Why the world continue to militarize

[Brdavs]

I mean, why don't you go and tell Taiwan that the constant political threats, alterations to their policies to authorise violence against Taiwan if they opt for independence, scheduled 'test' flights of fighter jets over the skies of Taiwan, etc have nothing to do with war and that China only wants peace?

 

It is a basic human right to be allowed to defend oneself. And the only countries people in the Western world perceive as a threat are those which treat their own citizens poorly. The onus is not on us to change.

 

 

Whatever happened to the Indians that declared their own state last years in the US in response to every treaty being breched?

 

Oh right... Those are jokes to be laughed off hehe... I forgot we`re only looking at china russia and the likes of serbia when it comes to ignoring sovereignty and upholding "rights" hehe... And genocides are only applicable in certain cases too *wink*

 

 

 

My point being only that one must be pritty thick if he believes to be living in the world where his side is inheritly "good" and the other side is inheritly "evil/bad" cos its not 100% like his side and is of belief he must force others to comply...

 

One should fear such people weather they fly the hammer&sickle, the crescent moon of Islam OR stars`n`stripes...

[Tigranes]

I was all happy that this thread reached second page, because I thought while I was at work we had got a lot of good arguments. I won't say whether I was disappointed in that regard or not.

 

Azarkon perhaps was lured (and I don't use that verb with any malice against Sand) into making his argument seem more apologetic than it is. It's not about "burying our head in the sand and hoping China becomes peaceful and nice all by itself". It's not about, necessarily, right and wrong - is democracy right? Is it the best way to go? Is our version of freedom and representative government so good that we must impose it on everyone? Maybe, maybe not. Not the point.

 

The point, very concisely, is: because our very conception of the 'proper' nation is founded on our ideas of what human rights, what good government, what freedom, is; anything that contravenes those ideas, or any nation that is founded on ideas and perspectives different to ours, is seen as at best ineffective, at worst criminal; and a threat to the ideas of our own nation. It is indeed naive to say in this day and age, that it doesn't matter how many people China kill in their own Tiananmen Squares, as long as its not American. That's not the point here. The point is just as we feel China's alternative logics of government are both morally offensive and politically dangerous, so do China feel that America's obsessions with self-expression and individual flagrance, its trade for what it might see as political stability for a Hollywood election fiasco that sees people with less than 50% vote get presidency and candidates dance, sing, cry and sell stickers for votes - morally offensive and politically dangerous. And if they do, you can say its wrong because your values are right and theirs is not; that's perfectly fine. But don't expect them to nod their head and say, oh, right, we should de-militarise, we should cooperate with US every step of the way, what we are doing is unreasonable.

 

And - this is what Azarkon wants to say, too, I think - because America is a lot more outspoken, effective and active about imposing its own beliefs on others than any other country, other countries have much more reason to fear America than America needs fear other countries. The fear is much more immediate within the radicals of Iran than for the Americans that 'fear' China or North Korea. Which makes perfect sense. It may not be 'right', but it makes sense. That's the distinction here. There's no use replying to such an argument by saying "Yeah, but they're [evil/anti-free/not doing it right/breaching fundamental ideas about government]". Of course they are, in our epistemology, in our worldview! But just marching forward with our worldview and kicking everything else aside in its path, while righteous and brave, is not the best solution. Evidence: terrorism of this decade.

 

Edit: finally, when we are confronted with evidence of US being the 'bad boy' in things like freedom or human rights, it is all too easy to say "we're still the best at being free" and point to Tiananmen Square or whatnot. But just like getting an A in your maths test doesn't excuse you for blowing up the parents' car engine the night before, those pieces of evidence must be recognised (without letting them get to us in some big US=SUPERBAD conspiracy theory). We have to understand that, while, in our view, we recognise no country can be perfect and US is damn good in some respects, in others' view, where the US is forcing a worldview and logic of government they don't agree with on them by force and discourse, those pieces of evidence fuel the fire very well - and understandably so. It's about understanding, Sand. It's not about "keeping things simple" for yourself and charging on until there are no more enemies left; that is an endless, unwinnable battle where other methods might do a little better.

[Sand]

I am not into forcing other countries to our view, but against other countries trying to force theirs on us. I am very much against us openly attacking another nation, like what we did in Iraq, but we need to be ready when other nations decide to attack us. I doubt that China will one day be nicey to everyone within and out of their borders. That is just naive. As Krezy said, to hope so surmounts to burying one's head in the sand. Appeasement never works. If a country is a threat to us, attacks us, then we need to face that threat head on and remove it.

[Humodour]

Well, it seems a lot of people in this thread would like to take the apologetic stance.

 

I do not. I firmly believe my country is one of the best out there, and I value Western ideals over others. Basically, yes, I believe that West is 'right'. Yes, I believe that China deserves to be condemned for its violations of human rights. No, I don't think it deserves excuses to be made for it. If people elsewhere want to live another way, fine - just don't violate human rights, because they aren't a Western philosophy; they're a ubiquitous right.

 

Can we have some arguments that support claims that the West should de-militarise in the face of China and co? So far it's been "China is just misunderstood.", but I'm seriously hoping that people don't actually believe that.

 

Brdavs: we can't help everybody, so we should help nobody?

[Xard]

I don't care if they become democratic or not. I am for perserving our democracy and doing what is right. They are a threat to the US. Unless they change, which I doubt they will, we should prepare ourselves to face that threat.

 

 

Prepare? You have enough firepower for that or for anything already.

[Sand]

Not really, unless you count our nuclear arsenal which I don't. Militarily speaking, this would be an optimal time to invade the United States.

[thepixiesrock]

If someone enters Hades' house, he WILL shoot them.

[Sand]

If someone enters Hades' house, he WILL shoot them.

 

Better them dead than me.

[Azarkon]

Can we have some arguments that support claims that the West should de-militarise in the face of China and co? So far it's been "China is just misunderstood.", but I'm seriously hoping that people don't actually believe that.

 

I don't think any claims have been made to the effect. In truth, the thread probably veered off a bit more in the prescriptive direction than I intended. I am not so interested in saying what the US should do, as I am interested in explaining an aspect of modern international relations that I think undermines much of what certain politicians and think tanks in the US claim that they are trying to achieve. In short, I am suggesting that the idea that you can pacify the world through force is a politically flawed concept - because just as Americans refuse to have their guns taken away (because they don't trust the government), other countries will refuse to persist in a state of permanent military insecurity (because they don't trust the US). It is not unreasonable that other countries continue to militarize; they'd be foolish not to, and we are misguided in thinking that this means they must be ruled by belligerent regimes that seek to destabilize the world order.

 

The truth is that even if they are ruled by completely benevolent regimes seeking only to mind their own businesses, US military lopsidedness and our history of interventionism will still conjure the spectre of fear in all but the most naive and "buddy-buddy" of governments. It is not so much that the US is seen as a ruthless expansionist aggressor (except by, perhaps, a few rogue regimes), but that the potential is there for the US to do enormous asymmetrical damage and there are no checks or balances in place - at the international level - that prevent us from doing so. Yes, Europe protests, but their protests have never stopped us. The truth is as stated in the article - we can annihilate any country in the world and have more than enough weapons to hold the rest of the world at bay. There are no balancing repercussions in place that would ensure the MAD that previously brought rival governments some degree of security; the modern American arsenal is possessed of no-retaliation first-strike capabilities.

 

When the biggest guy on the block is sporting a set of bazookas, you will undoubtedly feel threatened and the need to possess counter-weapons of your own. This, I think, will be the defining trait of the 21st century. US military hegemony has brought an era of uneasy peace to the international scene, but it cannot last (some would say it never existed), because while having the US as the sole possessor of peerless military power is almost certainly better for stability than having multiple powers with equal militaries (which got us into the World Wars, as you will recall), the latter is the only state of the world that would satisfy people's psychological need for security. Roughly speaking, as our comparative technological advantage erodes, and our moral image falters, people in other parts of the world will increasingly realize that they no longer desire to be at the mercy of our military power, particularly as it is guided by leaders who, to the rest of the world, appear to be trigger-happy maniacs. And so we return to the age-old paradox: if you want peace, prepare for war.

 

That, it seems to me, is set to become the modus operandi of the new millenium.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Azarkon

[Enoch]

The way to peace is economic integration. Securing normal trading relations with China was a coup-- now their economy is so entwined with the rest of the world's that they simply can't afford to be a military aggressor. Yes, there are still human rights issues, but more progress is being made on that end via peaceful commerce than there would be through militaristic hard-line blustering.

[Hurlshort]

The way to peace is economic integration. Securing normal trading relations with China was a coup-- now their economy is so entwined with the rest of the world's that they simply can't afford to be a military aggressor. Yes, there are still human rights issues, but more progress is being made on that end via peaceful commerce than there would be through militaristic hard-line blustering.

 

Well said!

[Nick_i_am]

Better them dead than me.

 

You support democracy, lets take a vote on that.

[Walsingham]

Better them dead than me.

 

You support democracy, lets take a vote on that.

 

GOLD.

 

Anyway, I for one support Azarkon's view ( at least I think I do). this is an interesting article. It is saying armament is reciprocal. We need to expect others to arm up as a safeguard against the future. This is immeasurably more important now than it was 100 years ago, when an army could be put together by sewing together some old sacks for uniform and giving everyone a bolt-action rifle. Training, equipping, and supporting a premier league armed force takes nigh on twenty years. It would be quite literally impossible to just sound alarms and take a disarmed nation to war in the time needed to belt them senseless.

 

I have no problem with China being armed. Fair's fair, after all. But I completely disagree that they are a paper tiger. Not only do they have the numbers, but they have the morale, organisation, training, and increasingly the equpment to pose a significant threat.

[Azarkon]

I think that's definitely an arguable point. The article certainly stresses the fact that, right now, the Chinese do not pose a significant threat to us unless we invade, because their power projection capabilities are rather limited. But, as you say, they have all the prerequisites of being a military superpower - they're just not quite there, yet. In this respect, I think we have to accept the fact that China will become a major military power, and to look at this not from the perspective of an inevitable clash that fundamentally threatens American security (in which case the best strategy would be to, as some hawks suggest, preemptively bomb them back to the stone age), but from the more balanced principle that China has to militarize in response to its feelings of insecurity over US dominance and that this process does not necessarily have to result in war if we can adopt a position of mutual advantage. By reducing our threat to them, we can also reduce their threat to us. This is not the same as saying we should de-militarize (because, as I stated earlier, those who want peace must always prepare for war) or appease, but that there are decisions we can make that would provide assurances to the Chinese leadership regarding our intentions, which would then reduce their need to militarize against us, and in turn reduce their overall threat to us.

 

Through the course of history, there have indeed been enemies between whom there can be no rapprochement, in which war is inevitable. However, it seems to me that in most cases, wars occur only for the lack of trying in preventing them. To understand the wants and fears of the other is the first step towards diplomacy. It is easy to label another nation as "evil" due to their unsavory activities and our own culture of fear, but when you get down to it, nearly every major country can be construed as a threat, especially the US. In which case, there are only two ways by which peace can exist: either one nation, through force of arms, pacifies every other nation and prevents them from ever developing their own militaries (which essentially establishes a superior-subordinate relationship that can easily lead to exploitation), or nations learn to reduce their threat level towards one another. The key point of my post was to show how much of a threat the US must necessarily pose to everyone else on the globe by virtue of our military superiority and power projection capabilities, which I think is a fact that most Amreicans do not even think of when they consider international relations and, in particular, the question of why other countries are always gearing up for war.

 

After all, why do we?

[Sand]

I do not see China reducing their military strength nor economic agression at all. Even if we reduce our "threat" to them I see them using that as an advantage over us. If they see a weakness in the US they will use it against us. If you don't believe me take a good look at what has gone down in Tibet and Taiwan.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Sand

[Azarkon]

To be perfectly fair, Sand, China considers Tibet and Taiwan its own territory. Now, we can debate whether that is actually the case, but if you're going to base your gauge of a country's likelihood to threaten the US by how it treats its separatist problems, then you have to throw almost every country in the world into your "threat list," because almost everyone's got separatists and ethnic nationalists of their own that they either actively suppress or sweep under the carpet. Look at the Maoists in India, for instance, the IRA in the UK, or even the Hawaiian sovereignty movement in the US.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

I think the Tibetans and the Taiwanese may differ on that opinion, Azarkan.

[Azarkon]

Some do. Others don't. Taiwan just recently ousted Chen Shui-bian's pro-independence party in favor of the pro-unification KMT. As for Tibet, information is scarce but I'm sure that many ethnic Tibetans would like to be independent... Just as many ethnic <insert whatever> here would like to be independent of the nations under which they're listed. Does that change anything? The US didn't give independence to any of the people we absorbed and it's, once again, unreasonable to assume that other nations would do anything of the sort. In either case, forcing China on the issue is unlikely to make a difference, because Beijing would see through the hypocrisy and, based on the fact that we're trying to fragment their nation, cast us as a permanent threat with which there can be no compromise. Is that going to help the Tibetans and the Taiwanese, Sand? I doubt it.

 

In the mean time, you might want to look at the example of Hong Kong as a case when people thought that returning to the Chinese polity would've meant massive oppression and the end of the world. Today, Hong Kong is doing just fine with its own system, and many of those who fled the island in fear of the Communists are now returning. If Taiwan were to return to China under the supervision of the UN, I don't think things would be very different. In fact, it'd likely resolve much of the tension in East Asia, which would be better for all involved.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

I don't mind one bit if they deem the US as a permanent threat because I consider them a permenant and hostile threat against us. There is nothing you can say that will make me change my mind on that. The only way I will no longer consider China a threat is when they have a complete and total change in their government and economic policies that is more democratic and capitalistic in nature.

[Azarkon]

That's fair, Sand. I didn't seek to convince you, and as alanschu put it earlier, it's probably pointless to try since you've never budged on anything over the forums. But my post wasn't directed towards you. It was directed towards those who are willing to consider the other side - to understand, perhaps, that international politics isn't as simple as black and white.

[Sand]

It is not a lack of understanding but a lack of caring. While one wastes time considering the other side the other side is more often than not making plans to take the opportunity eliminate those who are wasting the time and resources considering.

[Azarkon]

Yes, I know, Sand. China's out to get us. We should nuke them first, and ask questions later. I mean, we certainly don't want to hesitate, because before you know it, they'll be nuking us while we're still wondering about the moral implications of our actions. Can't let thinking get in the way of action.

[Sand]

I am not saying we should attack first. All I am saying that we keep a close eye on them and not let our guard down. We need to keep their aggression at bay both economically and militarily. When they do attack we need to be ready for it.

[Dark_Raven]

Lull them into making the first move. Make thme look like the aggressor and not us.

[Azarkon]

But Sand, that'll give them time to build up. They might beat us, then. Why should we wait? Didn't you say that waiting makes the enemy stronger? Surely we don't want that?