Chinese expansionism

[Walsingham]

Interesting case, Ros. But you assume that one has to have a full democracy or full dictatorship.

 

I would argue, since we are debating, that China has a dictatorship with some trappings of democracy. It attempts to write off problems as corruption or indiscretion. So it tries to prevent revolution that way.

 

I would also argue that one can have 'hollow' democracies. Although I can't currently envisage how.

[Gorgon]

Well, there are coups as well as revolutions, in fact i'd venture to say that the former are more common, where established democracies become juntas. I don't see the invisible hand of statistics at work unless a dictatorship is tied directly to the life of a single person. Chauchesco, Hussein, etc. 

 

The communist party will be the communist party. It's reasonably inclusive as long as you are willing to tow the official line, and government repression is tempered as well. They tend to make do with making an example out of very loud detractors and leave it at that.  

 

The Chinese people at large have come to accept it. 

[Rostere]

Interesting case, Ros. But you assume that one has to have a full democracy or full dictatorship.

 

I would argue, since we are debating, that China has a dictatorship with some trappings of democracy. It attempts to write off problems as corruption or indiscretion. So it tries to prevent revolution that way.

 

I would also argue that one can have 'hollow' democracies. Although I can't currently envisage how.

 

Yes, I think the Chinese leadership is trying to deflect blame from systemic problems. China has the trappings of a democracy in the same sense as the USSR had before it collapsed, you are allowed to vote for anyone on your list, but the ruling party decides who gets to be on the list. It's a one-party state but there is a power struggle within the ruling party and some degree of meritocracy, instead of a blatant leader cult and loyalty-based hierarchy such as in North Korea. I think we're only waiting for the Chinese Gorbachev to happen.

 

I can definitely see "hollow" democracies, for example any "democracy" where everyone except women are allowed to vote, everyone except slaves, everyone except natives in occupied territory, and so on. Democracy can also be hollowed out if a "winner takes it all" principle creates a de facto dictatorship of the majority - if you only get to vote for one leader with unrestrained powers instead of a parliament, and that person is elected by 51% of the votes. You could also say that a democracy where you vote for only one representative means you've got low voter "resolution", where direct democracy is the highest resolution. Of course different problems come with that, but I think we can safely say that it's possible to construct systems where everyone is allowed to vote freely, yet they are not really "democratic" in a meaningful sense.

[Rostere]

Well, there are coups as well as revolutions, in fact i'd venture to say that the former are more common, where established democracies become juntas. I don't see the invisible hand of statistics at work unless a dictatorship is tied directly to the life of a single person. Chauchesco, Hussein, etc.

 

I would say not. It's very common that a dictatorship becomes another dictatorship, but it's very rare that a democracy becomes a dictatorship. But we could easily check for yourselves here and here. Note that these lists doesn't include peaceful transitions to democracy, such as colonies breaking free.

 

I made a compilation of statistics of the 1950s with basis in the Wikipedia articles:

 

Dictatorship -> Democracy: I

Democracy -> Dictatorship: II (which were Iran 1953, and Guatemala 1954 - I would even argue these don't count since they weren't "natural" or triggered internally but orchestrated by the CIA)

Doubtful: II (In one of which the end state was a democracy)

Dictatorship -> Dictatorship: IIIIIII

Democracy -> Democracy: I

 

So without the CIA, there would not be any democracies replaced by dictatorships in the 50s. Like I said, there are also colonies breaking free during this time which means droves of new democracies.

[Zoraptor]

I think we're only waiting for the Chinese Gorbachev to happen.

 

May already have happened, he just wasn't successful. The protests in Tiananmen did have some fairly high profile supporters who ended up in permanent house arrest, which could easily have happened to Gorby.

 

Given the general apathy in western democracies for actually voting (80% turnout to just over 60% here, in the relatively short time I've been voting) I'm not sure that some sort of controlled candidate selection doesn't actually increase voter enthusiasm. Iran certainly seemed to be quite enthusiastic in their recent elections despite all the candidates including the reformist one being, effectively, hand picked and vetted by the clerical establishment. For China it will likely be a search for ways to let people let off steam without rocking the boat, to mix a metaphor. The sort of assertiveness they're showing here, landing on the moon, that sort of thing; plus some limited reforms that preserve the status quo but reduce the apparency of the restrictions and toleration of some safe non conformist candidates as a safety valve.

 

The big problem with promoting western style democracy at the moment is that you end up with (in our case) a guy who was elected by only 1 in 4 eligible voters as your Dear Leader, and that doesn't sound great. That isn't tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of the plurality- if 'no vote' were a party they'd be largest by around 10% of the voter base.

[Azarkon]

Eh, China is simply doing what its rivals were doing already - declaring a massive ADIZ and using it to have a fit whenever rival countries fly over them. An ADIZ is not a no fly / air control zone, though in the Chinese case they made the mistake of not specifying that it ought to only apply to aircraft that are on an intersect course with terrestrial territory.

 

It's obvious that they were going to establish this sooner / later given that the US, Japan, and Korea all have them.

[Azarkon]

I think that Japanese power and influence is diminished by the fact that they don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC. You don't hear their opinion on international matters very often, even though they are one of the world's dominant economic powers.

 

When you combine the current circumstances in Asia, China would be poised to be a regional leader, benefactor and Asia's foremost representative in international disputes. It's surprising that they don't attempt (harder) to settle territorial disputes in the region, and establish themselves as honest peace-brokers. They have enough potential for power as it is, and it would be better for them to have friendly neighbours. Whenever China becomes a real democracy, or really more democratic in any way, they are going to have enough trouble as it is keeping their own country together (compare USSR and Russia).

 

I think that Germany's role in the EU is a pretty good example of how a regional power can have a positive role in the development of their local neighbourhood.

 

I think it's rather difficult to be a regional leader when you're surrounded by the military bases of your greatest rival in the region. But even without US intervention, there's no way Japan is going to accept Chinese leadership without being beaten to submission. It's just the way politics in that region works.

[Azarkon]

 

You will see when China's boom ends, angry people will be out on the street, and chances are they will demand democracy.

 

 

Not necessarily. Angry people turn towards strong, nationalistic leaders, not liberal mouth pieces. Democracy by anger normally leads directly to jingoism.

[obyknven]

Western optimism about "democracies" looks funny for me.  Just examples from history.

Ancient Greek's Democracy ended as Tyrannies and Monarchies.

Roman republic transformed into totalitarian Empire.

Tribal barbariс democracies become into Absolute Monarchies at the end.

German democratic city-states ended as III Reich

Even in modern days we see same tendencies. US from republic transform into totalitarian Empire ( compare  Watergate scandal with modern Edward Snowden scandal - same events, but totally different results).

Totalitarism always defeat Democracies - this rule proved by thousands years of Humans history. It's quite logical, majority of Humanity is just too stupid ((compare number of real scientists with common quantity of Humans)) and can be easily deceived by elites.

[Rostere]

 

I think we're only waiting for the Chinese Gorbachev to happen.

 

May already have happened, he just wasn't successful. The protests in Tiananmen did have some fairly high profile supporters who ended up in permanent house arrest, which could easily have happened to Gorby.

 

Given the general apathy in western democracies for actually voting (80% turnout to just over 60% here, in the relatively short time I've been voting) I'm not sure that some sort of controlled candidate selection doesn't actually increase voter enthusiasm. Iran certainly seemed to be quite enthusiastic in their recent elections despite all the candidates including the reformist one being, effectively, hand picked and vetted by the clerical establishment. For China it will likely be a search for ways to let people let off steam without rocking the boat, to mix a metaphor. The sort of assertiveness they're showing here, landing on the moon, that sort of thing; plus some limited reforms that preserve the status quo but reduce the apparency of the restrictions and toleration of some safe non conformist candidates as a safety valve.

 

The big problem with promoting western style democracy at the moment is that you end up with (in our case) a guy who was elected by only 1 in 4 eligible voters as your Dear Leader, and that doesn't sound great. That isn't tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of the plurality- if 'no vote' were a party they'd be largest by around 10% of the voter base.

 

 

I wonder how things would look like if people were actually bound by law to vote?

 

 

[Azarkon]

I gotta say I'm increasingly not impressed by the coverage of events having to do with China in Western media.

 

Even amateurs were able to find out this little gem:

 

http://aviationdevelopment.org/eng/sites/default/files/2011111501_Publication.pdf

 

Which states that up till now, there have been no protests whatsoever about ADIZs being established because it's simply a logical extension of a country's security apparatus.

 

Sure, China's ADIZ covers disputed territory, but so does Japan's and South Korea's. 

 

It's obvious that China's main problem is not that they established an ADIZ, but that they didn't ask for permission from the primary power broker in East Asia: the US.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

So, yes. I'm kinda curious why you would associate democracy with the free market and dictatorship with protectionism. There are loads of examples to the contrary. I mean don't you have to go looking for examples of extreme supression. There aren't that many left. North Korea, maybe Zimbabwe etc. They all partake in information exchange, the web is everywhere.

 

cf. the current Russia - Ukraine debacle, Pakistan under Musharaf etc. It would seem that political supression can coexist quite comfortably with information exchange and free market access.

[AGX-17]

I think that Japanese power and influence is diminished by the fact that they don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC. You don't hear their opinion on international matters very often, even though they are one of the world's dominant economic powers.

The UNSC was formed in the aftermath of WWII, of course they don't. The current Japanese constitution, drafted under American patriarchal guidance, bans Japan from having a military or engaging in any proactive military activities. Combine that with the fact that Japan has an aging population and low birthrates, it's not exactly in a great position. Its only real advantage is the fact that it's basically a tributary state of the US. That said, Japan is a country where submission and servility are valued and "alpha" type behavior is something which goes against social norms. Even if Japan did have a permanent seat on the UNSC their politicians and diplomats are highly unlikely to make a vigorous argument for anything. Japan has an excessively tactful culture. Directness/bluntness are uncouth nearly to the point of taboo outside of familiar personal relations.

 

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the Senkaku islands are twice as far from China as they are from Japan (and Taiwan, they're roughly equidistant between those two.) China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service.

 

And, obviously, the idea that any Korea has any claim to the islands and associated waters is just ludicrous to the point of hilarity. They might as well claim Kamchatka and Alaska as their sovereign territory.

Edited December 1, 2013 by AGX-17

[Azarkon]

 

I think that Japanese power and influence is diminished by the fact that they don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC. You don't hear their opinion on international matters very often, even though they are one of the world's dominant economic powers.

The UNSC was formed in the aftermath of WWII, of course they don't. The current Japanese constitution, drafted under American patriarchal guidance, bans Japan from having a military or engaging in any proactive military activities. Combine that with the fact that Japan has an aging population and low birthrates, it's not exactly in a great position. Its only real advantage is the fact that it's basically a tributary state of the US. That said, Japan is a country where submission and servility are valued and "alpha" type behavior is something which goes against social norms. Even if Japan did have a permanent seat on the UNSC their politicians and diplomats are highly unlikely to make a vigorous argument for anything. Japan has an excessively tactful culture. Directness/bluntness are uncouth nearly to the point of taboo outside of familiar personal relations.

 

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the Senkaku islands are twice as far from China as they are from Japan (and Taiwan, they're roughly equidistant between those two.) China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service.

 

And, obviously, the idea that any Korea has any claim to the islands and associated waters is just ludicrous to the point of hilarity. They might as well claim Kamchatka and Alaska as their sovereign territory.

 

 

But distance does not matter in this case - these rocks are not within the EEZ of any country and there are no laws stating that you own them because you're 100 miles away instead of 200 miles away. Indeed, what each country wants from owning them IS the 200 nautical mile EEZ they get from radiating their sovereign territory around the rocks. It's a ridiculous loophole in maritime law.

 

What ought to happen is that such loopholes ought to be fixed so that countries no longer get to have a 200 mile EEZ from staking sovereignty over a bunch of rocks. But of course, that's too logical for international geopolitics, which at the end of the day is about taking stuff from people weaker than you, no different than it was in the hunter-gatherer days.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Eh, China is simply doing what its rivals were doing already - declaring a massive ADIZ and using it to have a fit whenever rival countries fly over them. An ADIZ is not a no fly / air control zone, though in the Chinese case they made the mistake of not specifying that it ought to only apply to aircraft that are on an intersect course with terrestrial territory.

 

It's obvious that they were going to establish this sooner / later given that the US, Japan, and Korea all have them.

 

Interesting point. But I haven't heard it elsewhere. Can you confirm?

[Walsingham]

China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service.

 

 

 

I would respectfully challenge these two points

 

1) China has the option of NOT pushing for a resolution of the status of the islands. They get by perfectly well with Taiwan by simply not forcing the issue.

2) While I agree that the ol' Mandate of Heaven rests on economic prosperity, it can always shift to rest on something else. I rather suspect that there are those within the Party who would welcome an opportunity to have a purge or two. An opportunity that serious unrest would give them.

[AGX-17]

 

China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service.

 

 

I would respectfully challenge these two points

 

1) China has the option of NOT pushing for a resolution of the status of the islands. They get by perfectly well with Taiwan by simply not forcing the issue.

2) While I agree that the ol' Mandate of Heaven rests on economic prosperity, it can always shift to rest on something else. I rather suspect that there are those within the Party who would welcome an opportunity to have a purge or two. An opportunity that serious unrest would give them.

 

1. Taiwan wants them, too, but it's a pretty small fish in this proverbial pond. Besides, it's comparatively small an issue compared to the fact that the PRC claims Taiwan is its sovereign territory and they've had guns literally pointed at each other for the past 50-odd years.

 

2. It's got nothing to do with the "Mandate of Heaven," it's got to do with the economic and political realities of China; it's a country whose stability hinges on maintaining its current, absurdly rapid pace of economic growth. Pulling people out of poverty through growth is the only thing that balances out all the ****ty things the Party is doing on the other side of the scale, and they have a lot of people to pull out of poverty. Besides, we're not talking about a purge (that's generally an internal affair,) we're talking about open rebellion (populist revolution was what ended the "golden age" of China, the Han Dynasty, after all.) For the political elite of the country it's this simple fear that drives their policy decisions: the economy stops growing, we lose everything.

 

That's why they're willing to bulldoze as many peasant slums as necessary to make way for new subdivisions and apartment blocks as well as manhandle those few tens of thousands of victims who lose everything and devote their existence to protesting/petitioning for justice in Beijing, a city where justice is in short supply.

Edited December 1, 2013 by AGX-17

[Azarkon]

 

Eh, China is simply doing what its rivals were doing already - declaring a massive ADIZ and using it to have a fit whenever rival countries fly over them. An ADIZ is not a no fly / air control zone, though in the Chinese case they made the mistake of not specifying that it ought to only apply to aircraft that are on an intersect course with terrestrial territory.

 

It's obvious that they were going to establish this sooner / later given that the US, Japan, and Korea all have them.

 

Interesting point. But I haven't heard it elsewhere. Can you confirm?

 

 

Sure. Here's a picture of the Japanese ADIZ and the Chinese ADIZ put alongside one another.

 

 

The size of the Japanese ADIZ is so massive, especially in its northwest quadrant, that it practically ensures that a Chinese ADIZ is going to overlap with it. It's easy to see that the Japanese have a rather flexible view of how great of a distance their ADIZ ought to cover from the nearest terrestrial holding. Look at how the northern side of the ADIZ practically hugs the Japanese coast, for example, while the western side covers a huge section of the East China Sea.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

That's a good point, and one I missed initially. 

[Zoraptor]

The northern one would actively be over the Kurils/ Sakhalin and hence Russian territory if it went any further north. OK, Russian territory that Japan partially claims, but Japanese war planes trying to enforce a control zone over territory that is at least de facto (and really, if it were anyone except Russia it would be de jure too) Russian would inevitably result in them being shot at if not shot down. 

[HoonDing]

Russians on southernmost Kuril island probably throw their trash on Hokkaido.

[Kroney]

Western optimism about "democracies" looks funny for me.  Just examples from history.

Ancient Greek's Democracy ended as Tyrannies and Monarchies.

Roman republic transformed into totalitarian Empire.

Tribal barbariс democracies become into Absolute Monarchies at the end.

German democratic city-states ended as III Reich

Even in modern days we see same tendencies. US from republic transform into totalitarian Empire ( compare  Watergate scandal with modern Edward Snowden scandal - same events, but totally different results).

Totalitarism always defeat Democracies - this rule proved by thousands years of Humans history. It's quite logical, majority of Humanity is just too stupid ((compare number of real scientists with common quantity of Humans)) and can be easily deceived by elites.

 

That's not necessarily incorrect, but it is incredibly simplistic. While you are correct in asserting that these historical events happened, they were spurred by particular internal events that can easily push things in the opposite direction. Any form of government, including democracies, can be toppled by powerful parties of self-interest or indeed by populist revolts. That's setting aside for the moment that these examples weren't even democracies by the current understanding, more a form of autocracy by ballot.

 

You are rather neatly sidestepping the populist revolt from absolute monarchy, to communist collective, to dictatorship, to democratic lip service, to autocracy that's happened in the largest country on Earth within the last hundred years. You may be familiar with it? My point is that it's not a one way street.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Kroney

[Rostere]

So, yes. I'm kinda curious why you would associate democracy with the free market and dictatorship with protectionism. There are loads of examples to the contrary. I mean don't you have to go looking for examples of extreme supression. There aren't that many left. North Korea, maybe Zimbabwe etc. They all partake in information exchange, the web is everywhere.

 

cf. the current Russia - Ukraine debacle, Pakistan under Musharaf etc. It would seem that political supression can coexist quite comfortably with information exchange and free market access.

 

No, you don't understand. Of course there are dictatorships with free markets. The point is that once things go awry in a dictatorship with free markets, the first reaction of the people is to overthrow the current dictator and replace him with something else. Since a free market is allowed, a dictator can no longer do damage control WHEN things go awry. When things go wrong in a democracy, you simply elect a new leader. You need way, way worse conditions for a revolution to happen in a democracy compared to a dictatorship. So dictatorship and protectionism are not intrinsically related, it's only that dictatorships with closed markets tend to be able to hold on to power for a longer time.

 

I'll take North Korea as an example. When things go wrong there, that is, when harvests are bad (pretty much the only "unknown" variable in that economy) the current leader can direct any part of the country's budget (*ahem* foreign aid *ahem*) to alleviate the people's pains. When such a thing happens in a free market dictatorship, there's nothing much a dictator can do other than hole up and hope he will weather the storm. Freedom of information is much harder to prevent in an open economy, if it's legal to trade everything then all the foreign trade goods will have to be checked for illegal information. If you don't allow free trade, you won't have to deal with these nuisances.

 

Just look at Pakistan and compare it with the Soviet Union. Pakistan is pretty much one of the most unstable countries on earth, with coups and political assassinations. Just count the number of coups and revolutions that have happened there since 1950 and compare it to the Soviet Union, Cuba or North Korea. The Soviet Union, with it's closed economy, was perfectly stable until the system reformed itself from the inside.

 

Russia is not a good example, since it's nominally a democracy.

 

And excuse me, North Korea does NOT participate in the open Internet . And neither does China, although I hear it's pretty easy to access illegal content there.

 

 

I think that Japanese power and influence is diminished by the fact that they don't have a permanent seat on the UNSC. You don't hear their opinion on international matters very often, even though they are one of the world's dominant economic powers.

The UNSC was formed in the aftermath of WWII, of course they don't. The current Japanese constitution, drafted under American patriarchal guidance, bans Japan from having a military or engaging in any proactive military activities. Combine that with the fact that Japan has an aging population and low birthrates, it's not exactly in a great position. Its only real advantage is the fact that it's basically a tributary state of the US. That said, Japan is a country where submission and servility are valued and "alpha" type behavior is something which goes against social norms. Even if Japan did have a permanent seat on the UNSC their politicians and diplomats are highly unlikely to make a vigorous argument for anything. Japan has an excessively tactful culture. Directness/bluntness are uncouth nearly to the point of taboo outside of familiar personal relations.

 

That said, the simple fact of the matter is that the Senkaku islands are twice as far from China as they are from Japan (and Taiwan, they're roughly equidistant between those two.) China's government has no choice but to be belligerent for the sake of economic growth, it's constantly teetering on the brink of riots or revolution. When economic growth stops, the communist party is done for. There are regularly demonstrations and mass uprisings numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the country which aren't publicized thanks to the government control of the media and the entirely unbiased choices of the state-run news service.

 

And, obviously, the idea that any Korea has any claim to the islands and associated waters is just ludicrous to the point of hilarity. They might as well claim Kamchatka and Alaska as their sovereign territory.

 

 

Well, duh, of course the Japanese were not invited to be a UNSC member after WW2. My point is that those events happened a long time ago, there's nothing keeping Japan from being a UNSC member today.

 

You're right about the aging population thing. But I think that's being a bit picky with the details.

 

Seriously, look at the current permanent UNSC members: I think nobody questions the positions of the US and China. But then we have the UK, France and Russia. The GDP of Japan is two times greater than that of the UK, and almost three times greater than that of Russia. I understand that the UK and Russia (then the Soviet Union) were very important in the mid-20th century, however that time is long gone now. The UNSC should be altered to reflect the current state of global politics. Currently, it's very unfair and arbitrary, and contrary to which countries actually hold power.

 

If I could propose permanent members of the UNSC they would be China, the US, Japan, Germany and France (maybe I would replace France with Brazil if you ask me 5 years from now). You've got to take into account the current state of nations and also how the future looks, and the current permanent UNSC members really does not reflect that, it only reflects who won WW2. Based on your post, I think you understand the latter point yourself.

[Kroney]

 

If I could propose permanent members of the UNSC they would be China, the US, Japan, Germany and France

 

Good Lord, man. France over Britain? We shall revolt.

 

It's long overdue time for the UNSC to be overhauled, but I don't think it's fair to say the UK's international role has diminished to the extent that we're without any use on it. If nothing else NATO and the UN still use a good number of our overseas territories, of which there are still more than a handful, to base supplies and men. If nothing else, that should give us a say, not to mention we're still one of the largest contributors of aid, troops and supplies to international efforts.

 

I think it should be expanded to more than five seats, though. Perhaps on a regional basis with a rotating chair, rather than national. Perhaps a continental/sea zone system, with a chair for North America, Europe, Australasia, Central America and Caribbean etc. The regions could take turns in having a member chairing their region.

[Walsingham]

AGX-17. the term Mandate of Heaven is one used commonly in analysis of Chinese domestic politics. Rightly or wrongly, this metric assumes that a lack of order and prosperity offends more than it would in a Western or other state. 

 

However, I just don't buy the idea that China is one weak financial year away from revolution. The entire State is geared to do little more than stop a counter-revolution. Even if an entire province rose up at once, what the hell would happen next? Huge military clampdown. The 'revolution' would receive absolutely no aid at all from outside, and wither on the vine.

 

~~

 

To play devil's advocate for Britain on the UNSC, you shoudl keep in mind that Britain is more than just a powerful economy, and a reasonably powerful military. It is a ntion that is accustomed to weighing in on World affairs. Its diplomats and generals, its charities and corporations they all act internationally all the damn time. Yet at the same time it has no obvious designs on expanding its control. Sounds like an ideal member of the council.