China, Not our Friend.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The entirety of chinese history shows the cultural/attitudinal differences between China and the West.

What are those differences exactly?

[GePap]

Why shouldn;t China develop ICMB's and Anti-satelite weapons if the US and Russia both have spy satelites and ICBM's? Are the Chinese to sit there unarmed, so that xenophobes here don;t view them "the enemy"? Why shouldn;t China try to be a regional power? Last tiem I checked, the Us claimed the right to interven in Dozens of weaker states that heppen to be south of it without asking anyone in those states if they agreed..but no, no one should consider the US a threat..it is only if tohers try to have what we have! Lord goodness me, EVIL!!!!

Hyprocrasy can go only so far..this thread is trying to push it's limits.

For those that hate China, or see it as our great enemy, simple solution, don;t buy anythingmade in China or made with parts from China. There, you do your bit! That the cost of what you buy will go up, well, your bit to save America from the evil yellow hordes, no?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


What are those differences exactly?

Disregard for the rights of individuals is probably the biggest.

[GePap]

The entirety of chinese history shows the cultural/attitudinal differences between China and the West.

I would agree. Even when they had the chance, the Chinese did not seek global world hegemony, they didn;t install great overseas empires to rule directly and plunder (they created trade colonies with thier people). They also did not invent the modern notion of sovereing nation states competing in great games for regional power and notions of balance of power and so forth. So if we assume the Chinese don;t think like the west, that should reassure us, based on China's history, that they don't care to, or plan to be a world hegemon, as they have never tried, even when they had the chance. So the only problem anyone here can post is over a small Island of the Coast of China called Taiwan, with a complex hisotry of relations with the Mainland. Wow, what a threat.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I disagree. If they were our enemies, then we should do everything possible to undermine their economy, incite conflicts between China and its neighbors, and provide active support for all its internal dissidents. The fact is that we had tried this approach for 3 decades, only to create a China that was far more militaristic and dangerous to us.

Through business dealings, we MAKE China's economy DEPENDENT on ours, we MAKE China's youth worshipping our junk food culture (McDonald is the favorite restaurant among Chinese youths), we MAKE China's elites by educating them in our universities, and we MAKE China's leadership see that their very survival depends on the well-being of the US.

This is a far better alternative than pushing China into the same boat with the Islamic Fundies and Anti-American Eurocommies.

Couldn't possible have summed it up better.


These days, many, many Chinese really like America. Here in Shanghai, everyone wants to learn American English, study American management practices, eat American junk food, wear American clothes, watch American movies, etc. There's a great thing going, why ruin it with jingoistic drum-beating.

[mindseye]

oh those pesky human rights eh, god wouldn't we all be so much better off if people just stopped whining about things like basic legal rights,forced abortions attempted state control of religion and torture and abuse in prisions. after all, if we did all these wonderful things then maybe a few less people would get mugged, and at the end of the day that's what matters, right mindseye?

Cockney, your post would be a little easier to accept if you had some arguments, but I guess it's just easier to spout a few generalisms wrapped in snarky comments.

We've been through this in other threads, so, I'll try to summarize:

(1) Your idea of Chinese "human rights" is pretty different from what average Chinese think about "human rights". Typical Chinese think western ideas of "human rights" may be suitable for developed, western nations, but not the completely different cultural, economic, and political situation of China. Most Chinese also resent western efforts to force their views about "human rights" onto them.

(2) Forced abortions are absolutely against government policy. The stories you read are invariably the actions of local (usually countryside) officials, who can be far removed from the sphere of Beijing. As I've pointed out many times, China is not nearly as monolithic as you and many others would have it. (By the way, you should check your single source story, it doesn't hold up very well to a careful reading).

(3) In China adherants of many religions (e.g. Moslems)worship freely and openly. Christians who want to worship can do so freely in the state church, which is virtually identical in practice to the Catholic Church (including sacraments). Believe it or not, here in Shanghai there are many churches, temples, synagogues and the like.

Regarding Tibet, before you utter another word, you should (A) try to find out what the situation was really like under the Lamas, and (B) take into consideration what Tibetans currently think (hint: a little different from Hollywood's version)

(4) Torture and abuse (not just in prison) is a big problem here, but probably nowhere near as bad as you think. For instance, recently the Chinese press publicized a killing by some local Guangdong police, who were harshly punished (the killer prison guard got the death penalty). Did you read about that?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Defiant
Here is the difference as I see it Lord. If the situation was reversed or China got ahead of us in advancement of weapons as we are to them, now, do you think China would move against Taiwan? I believe they would, and in doing so negate your argument of being non-aggressive, yes?

Did they move against the Philippines or Vietnam during the Spratleys squabble? Woops, I guess that negates your conjecture, yes?

[DinoDoc]

I don't really see what the big deal is. China is still far away from being able to make a run at the status of regional hegemon. So there is no reason to go off half-cocked with fear of rampaging yellow hordes just yet.

On the other hand I fail to see what is wrong with seeing China as a strategic competitor of the US.

[Defiant]

Did they move against the Philippines or Vietnam during the Spratleys squabble? Woops, I guess that negates your conjecture, yes?

Oooopsss did they help North Korea against the South and North Vietnam against the South. Not really a, "defend only policy".

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Disregard for the rights of individuals is probably the biggest.

Actually I think most Chinese would see it more in terms having a different view on the relationship between the rights of the individual versus the stability of society.

Westerners place a higher premium on the individual, Chinese lean relatively more towards social stability. They have had quite a long period without much of it, and now they are willing to pay a higher price.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant
Did they move against the Philippines or Vietnam during the Spratleys squabble? Woops, I guess that negates your conjecture, yes?

Oooopsss did they help North Korea against the South and North Vietnam against the South. Not really a, "defend only policy".

How did they "move against Vietnam or the Phillipines" for the spratley's? How many people died? And who has the rightfull claim to those islands?

Oh my God, they helpde two neighbors in wars against others! perish the tought! IN Korea, China became involved only after the US came up to its border. In vietnam, it provided logistivcal support for an ally: goodness me, the imperalitis overloards. Of course, they ended up fighting a war with Vietnam in 1979, so maybe the Chinese and the Vietnamese weren't so friendly.

I did not say China is only defensive. But China's foreing entanglements pale to those of the US, Russia, UK, France and host of other states who have been far more involved, and not only in their immidiate neighborhood.

[mindseye]

Oooopsss did they help North Korea against the South and North Vietnam against the South. Not really a, "defend only policy".

Um, you don't think that during a period of harsh anti-Communist and anti-Chinese rhetoric from Washington that they were maybe a little worried about having the US military right on their border?

Compare the actions of the US and China in Vietnam. Which seems more like a global aggressor?

Question: do you think the US would have reacted differently if China had invaded Mexico?

[mindseye]

dp

[mindseye]

How did they "move against Vietnam or the Phillipines" for the spratley's? How many people died? And who has the rightfull claim to those islands?

GePap, Defiant forgot to quote me saying that, hence the confusion. He was actually responding to it (in the "Oooopsss" comment).

My point about the Spratleys was that it was an ideal situation for the Chinese to demonstrate their alledged imperialistic aggression. Next to nothing came of it.

[Defiant]

I am not arguing that we wounldn't have made a move on any power in a Mexican incident, however, you keep saying they are not the aggressor, we were not in China, but they still pushed us all the way to the tip of the Peninsula in Korea(outside the borders of their country) until we push half way back and called a truce.

It's funny how the US comes in on the part of "invaded" countries side and we are considered aggressors.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Defiant
I am not arguing that we wounldn't have made a move on any power in a Mexican incident, however, you keep saying they are not the aggressor, we were not in China, but they still pushed us all the way to the tip of the Peninsula in Korea(outside the borders of their country) until we push half way back and called a truce.

If China invaded Mexico in the midst of heated anti-Washington rhetoric, you don't think the US would've tried to push China completely out of Mexico? Really?

I certainly do not "keep saying that China is not an aggressor"! Please read more carefully. I don't think I have anywhere said that China is not aggressive. I have instead claimed that it is minimally aggressive compared with the US (or any number of other powerful countries as GePap pointed out) during the same period.

As I've said, it's for that reason that it's absurd for anyone to get worked up over the article when it appears that the US is a much greater menace to China than China could possibly be to the US.

[mindseye]

A still-open question:

From me:
Do you think it is unusual or suspicious for a great- or superpower to maintain a modern military?

From GePap:
Why shouldn't China develop ICBM's and Anti-satellite weapons if the US and Russia both have spy satellites and ICBM's? Are the Chinese to sit there unarmed, so that xenophobes here don't view them "the enemy"?

I have to go to bed now, it's 4:30 am in China (thank heavens I can sleep in today!)

[Defiant]

"The Spratleys are just one recent example of where they haven’t acted where they could've. Compare PRC military activity with that of the USA during the same period (post 1949), PRC's is at a far lower level. Certainly far less than "whenever and wherever it can".

I was attacking this point with Korea and Vietnam, they went outside their borders, the difference to me is we were defending, again and they left their borders to attack. If you say defend, then defend against what? We were not entering their country and they still left us in South Korea. Yes, USA acts when she has to, so does China apparently, they are no saint. I guess I am getting the point you view them less aggressive to the USA and I am not buying it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

What are those differences exactly?

Yeah, I've got time to write a book about it. But in case you're actually curious, mindseye brings up one (possibly the most important one) quite well in his replys.

"Actually I think most Chinese would see it more in terms having a different view on the relationship between the rights of the individual versus the stability of society.

Westerners place a higher premium on the individual, Chinese lean relatively more towards social stability. "

I've always felt that the chinese (and perhaps all asians) were natural communists, with the 'commune' being the structure and rules of the extended family. To me, political communism in China is almost a natural extention of those family traditions (I'm not saying that that is how they themselves see it).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Even when they had the chance, the Chinese did not seek global world hegemony

Please enlighten me when the Chinese had such a chance.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by mindseye
(1) Your idea of Chinese "human rights" is pretty different from what average Chinese think about "human rights". Typical Chinese think western ideas of "human rights" may be suitable for developed, western nations, but not the completely different cultural, economic, and political situation of China. Most Chinese also resent western efforts to force their views about "human rights" onto them.

sorry, but i believe in the old fashioned idea that things like basic legal and human rights are important and that things like tourture are simply unacceptable anywhere...

(2) forced abortions are absolutely against government policy. The stories you read are invariably the actions of local (usually countryside) officials, who can be far removed from the sphere of Beijing.

just because the central government doesn't condone it hardly makes it alright!

(3) In China adherants of many religions (e.g. Moslems)worship freely and openly. Christians who want to worship can do so freely in the state church, which is virtually identical in practice to the Catholic Church (including sacraments). Believe it or not, here in Shanghai there are many churches, temples, synagogues and the like.

really?

here's an interesting snipett:

Much like Tibetans, the Uighurs in Xinjiang, have struggled for cultural survival in the face of a government-supported influx by Chinese migrants, as well as harsh repression of political dissent and any expression, however lawful or peaceful, of their distinct identity. Some have also resorted to violence in a struggle for independence

Chinese authorities have not discriminated between peaceful and violent dissent, however, and their fight against "separatism" and "religious extremism" has been used to justify widespread and systematic human rights violations against Uighurs, including many involved in non-violent political, religious, and cultural activities.

and while i'm sure that in the cities the authorities attiude is more relaxed towards religion there is still a lot of state interference and outright persecution in areas such as tibet and xingjang.

also you mention that christians are allowed to 'worship freely in the state church' what about if they wish to worship in a non-state church, what attitude do the authorities take to that?

Regarding Tibet, before you utter another word, you should (A) try to find out what the situation was really like under the Lamas,

i have read a reasonable amount of the history of tibet, although probably not enough. my impression is that tibet was a lot more free before china invaded, although that isn't really saying much :/

tell me then, what was so bad about the lamas?

and (B) take into consideration what Tibetans currently think (hint: a little different from Hollywood's version)

you know, i think that if the people of tibet really loved the chinese government there wouldn't be the need for the represssion, torture and denial of basic human rights that the government practices, but there you go...

(4) Torture and abuse (not just in prison) is a big problem here, but probably nowhere near as bad as you think. For instance, recently the Chinese press publicized a killing by some local Guangdong police, who were harshly punished (the killer prison guard got the death penalty). Did you read about that?

i didn't read about that, although from reading various websites it would appear that ill treatment of suspects and political prisioners is still widespread.

here's what amnesty international think about china's human rights record.

Serious human rights violations continued and in some respects the situation deteriorated. Tens of thousands of people continued to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association or belief. Some were sentenced to prison terms; many others were administratively detained without charge or trial. The "strike hard" campaign against crime launched in April 2001 was renewed for a further year. According to interim figures available, the crack-down led to at least 1,921 death sentences, many imposed after unfair trials, and 1,060 executions. Torture and ill-treatment remained widespread and appeared to increase as a result of the campaign. The anti-crime crack-down also extended to people accused of being "ethnic separatists", "terrorists" and "religious extremists" in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Further regulations were introduced to control access to the Internet. Labour protests increased and were frequently met with excessive use of force and arbitrary detentions. In Xinjiang, restrictions increased on the cultural and religious rights of the mainly Muslim Uighur minority. In Tibet, freedom of expression and religion continued to be severely restricted, although seven prisoners of conscience were released before the end of their sentences.

[mindseye]

I was attacking this point with Korea and Vietnam, they (China) went outside their borders,

And you think the US would not have gone out of its border if China the Chinese military was active in neighboring Mexico?

If you say defend, then defend against what?

As I already said,

Um, you don't think that during a period of harsh anti-Communist and anti-Chinese rhetoric from Washington that they were maybe a little worried about having the US military right on their border?

I guess I am getting the point you view them less aggressive to the USA and I am not buying it.

Thank heavens you are finally getting that point! Well, maybe you are not "buying it", but you have yet to put up a credible argument to defend your point, and at the same time have failed to address the key question, which is:

From me:
Do you think it is unusual or suspicious for a great- or superpower to maintain a modern military?

From GePap:
Why shouldn't China develop ICBM's and Anti-satellite weapons if the US and Russia both have spy satellites and ICBM's? Are the Chinese to sit there unarmed, so that xenophobes here don't view them "the enemy"?

[mindseye]

Cockney, tomorrow night I'll be delighted to address your response, but could you please start another thread? Any of those issues could spawn its own entire discussion.

The issue here is whether or not the US should be concerned over possible Chinese plans for space-based warfare.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Why shouldn;t China develop ICMB's and Anti-satelite weapons if the US and Russia both have spy satelites and ICBM's? Are the Chinese to sit there unarmed, so that xenophobes here don;t view them "the enemy"? Why shouldn;t China try to be a regional power? Last tiem I checked, the Us claimed the right to interven in Dozens of weaker states that heppen to be south of it without asking anyone in those states if they agreed..but no, no one should consider the US a threat..it is only if tohers try to have what we have! Lord goodness me, EVIL!!!!

Hyprocrasy can go only so far..this thread is trying to push it's limits.

For those that hate China, or see it as our great enemy, simple solution, don;t buy anythingmade in China or made with parts from China. There, you do your bit! That the cost of what you buy will go up, well, your bit to save America from the evil yellow hordes, no?

Relax, take a deep breath. Your typing gets impossible to follow when you start to rant.

I, for one, have never said that they are evil to develop ICBM's or anything else. I think the world is better off with China having them than India, Pakistan, or NK. Of course they have the right to do so. Just dont pretend that they are our 'friends'. Hopefully they may become so, but for now they're too inscrutable.

[Defiant]

Do you think it is unusual or suspicious for a great- or superpower to maintain a modern military?

NO, of course not but don't pretend you are not trying to create a more lethal military, just say yes, we are trying to delay the USA's ability in space so we can catch up, don't pretend to be on our side, be blunt competitive.

From GePap:
Why shouldn't China develop ICBM's and Anti-satellite weapons if the US and Russia both have spy satellites and ICBM's? Are the Chinese to sit there unarmed, so that xenophobes here don't view them "the enemy"?

Again, go for it, but don't hide behind the idea you are our friends, they are not.

I didn't know I was supposed to answer these questions.

My point has always been, we cannot depend on China to do the right thing if their interests are different, like Iraq, they didn't want us going there, not because it was the right thing to do but it hinders their national interest. The only reason they are helping us with N.Korea(and not fast enough IMO) is because they don't want a nuclear armed nutcase in N.Korea. Nothing to do with helping us, only their interest.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by mindseye
Cockney, tomorrow night I'll be delighted to address your response, but could you please start another thread? Any of those issues could spawn its own entire discussion.

The issue here is whether or not the US should be concerned over possible Chinese plans for space-based warfare.

sure, no problem. have a good night.

[mindseye]

See what I get for hitting "refresh" one last tmie?

I've always felt that the chinese (and perhaps all asians) were natural communists, with the 'commune' being the structure and rules of the extended family. To me, political communism in China is almost a natural extention of those family traditions (I'm not saying that that is how they themselves see it).

Re: the Chinese, I strongly agree. The traditional Confucionist "structure and rules of the extended family" that still strongly influences Chinese society does make them "natural comunists", or at least more likely to succeede at it than others.

Given that, what does one make of the failure of Communism in China?

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap Even when they had the chance, the Chinese did not seek global world hegemony

Please enlighten me when the Chinese had such a chance.

Perhaps the best chance was in the early 1400's during the Ming era. The Chinese had an enormously powerful navy that was sailing all over Southeast asia, Arabia, the west coast of Africa and maybe Australia (a recent controversial claim says even North Amercia). The biggest ships (nine masts) were far larger than the biggest American clippers ever built. The Chinese navy during Ming had bronze cannons, mines, fire catapults, and two-stage anti-ship missiles, as well as other ship types such as sidewheelers and galleys.

At that time China had an enormous ability to project power - fleets numbered in the hundreds of ships, including massive horse transporters. Voyages carried up to 28,000 men.

Although they did get mixed up militarily in some local disputes, there was no major military action, certainly no imperial conquest.


Now to bed!!!!

[GePap]

Up until the mid 17th century China was the richest, most powerful state on earth, While England and Spain and France and the Ottomans and the Russians were expanding and creating empires, the Chinese just sat back at home. If we count that as acultural difference, that Westerners want to expand and the Chinese were fine with what they had, well, then that is a good difference.

Of course the US can;t count on China when its interest differ. The US can count on any state if interests differ sufficeintly, why should China be any different? By your definiton Defiant , the US has 0 friends in the world. And I would agree with that (see bellow)

I know the Chiense arent our firneds. And I don;t care cause "friendship" does not exist in the realm of international relations and the dealings between states. Anyone who seeks firendships in this system is in for a rude awakening. BUt to say China is not our friend (no such thing) is not to say China is our enemy. US and Chinese inetrest converge in more areas than they diverge. It is sensible for the Chinese to try to undermine US military hegemony, since there is no such things as friendship in the international realm, they have no reaosn to trust the US won;t act against them. Better be prepared than sorry.

[SpencerH]

Rich yes. Powerful maybe. Able to forge a "global world hegemony" they couldn't. The Chinese have been isolationists since before Temujin. The question is will they remain so? I suspect that the chinese understand us as poorly as we understand them. If they did understand us, they wouldnt act in quite the way that they do.

[SpencerH]

Mindseye, a couple of questions/points.

Maybe your opinion of China is coloured by the 'fact' that Shanghai is a more open city than many in China (and AFAIK always was).

What do you know of the Falun Gong types? They have been popularized here in the south by the religious types and I'd like to have another opinion.

I'm aware that this may pop-up on Chinese censors lists so dont feel you have to answer (maybe thats bullshit too I dont know?).