How will the World Benefit with China as a Superpower?

[A.V.]

Simple question , china rising is a big western propaganda and many in the net believes it to be true . But i am yet to find an answer to this

HOW WILL THE WORLD BENEFIT WITH CHINA AS A SUPERPOWER OPPOSING THE US ?

will we not be sucked into another cold war , a tug of war and what not , Does china have it in them to be a superpower who is reliable , what about their hegemonic approach towards its neighbours.

CHINA AS A SUPER POWER WILL ONLY DIVIDE THE WORLD MORE THAN CREATE PEACE AND STABILITY.






NOTE :- this is not a **** measure thread , we want to discuss what does china plan to do assuming it to be a superpower in the next decade , what approach will it take for world stability.

 

[Virendra]

I don't mind a US-China bipolarity like the earlier one of US-Russia, but a multi polar world could be a little more chaotic. The next few decades don't seem like giving a unipolar or biolar setup.
And an overly aggressive China (like today) in multi polar setup will only have a negative influence.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[debasree]

dont know about whole world but it will be bad for india.

 

[pankaj nema]

China is just a "wannabe " super power

China has already started quarrels with ALL Asian countries and Asian countries are going to stiffly resist Chinese arrogance

Knowing fully well the DNA of Indians I can say that At least India will be benefited .

India always needs a push ,Whether it is economic development or military build up , China's growth will push India too or else India would have been sleeping

 

[Anonymous]

US foriegn police is extremely agressive and is destablising not only the Middle East but the entire world. Another super power is needed to balance the equation of power. I am rooting for Russia but even if China becomes a super power and challenges the monopoly of US it will be in the larger interest of the world, I am all for it.

 

[AOE]

While US foreign policy isn't perfect, the world is a better place than it used to be 70 years ago with WW2, or even just over 30 years ago with the height of the Cold War. Nobody with their head screwed on right would want to go back to these days, and a rising imperialist, communist super power will not be good in Asia; particularly for India. That much is certain.

 

[Anonymous]

Thing is we are not living in history but in recent times US and allies have agressively disrupted other countries under the disguise of bringing freedom. I will not forget that until India had nuclear weapons United States and it's allies were against India to acquire one and US has also a long history of supporting and supplying Pakistan (even before 9/11). Unites States foreign policy is only geared to generate profits for it's war establishment by enroaching upon weaker countries (2nd and 3rd world countries).

 

[AOE]

You say we aren't living in history, yet that seems to be all you state; old news. Like I said; US foreign policy isn't perfect, it has had its fair share of mistakes and crimes, but not all of it is as gloomy as you put forward. For one thing, I can point out that you also leave out the US has also been opposed at different points to Pakistans nuclear weapons program, and many other countries development of nuclear weapons. I've also seen numerous times the same recurring theme of A. Q. Khan as the link with the recent 'Axis of Evil' in terms of nuclear proliferation. These views and actions included sanctions prior to 9/11, but that is another topic as I prefer intervention to sanctions.

All countries in this world are engaged in their own selfish interests, but what I have come to find is that the US is the only major power over the last century to have persisted and been involved in multiple moral interventions and liberations of other peoples. The US has brought about greater prosperity and quality of life to numerous people, as well as democratization and freedom. The fact you're using a computer, the internet, able to post on a forum, etc... is testament to this, among many other things I could mention; such as the recent growth in the Indian economy being directly linked to the economic liberalization of the subcontinent out of the slump of socialism/protectionism. It also is the kind of country that generally doesn't mind when people whine and complain about their general improvement at its hands even when the Americans have diplomatically and military been put in extreme situations in order to protect the freedoms of said whiners and complainers; Europe comes to mind when saying this. I think you get the jist of where I am getting at.

Although sticking back to the topic for a second; how would you foresee an aggressive, imperialist, one-party dictatorship rising as being overall good for Asia, let alone the world? Being a super power is a burden, and in many ways a responsibility.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The US has brought about greater prosperity and quality of life to numerous people, as well as democratization and freedom. The fact you're using a computer, the internet, able to post on a forum, etc... is testament to this, among many other things I could mention; such as the recent growth in the Indian economy being directly linked to the economic liberalization of the subcontinent out of the slump of socialism/protectionism.

I agree most part of your post but i dont agree on the above point of yours. The US did not dress up as Sandtee Clause and climb down chimneys and present us with a Computer and a net connection. We all had to earn for it, we would have died in starvation if we relied on US like some African nations do living of purely on Charity. No one cares for the powerless in this world everyone only respect power, India would not have been in a position to be USAs friend if we where not an nuclear power. Other wise we would have been an neglected pawn which is out of the game like some countries are which are victims of bad circumstance. No one would have chosen to have been born in such a country but yet people have the bad luck of being born in starvation and US does not fly around in a Chocolate plain dropping candies for the poor.

 

[Yusuf]

We would all learn to eat with chopsticks. It's fun.

No, china is not the right country to be a superpower with it's authoritative rule. It has a dispute with all it's neighbors and its in no mood to resolve any. If at all, it has become even more belligerent now than it was ever before.

Blame the west for Chinas rise. Idiots gave up on manufacturing and shifted everything to China for lower cost, taught them everything and now are left with no manufacturing base and fed the Chinese to superpower status.

The Chinese are so ungrateful that they want to bite the hand that feeds it. I mean, the US is it's biggest customer, but it wants to screw it.

No we don't need China as a super power. It will be a rich and powerful country but not a superpower. All superpower have good allies. The US did, the Soviets did. The US had far better allies than the soviets. Ultimately the soviets fell. China too has bad "allies" if at all. I mean Pak,NoKo, Sudan, Zimbabwe!! Lol.

 

[AOE]

lol GK, by no means do I consider the US to be Santa Clause, please don't obfuscate or pervert my arguments with extremes.

As for the African nations still being poor despite all their aid; this is why I object to handouts like this and prefer direct intervention. The problem is their dictatorships who monopolize power and wealth, and a sizable chunk of this charitable aid has gone to swiss bank accounts, buying weapons, terrorism, etc... very little of it has reached the people, and sometimes when it has; it has destabilized economies and caused hyper inflation. Of course the issue of aid has little to do with my point, since capitalism is the answer to poverty and famine.

Being a nuclear power doesn't necessarily mean you're on Americas good side, after all there is a lot of dust being kicked up by Irans/NKs developing programs, not to mention the US has been in diplomatic/military conflicts with others in the past who have tried developing them; Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc...

 

[Anonymous]

All countries in this world are engaged in their own selfish interests, but what I have come to find is that the US is the only major power over the last century to have persisted and been involved in multiple moral interventions and liberations of other peoples.

Don't you mean forceful liberations specially in the oil rich regions?

The US has brought about greater prosperity and quality of life to numerous people, as well as democratization and freedom.

US has also toppled many democracies and installed puppets and in many cases the people installed were dictators. The most recent example is US invading Iraq first based upon lies then changed it to freedom and democracy but kept mum when the Egyptian people demanded "Mubarak must go". Not once did US asked Mubarak to step for freedom and democracy because it did not suit US interest.

Although sticking back to the topic for a second; how would you foresee an aggressive, imperialist, one-party dictatorship rising as being overall good for Asia, let alone the world? Being a super power is a burden, and in many ways a responsibility.

Let me ask you the same question. How does US sees Saudi Arabia an authoritative dictatorship regime as role model for Middle East that it keeps supporting and allies itself with? If United States really would have believed in bringing freedom and democracy it would have never allied itself with regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Uganda, Kazakhstan to name a few.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

lol GK, by no means do I consider the US to be Santa Clause, please don't obfuscate or pervert my arguments with extremes.

As for the African nations still being poor despite all their aid; this is why I object to handouts like this and prefer direct intervention. The problem is their dictatorships who monopolize power and wealth, and a sizable chunk of this charitable aid has gone to swiss bank accounts, buying weapons, terrorism, etc... very little of it has reached the people, and sometimes when it has; it has destabilized economies and caused hyper inflation. Of course the issue of aid has little to do with my point, since capitalism is the answer to poverty and famine.

Being a nuclear power doesn't necessarily mean you're on Americas good side, after all there is a lot of dust being kicked up by Irans/NKs developing programs, not to mention the US has been in diplomatic/military conflicts with others in the past who have tried developing them; Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc...

All the big companies in China are owned or tied to the communist government in one way or another. There is no free enterprise in the true sense.

 

[AOE]

Don't you mean forceful liberations specially in the oil rich regions?

If you want to ignore my posts and engage in mindless rhetoric, then I will consider it a mistake responding to you. Your choice.

Yes, the US has been engaged in oil monopolization in the past, but then you also have WWII, Korea, Vietnam (which I am reluctant to find even critics to denounce that as a war of controlling oil), Bosnia/Kosovo, First-Third Taiwan Straight Crisis, etc... You aren't highlighting anything new, but you are doing a good job of ignoring the point.

US has also toppled many democracies and installed puppets and in many cases the people installed were dictators. The most recent example is US invading Iraq first based upon lies then changed it to freedom and democracy but kept mum when the Egyptian people demanded "Mubarak must go". Not once did US asked Mubarak to step for freedom and democracy because it did not suit US interest.

The US did not change its argument, regime change was argued by Bush, Blair, and others early on; people conveniently ignored this as well as the killing/capturing of terrorists who had relocated to Iraq and instead focussed on the WMD issue for politicized reasons. Many also ignored a lot of Iraqis and Kurds who ran up to US tanks and threw flowers at them yelling "Death to Saddam" and praising their liberators, but who cares about any of that when partisan politics or anti-Americanism is far easier?

Oh and I might add that the US did ask Mubarak to step down during the protests, something that I respect Obama for even though I don't think much of his foreign policy views.

Let me ask you the same question. How does US sees Saudi Arabia an authoritative dictatorship regime as role model for Middle East that it keeps supporting and allies itself with? If United States really would have believed in bringing freedom and democracy it would have never allied itself with regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Uganda, Kazakhstan to name a few.

Yet you failed to answer my question, and instead gave me a non-sequitur that is off topic, and is a loaded question to boot. If you don't understand realpolitik (something I'm not fond of, but can see merit in at times), and can readily make a distinction between that and what the US wants inevitably in the Middle-East (politically), then you are opening up a discussion that you do not understand and will likely derail the thread with. While it is ideal that the US should never have had to ally with many dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in the past, often it has had to do so for good reasons; which is what I would call a grey area, and other times for naive and dubious reasons, which I would partly agree with you.

Now, could you answer my question, or is the logical implication of it something you don't want to acknowledge as it is too inconvenient and that you see the US as being the problem, and less so part of the solution?

 

[AOE]

All the big companies in China are owned or tied to the communist government in one way or another. There is no free enterprise in the true sense.

That is true. I subscribe to Freedom House and agree with their assessment that China is still economically unfree, and an interesting point worth noting is that their economy right now looks almost exactly like a form of colonialism.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is my honest reply

Although sticking back to the topic for a second; how would you foresee an aggressive, imperialist, one-party dictatorship rising as being overall good for Asia, let alone the world?

I agree partially with you in some respects it will not be good but the actions of US in recent times too Afghanistan, Iraq etc also indicate agressive, imperialistic (with bases allover the world) policies. Furthermore, with rise of Russia or China as a superpower there will be an equal footing and balance of power in the world. US will not be able to dictate around other countries as it wishes and falsely topple any countries, invade illegaly other countries as it did in Iraq. If China has 1 party then in US the major power only changes hand by two parties Republicans and Democrats. Also a keynote US is not a democracy but a republic.

Being a super power is a burden, and in many ways a responsibility.

Responsibility which Unites States is misusing for the benefit of its war industry and hegemony.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

lol GK, by no means do I consider the US to be Santa Clause, please don't obfuscate or pervert my arguments with extremes.

As for the African nations still being poor despite all their aid; this is why I object to handouts like this and prefer direct intervention. The problem is their dictatorships who monopolize power and wealth, and a sizable chunk of this charitable aid has gone to swiss bank accounts, buying weapons, terrorism, etc... very little of it has reached the people, and sometimes when it has; it has destabilized economies and caused hyper inflation. Of course the issue of aid has little to do with my point, since capitalism is the answer to poverty and famine.

Being a nuclear power doesn't necessarily mean you're on Americas good side, after all there is a lot of dust being kicked up by Irans/NKs developing programs, not to mention the US has been in diplomatic/military conflicts with others in the past who have tried developing them; Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc...

Well i agree that the US has helped certain countries with its intervention like Kosovo but the percentage of success is not long? I am willing to be corrected here.

Also this idea that all westerners hold that WE wont be here if not for Western technology is some what sounds very condescending, like we where all stuck in an miserable hell and everything is Ok now that we have Coca Cola and Telephones or everyone in the west is happy because they bought a new car? Do material stuff make people happy, does longer life make people happy? Does it make some one in Sydney more happy than an Aboriginal in the desert? not the ones who are inflicted with alcoholism, i mean the untouched ones.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh and I might add that the US did ask Mubarak to step down during the protests, something that I respect Obama for even though I don't think much of his foreign policy views.

Obama ignored the Egypt protest during his State of the Union speech while praising popular uprising in Tunisia. He later gave a muted response and again did not ask Mubarak to step down.

I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protesters.

The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.

I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they've taken to interfere with access to the internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st Century.

At the same time, those protesting in the streets have a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. Violence and destruction will not lead to the reforms that they seek.

When I was in Cairo, shortly after I was elected president, I said that all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion. That is the single standard by which the people of Egypt will achieve the future they deserve.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12316019

 

[civfanatic]

This talk of Santa Claus reminded me of this speech:

"For 400 years he taught you white nationalism and you lapped it up. You taught it to your children. You had your children thinking that everything black was bad. Black cows don't give good milk. Black hens don't lay eggs. (undecipherable sentence). Santa Claus. A white hunky who slides down a black chimney and comes out white."

 

[no smoking]

Yes, the US has been engaged in oil monopolization in the past, but then you also have WWII, Korea, Vietnam (which I am reluctant to find even critics to denounce that as a war of controlling oil), Bosnia/Kosovo, First-Third Taiwan Straight Crisis, etc... You aren't highlighting anything new, but you are doing a good job of ignoring the point.

WWII? Started from helping germany rebuild their industry, then Nazi army. After the whole erupe was exhausted by this devile, the US came in as a world savor.

Korea, Vietnam? you must be kidding me! Protect a dictator from another dictator.

Kosovo? Wow, protect a group of terrorists from another group of terrorists by bombing civilians?

The US did not change its argument, regime change was argued by Bush, Blair, and others early on; people conveniently ignored this as well as the killing/capturing of terrorists who had relocated to Iraq and instead focussed on the WMD issue for politicized reasons. Many also ignored a lot of Iraqis and Kurds who ran up to US tanks and threw flowers at them yelling "Death to Saddam" and praising their liberators, but who cares about any of that when partisan politics or anti-Americanism is far easier?

I just can't believe you said that! When the terrorists relocated to Iraq? AFTER US LIBERATION! Yes, I saw the people throwing flowers and I also saw a lot more people dying under American tanks, including children and women.
When Saddam gased those kurds, guess which country veto UN's bill against this behavior? US!

Oh and I might add that the US did ask Mubarak to step down during the protests, something that I respect Obama for even though I don't think much of his foreign policy views.

Yes, after they realised that Mubarak lost all his power.

Yet you failed to answer my question, and instead gave me a non-sequitur that is off topic, and is a loaded question to boot. If you don't understand realpolitik (something I'm not fond of, but can see merit in at times), and can readily make a distinction between that and what the US wants inevitably in the Middle-East (politically), then you are opening up a discussion that you do not understand and will likely derail the thread with. While it is ideal that the US should never have had to ally with many dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in the past, often it has had to do so for good reasons; which is what I would call a grey area, and other times for naive and dubious reasons, which I would partly agree with you.

Well, what I saw here is that you are the one to be too naive to understand the real politics.

By the way, as a chinese, I don't think that the world would not benefit from China's rising at the beginning stage. Because any power's rise means some of other countries' down, just like mexican and south americas suffered during US' rising.