things up, I hope:
An argument I often encounter is that all countries will eventually transition at their own pace to democracy. Those that support the CCP's current rule often cite this in the name of stability, and say democracy supporters should not push for it now, since ostensibly the CCP will know when this time is right.

While the theory that all countires will transition from divine rights of kings to individual rights or democracy may hold true in a vacuum, countries are in reality interdependent, due to economic or military incentives.

China exports its oppressive network surveillience technology to authoritarian nations, supports otherwise failing dictatorships, builds alliances with other military dictatorships, in effect inhibiting those countries' own transitions to democracy. In the CCP's perfect world they might even develop an alliance of top-down oppressive regimes, [begin joke]that is, until they all decide they should transition to democracy.[end joke]

Free world powers have historically encouraged the democratization of other nations, that much is clear.

So to recap, if someone does not take issue to China's current activities to sustain oppressive regimes or export oppression, they have no basis in saying the US should not support democratic movements.

Democracy:
I'm not sure you understand democracy as most people do, which is a system of government subject to meaningful control by the people (commies please don't confused this with the DPRK or PRC interpretation, whose definition of "the People's" remains unclear, but is certainly some alternative and exclusive definition).

Let's say that ROC on Taiwan (a democracy) gets so fed up with PR China's threats that it votes in a party that is supporting and funding desparate peasants to blow themselves up in Chinese economic and civil centers. ROC'd still be a democracy, granted a very demented one that popularly supports a terrorist regime.

Thank you for your clarification, lightyear. And FYI, I wasn't trying to be deliberately disingenuous or obtuse, but was honestly asking.

And no, I probably don't define democracy the way most people do. Since for me, democracy is a method of nonviolence, a state that would vote in a terrorist regime indicates, to me, that there's something incomplete in its democratic culture, that it hasn't fully grasped the norms of international engagement for a democracy.

Now back to China's interventionism.