China geopolitics

[Azarkon]

I'll drink to that!

 

And you're right, there's alot to criticize about China's policy towards Tibet. I personally support greater autonomy, religious rights, etc. for Tibetans. At the same time, however, I maintain that the Chinese point of view must be taken into account. History should not be viewed as a moral teleology, and we must be ready to accept that if the Chinese play it right, they will retain control of Tibet and might even assimilate it within the Chinese polity. If they play it wrong, then the Tibetans will win and they will have their independence, no doubt to the great detriment of the Chinese state. In the end, it's not due to some abstract notion of morality that countries triumph or falter in their ambitions, but more practical concerns like having a winning geo-strategy, good economic policies, political foresight, solid governance, etc. (a very similar argument can be made for the US's presence in Iraq). If the Chinese lose Tibet (or Taiwan, for that matter), it will be because of a failure to act skillfully in the face of geopolitical challenges, and not because it is fundamentally wrong for an empire to seek stability in its quest for nationhood.

 

All great nations have blood-stained hands. The difference between successful nations and failed ones does not lie in the lack of bloodshed or the presence of supreme moral authority, but in the ability of the nation's leaders (and its people) to meet challenges effectively and with foresight. My current assessment of the situation in Tibet is that the Chinese government is not acting with foresight in missing a key opportunity to single-handedly diffuse the situation by striking a deal with the Dalai Lama. Of course, I don't have all the details, so we'll have to wait and see if their policy is smart or not.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Humodour]

Azarkon, what makes you think China needs to be bigger?

 

It seems to me that the basis of all your arguments in defence of China (and it's problems, like human rights), fall back to "it is necessary for China to become more powerful".

 

Why does China need to become more powerful? It's not like it's more of a good thing; that argument might work for India, but China seems to be stagnating in unrest, lack of freedom, and general discontent. How are those qualities that should be expanded to other countries like Tibet or Taiwan?

[Gorth]

Azarkon, what makes you think China needs to be bigger?

 

It seems to me that the basis of all your arguments in defence of China (and it's problems, like human rights), fall back to "it is necessary for China to become more powerful".

 

Why does China need to become more powerful? It's not like it's more of a good thing; that argument might work for India, but China seems to be stagnating in unrest, lack of freedom, and general discontent. How are those qualities that should be expanded to other countries like Tibet or Taiwan?

I think what China needs/is aiming for is more internal stability. For all it's size and alledged powerful communist party rule, it is a very frail country, weakened by lack of infrastructure, corruption, lack of national identity, governed by tribal traditions, family clans and a truck load of other problems. What the world doesn't need is a China falling apart like Iraq. Creating external enemies to deflect attention has often been a successful formula for other countries in the past.

[Azarkon]

Azarkon, what makes you think China needs to be bigger?

 

It seems to me that the basis of all your arguments in defence of China (and it's problems, like human rights), fall back to "it is necessary for China to become more powerful".

 

Why does China need to become more powerful? It's not like it's more of a good thing; that argument might work for India, but China seems to be stagnating in unrest, lack of freedom, and general discontent. How are those qualities that should be expanded to other countries like Tibet or Taiwan?

 

I don't think China needs to be bigger. I think China needs to maintain its economic growth and internal stability. Like Gorth said, the price of failure is high.

[Walsingham]

I would argue that China would do well to divest itself of some of its less useful regions by transitioning them to independence. It doesn't need Tibet for anything. Hell, when they invaded it was in a thoroughly desultory fashion, and if the Dalai Lama hadn't capitulated the Tibetan army might have frustrated them enough to make them withdraw!

 

China does have a more pressing need at the moment and that is energy security. It gets a vast amount of oil from the Gulf, and this means taking it past a wealth of unfriendly powers. Indonesia in particular could strangle China by closing the Malacca straits to her shipping. India is also capable of using her powerful navy to blockade from her ports. It is more than understandable that they would want a navy as a consequence. However, it is the massive number of amphibious support craft which ought to worry people far more, including specialist amphibious command craft.

[Moatilliatta]

I would argue that China would do well to divest itself of some of its less useful regions by transitioning them to independence. It doesn't need Tibet for anything.

Do you know anything about how the chinese would view something like that? I'm asking because I don't know quite enough to say that it could be a good idea, Azarkon is right when he says that a lot of China's stability lies with them being Greater China and not just China. I doubt it would be a good ide of to relinguish a territory that they have made a big deal of, and any of the other territories aren't being troublesome in the same fashion.

[Walsingham]

I would argue that China would do well to divest itself of some of its less useful regions by transitioning them to independence. It doesn't need Tibet for anything.

Do you know anything about how the chinese would view something like that? I'm asking because I don't know quite enough to say that it could be a good idea, Azarkon is right when he says that a lot of China's stability lies with them being Greater China and not just China. I doubt it would be a good ide of to relinguish a territory that they have made a big deal of, and any of the other territories aren't being troublesome in the same fashion.

 

You're quite right. Their leadership culture wouldn't like it one bit. But it may be that it has to grit its teeth and bear it. A concession on some territories would permit it to counter by defining the remaining territories as 'heartland' if you like.

[walkerguy]

I just want to go on the record and state that I hate the Chinese government.

 

Of course, seconded. Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead, hence my feelings they're creating the beginnings of a second cold war. At any rate, they're going all out economically with other unsavory regimes and have no shame for the fact they pay their workers nearly nothing, and with bad conditions. Not only that, but life is harsh. The "police" are more like gustapo and they execute thousands for trivial crimes.

[Azarkon]

Of course, seconded. Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead, hence my feelings they're creating the beginnings of a second cold war. At any rate, they're going all out economically with other unsavory regimes and have no shame for the fact they pay their workers nearly nothing, and with bad conditions. Not only that, but life is harsh. The "police" are more like gustapo and they execute thousands for trivial crimes.

 

This sounds as much like propaganda as the Chinese claim that no rioters were killed.

[Sand]

The truth is often somewhere in between, Azarkon. In any case I will never forget nor forgive the Tiamenen Square Massacre. For a country like ours to profess to love freedom and democracy we rewarded China for their blatant disregard for human rights and life with a favored traded agreement.

[Brdavs]

For a country like ours to profess to love freedom and democracy we rewarded China for their blatant disregard for human rights and life with a favored traded agreement.

 

But... your country is demonstrating a blatant disregard for human rights and life + international law... Seems like an appropriate match to me...

[Walsingham]

Of course, seconded. Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead, hence my feelings they're creating the beginnings of a second cold war. At any rate, they're going all out economically with other unsavory regimes and have no shame for the fact they pay their workers nearly nothing, and with bad conditions. Not only that, but life is harsh. The "police" are more like gustapo and they execute thousands for trivial crimes.

 

This sounds as much like propaganda as the Chinese claim that no rioters were killed.

 

Are you suggesting that a totalitarian regime can be held in place by only a large moustache and firm admonishments?

 

"You there! You democrats! Put that down and go home!"

 

I'm prepared to accept we have a skewed vision of China, but I won't accept they're sweetums. In essence I'd say walkerguy was essentially correct.

[Azarkon]

He's certainly not right about two things. I'll leave that as an exercise.

[Sand]

For a country like ours to profess to love freedom and democracy we rewarded China for their blatant disregard for human rights and life with a favored traded agreement.

 

But... your country is demonstrating a blatant disregard for human rights and life + international law... Seems like an appropriate match to me...

That's the fault of Republicans and gullible Democrats. Hopefully things will change once Obama is elected. Hopefully.

[Humodour]

He's certainly not right about two things. I'll leave that as an exercise.

 

That might work in a linear algebra lecture, but in a post that just comes across as evading the issue.

[Azarkon]

No, it's actually "I don't want to do your research for you." It's always better to be self-convinced.

 

Or, if you prefer, "I don't have the time right now to participate seriously in this discussion."

[Walsingham]

No, it's actually "I don't want to do your research for you." It's always better to be self-convinced.

 

Or, if you prefer, "I don't have the time right now to participate seriously in this discussion."

 

 

I don't have time to go fielding both sides of the argument. That's just bloody lazy!

 

Shall we dance?

[Azarkon]

Perhaps another time. I'll give you the easy one though: "Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead" is wrong.

[Walsingham]

Replace the word 'dead' with 'in a state of strategic and operational passivity' and we're cooking, tho?

 

Stratfor's angle on Tibet, which I just got round to reading:

"Each March, there are demonstrations in Tibet commemorating a 1959 uprising against the Chinese occupation. This year, the normally small and easily contained demonstration progressed from marches to shouting, to rock-throwing, to burning things and attacking ethnic Chinese stores and businesses. The Han Chinese represent the economic elite in Tibet

[Azarkon]

Replace the word 'dead' with 'in a state of strategic and operational passivity' and we're cooking, tho?

 

With respect to China's interests, yeah. But since when did any country want other countries to be strategically and operationally active within its areas of interest? Just look at the Monroe Doctrine

Edited March 24, 2008 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Replace the word 'dead' with 'in a state of strategic and operational passivity' and we're cooking, tho?

 

With respect to China, yeah. But since when did any country want other countries to be strategically and operationally active within their borders?

 

I meant active full stop.

[Azarkon]

I meant active full stop.

 

I doubt that. The Chinese are, and likely will be, supportive of an economically intertwined, actively trading world.

 

An active stop to Western political and military interventionism, though? Probably.

[walkerguy]

Of course, seconded. Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead, hence my feelings they're creating the beginnings of a second cold war. At any rate, they're going all out economically with other unsavory regimes and have no shame for the fact they pay their workers nearly nothing, and with bad conditions. Not only that, but life is harsh. The "police" are more like gustapo and they execute thousands for trivial crimes.

 

This sounds as much like propaganda as the Chinese claim that no rioters were killed.

 

The U.S. spread anti-China propaganda? Why? We're just trying to live while China wants to get big and belligerent. China is the propagandist.

[walkerguy]

Perhaps another time. I'll give you the easy one though: "Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead" is wrong.

 

Replace the word 'dead' with 'in a state of strategic and operational passivity' and we're cooking, tho?

 

Yes ^. My terminology leaves something to be desired, but you know what I mean.

[Azarkon]

You're starting off from the wrong assumptions.

 

All powers play the geopolitical game to further their self-interests. The US is not just "trying to live," no more than China is just trying to become "big and belligerent." If you don't believe me, you might want to check up on the number of military bases the US has in foreign countries, and compare that to those owned by China. Does that support your image of a country that's just trying to get by?