Sun Vs Tiger

[Guard Dog]

OK, some interesting points. Just a couple of rebuttals to keep things moving.

 

3. GD, we're straying off topic a little but your government now exercises the capacity to detain (not arrest, which has legal associations) anyone it damn well chooses without serving any kind of warrant, and then imprison them without trial by their peers. Moreover it exercises broad surveillance without warrant. Now, we can debate the whys and wherefores and you know very well which side I'm on, but you can't deny that civil liberties are being abrogated.

 

Okay, first off law enforcement has always held the right to detain without arrest warrant for 24(?) hours. That has not changed. But if you are referring to the Jose Padilla case, that was correctly struck down by the 4th Distinct Appellate Court and Mr. Padilla is on trial. As to the wiretapping and electronic surveillance, section 505 (which provides for wiretaps etc.) of the Patriot Act was stuck down in late 2004 or early 2005 and was amended by Congress in 2005 to conform to the courts ruling. As to the other issues people have been screaming about, the FBI is collecting phone numbers in overseas calls. What number called what number. They are not listening in on the calls. This is perfectly legal. So while I will agree attempts were made to abrogate civil rights, the system performed as it should and no one's rights are being violated. Unless you have examples I'm missing?

 

 

The only reason point three is appropriate to this discussion is that we can get full fired up about the US with a snap of the fingers, while letting the Chinese question drift.

No kidding there. Everyone is in a snit over perceived but not actual rights violations in the US. In China if you are in the Falon Gong(sp?) you get a bullet in the head and no one here says a word.

[Walsingham]

I'll have to belay the technical aspect of the debate with regret since I'm manfully struggling to cover the loss of two jobs! Assuming for the time bing that you are correct, does that mean that we should expect the highest standards from the USA - using the inverse "We're a developing nation" argument?

[Enoch]

No kidding there. Everyone is in a snit over perceived but not actual rights violations in the US. In China if you are in the Falon Gong(sp?) you get a bullet in the head and no one here says a word.

Old news v. New news. People sit up and listen when the U.S. is accused of rights violations, because it's surprising. Chinese rights violations don't inspire nearly as much interest because people are used to it. News organizations like to run stories that get people interested. (Most of the bias people allege in news organizations is merely a bias in favor of sensationalism. Technical stories like the warning signs about the tech bubble that GD mentioned are passed over in favor of sensational ones-- in that case, the contemporaneous issue of Presidential stains on a blue dress.) Plus, it's a lot easier and cheaper to report on events in the U.S. than it is events in China.

[Walsingham]

No kidding there. Everyone is in a snit over perceived but not actual rights violations in the US. In China if you are in the Falon Gong(sp?) you get a bullet in the head and no one here says a word.

Old news v. New news. People sit up and listen when the U.S. is accused of rights violations, because it's surprising. Chinese rights violations don't inspire nearly as much interest because people are used to it. News organizations like to run stories that get people interested. (Most of the bias people allege in news organizations is merely a bias in favor of sensationalism. Technical stories like the warning signs about the tech bubble that GD mentioned are passed over in favor of sensational ones-- in that case, the contemporaneous issue of Presidential stains on a blue dress.) Plus, it's a lot easier and cheaper to report on events in the U.S. than it is events in China.

 

True dat.

[Azarkon]

1. Azarkon, your point about being informed is fair, but if I've understood it correctly it doesn't address the fact that starting debates can LEAD TO people becoming interested and then becoming informed.

 

Absolutely, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea to start posts about China or other parts of the world - merely that it's understandable that people don't jump up and down whenever China does something, like they do with the US.

 

2. I agree that China has to either sell to deviants and crackpots or not sell. But my impression is that they don't need the foriegn currency. We should be trying to stop them, especially given that they're arming our fething enemies. I don't know how to check this impression, but am open to suggestions.

 

The only way to "stop" them is through economic threats, since that's what China is most vulnerable towards. Unfortunately economics is a two-way game and the US risks its own assets in China if it threatens to, say, impose duties or stop trading altogether. Failing that, it's possible to restrain China by playing up the image game. Sudan is a good example of this - the Chinese are not deterred by liberals working up a storm over its arms trade, but they are deterred by the possibility of losing face on the international stage, particularly prior to the 2008 Olympics. You see, Chinese leaders are very much interested in portraying a powerful, independent, and "responsible" face to the world; this doesn't mean that they won't sell to the US's enemies, but it does mean if selling to a particular client represents a big hit image-wise, they might be inclined to limit their trade, or even effect change in the regime in question.

 

That said, I'm curious as to why you think China selling arms to our enemies is a big deal. Russia has been doing it for years, and neither Russia nor China will stop so long as they remain rivals of the US. This is realpolitiks, and a rival nation has every incentive to engage in arms trading within its own clique. In fact, the US consistently sells to China's (and Russia's) enemies and rivals and until we stop doing that, I doubt any diplomatic solution is possible - the Chinese are not stupid and they're not blind to the US's strategic moves in their own turf. It's only natural that they respond in kind.

 

Incidentally, we are no longer in the era when we can afford to treat everyone who acts against our interests as our mortal enemies. There was a time, perhaps, when selling weapons to a nation's enemies meant that you risked full-blown war with said nation, and that was natural. The Cold War, however, changed that nature, and we realized that sometimes it's not possible to go to war, that instead geopolitics was like an elaborate game of Go (Wei Qi from China) where rivalries are resolved through containment, regime change, and proxy battles. The goal remains the same: filling the entire board with pieces of your own color, or global hegemony as it's known in political circles, but the means by which you achieved said goal are different. The contemporary world is full of ambiguities, and China is one of these - part enemy, part rival, and part friend by necessity.

 

I'll have to belay the technical aspect of the debate with regret since I'm manfully struggling to cover the loss of two jobs! Assuming for the time bing that you are correct, does that mean that we should expect the highest standards from the USA - using the inverse "We're a developing nation" argument?

 

Sorry to hear about your job losses.

 

But yes, I, and I think most people, do expect the highest standards from the US - not necessarily because it's by far the most powerful and influential developed country in the world, but also because the US constantly assumes the mantle of world leadership. When you strut around claiming that you represent the free world and can act unilaterally in spite of the UN, you had better set an example yourself, first. It's no different, really, than expecting more from your leaders than from the people below them. As I think I've said before, things would be very different if the US minded its own business and let another nation do the leading - then that nation would be the one under constant scrutiny. Such is the price of leadership: when you're number one, everyone judges you and with the highest standards. After all, if you're not the best, then what business have you got to be number one?

 

Which, again, explains why China is not under the same sort of heat the US is, even though it's got a worse record in just about everything (of course, countries with even worse records are plentiful).

Edited June 29, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

You make an interesting point about the UN. I've heard it before, but you put it better. We (that is the US UK) have weakened the notion of international law through action on Iraq. But having said that I concede the point, I would follow up by observing that the moral redundancy of the UN security council was proven when France and Russia were bribed by Saddam Hussein to the tune of billions in debt and promised contracts.

 

On the subject of selling arms, it is interesting to note that waaaay back in the day Germany supplied the Afrikaaner republics with arms and training prior to (and possibly during) the Anglo-Boer war. Nothing was done at the time, but it did serve to sour relations between the two powers, and almost certainly contributed to ww1. China beware. In fact everyone beware!