The West must stand up to China's Bullying
- Thread starter Ray
- Start date
neo29
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,284
- Likes
- 30
Just wait till Vietnam start receiving US arms supply. Surely a huge reaction from China.
China only has North Korea in the region to counter the South Korea, Japan and US axis. All it needs to do is convince North Korea who depends on China a lot that the axis is aiming at destabilizing NK. China needs to unleash its pet and the sit quietly watching the fun.
China only has North Korea in the region to counter the South Korea, Japan and US axis. All it needs to do is convince North Korea who depends on China a lot that the axis is aiming at destabilizing NK. China needs to unleash its pet and the sit quietly watching the fun.
nimo_cn
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,032
- Likes
- 883
China is the target because everyone wants to gain extra advantage over China.
Mr professional, next time say something sensible which matchs your status.
Arouse patriatism by playing up the South China Sea issue? You are really good at inventing new theroy.
It was not China but US that took the initiative to stir up tense around South China Sea, China is merely reacting to America's provocation. Does that arouse patriotism among Chinese? Maybe, but it is the pure byproduct of USA's provocation.
nimo_cn
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,032
- Likes
- 883
Obviously, you have perverted the signification of 'peaceful coexistence' policy, maybe you did that deliberately.
'Peaceful coexistence' policy does not equal surrender. The preconditon of peaceful coexsitence policy is that other countries have the intent to coexist peacefully with China. We will coexist with countries who are willing to do the same courtesy to us.
If they lack that intent and start provoking China, we have the rights to fight back to protect our interests, and that is exactly what is happening now.
You should note this time China is not the one who is changing the balance in that region.
neo29
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,284
- Likes
- 30
The reason China is being targeted is coz the Democratic world is not happy to see a Communist Regime eligible for world leader/power. Communists are Anti Democracy and have always supported expansion theory. Its like the Romans say "We expand or We die".
Iamanidiot
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 5,325
- Likes
- 1,504
Which country will not get angry when the neighbourhood bully claims on your exclusive economc zone and calls the international waters as its territorial waters claim?
What happens?
They protest and do the needful for their maritime security by joining US.Don't tell me the CCP is unaware of all this and made that claim.
The only thing they can get out of this is to show the chinese people that US is opposing them and show it and use it as a diversion from something else.
The CCP is notorious for such policies
Last edited:
amoy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 5,982
- Likes
- 1,849
Such black-or-white ideological outcry sounds outdated. Give me a break - which is a democracy by your standard? VN or Philipines?
It's merely an interest conflict. With or without Uncle the contest continues. Now Taiwan holds the biggest island while VN seizes the most among Xisha (Percel?) Islands. What can be anticipated is China will enhance her presence in S. China Sea with law enforcement vessel actively patrolling and driving VN fishing boats off China waters, and more naval bases build-up on Hainan and islands.
Prospect proteges often end up even more vulnerable.
Russia vented his anger in Abkhaziya after so many years of swallowing all that... Then Uncle started to talk about soft power leaving Georgia licking his wound.
neo29
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,284
- Likes
- 30
Firstly do you know that its CIA's hidden agenda since the begining to make sure the control and containment of Communism. Take Cuba, Vietnam, Korean war, Taiwan crisis, Afghan during 1980's, in all these the CIA has always been involved in a fight against communism. Who says its the thing of the past?? Its as active as it was b4 and US has been successful in it.
There are unstable hardline regimes in this world like Myanmar, some African countries, Cuba etc but US or the world is not bothered about them coz they do not qualify as an external threat, more so they not pursuing nuclear weapons. But unlike Iran, NK and Myanmar who are actively behind nuclear weapons everyone is surely bothered. For that matter China qualifies a Nuclear communist power who hates Capitalism and always has expansion policy.
@nimo
China has already shifted the balance of power in the region long time back when it started supporting NK and aimed hundreds of missiles against Taiwan bullying them.
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,133
- Likes
- 746
Gordon Chang' another masterpiece:"Asia is beginning to stand up to China ?"
it is always a amusement to read Gordon Chang's words.:happy_2:
it is always a amusement to read Gordon Chang's words.:happy_2:
amoy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 5,982
- Likes
- 1,849
POWER PLAY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
By Geoff Dyer
For all its slick modernity, there are plenty of 19th-century echoes about contemporary China with the new railroads that are opening up the hinterland and all those ****ensian factories. Amid the mountainous production of steel, a confident new national identity is being forged in a country that wants to stake its claim in the world.
The same echoes can be felt across other parts of Asia where not just China, but India, South Korea and Australia are all investing heavily in their navies, building new blue-water fleets to take to the oceans. And so it is with the region's diplomacy, where the postwar era of US dominance is being replaced with a more uneasy balance of power.
This emerging geopolitical drama was underlined by a fascinating statement in Hanoi at the end of last month by Hillary Clinton. En route to her daughter's wedding, the US secretary of state told a regional meeting that the US was willing to act as a mediator in talks over the islands in the South China Sea disputed by, among others, China.
Many of the islands in question might be little more than rocks, but given that they are close to the sea lanes for a significant chunk of world trade, they have huge strategic importance. As such, Mrs Clinton's speech is one of the most striking symbols of the diplomatic battle that will define Asia for the next few decades – a tussle between the US and China to be the dominant voice.
The Clinton statement had two goals. One was to emphasise that in Asian diplomacy, the US is back. During the presidency of George W. Bush, some Asian governments felt that the US had lost interest in the region. Whether this impression was justified or not, she was telling Asia's leaders that the US is not packing its bags any time soon.
Most of all, the speech was a message to the region about China and its seemingly inevitable rise. Since the sinking of South Korea's Cheonan warship in March, Washington has taken advantage of Beijing's reluctance to criticise North Korea to boost its ties with Seoul and drive a wedge between China and South Korea. As suspicions grow in south-east Asia about China's intentions in the South China Sea, the US is presenting itself as the natural honest broker.
The broad outlines of this strategy are not new – since the end of the cold war, Washington has approached China through a mixture of engagement on economic issues and diplomatic containment. The nuclear deal with India was partly motivated by such considerations.
But the Obama administration also has to make up for lost time. Over the last decade or so, China has stolen"Ša"Šmarch on the US"Šin Asia. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be a strategic gift for Beijing. While the US was chasing al-Qaeda and hunting for WMD, China settled border disputes with a string of once suspicious neighbours – from Russia in the north to Vietnam in the south (although not India). As a decade of double-digit growth in China helped shift the axis of the Asian economy, Beijing drove pipelines into central Asia, invested in natural resources projects in Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines, and financed new ports in the Indian Ocean.
China has been happy to engage with the US on economic issues, joining the World Trade Organisation and stockpiling Treasury bonds, but Beijing has also accelerated a military build-up that has the US in its sights. Rather than preparing for a fight with the US, Chinese planners want gradually to squeeze the US out of its dominant position in Asian waters by developing a series of missile systems they describe as "anti-access" weapons.
Yet in the last year or so, China's charm offensive in Asia has run into trouble – not least in the South China Sea, which for many Asian countries is a barometer of how a powerful China might treat them. The Paracel and Spratly islands are claimed in full or in part by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Brunei. On China's maps, however, the islands are inside a U-shaped line of its territorial waters, which stretches down to cover most of the South China Sea.
Amid rising tensions, China has reportedly told other Asian countries not to discuss the issue among themselves. According to US officials, Beijing also now says it considers the area a "core interest", alongside Taiwan and Tibet. Some push-back was inevitable. Sure enough, Vietnam – the one country in the region with a Leninist political system comparable to China's – lobbied its old nemesis in Washington to get involved. (The USS George Washington aircraft carrier visited Vietnam at the weekend.) Even Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who has spent much of the past decade praising Beijing, called last year on the US to remain the Pacific's "superior power".
In Asia's new diplomatic contest, the momentum is still very much with Beijing. While the US faces debts and deficits, China could easily grow by 8 per cent a year for one if not two more decades and its naval power will also inexorably expand.
Yet Mrs Clinton has laid a trap for Beijing in the South China Sea. If China stands up to US interference in its backyard and presents itself as the regional power, it risks pushing wary neighbours into the US camp. Indeed, this is the broader diplomatic test that China faces in Asia over the coming decades. The more dependent Asian countries become on China's economy, the more uneasy they will be about its power. The ball is very much now in Beijing's court.
By Geoff Dyer
For all its slick modernity, there are plenty of 19th-century echoes about contemporary China with the new railroads that are opening up the hinterland and all those ****ensian factories. Amid the mountainous production of steel, a confident new national identity is being forged in a country that wants to stake its claim in the world.
The same echoes can be felt across other parts of Asia where not just China, but India, South Korea and Australia are all investing heavily in their navies, building new blue-water fleets to take to the oceans. And so it is with the region's diplomacy, where the postwar era of US dominance is being replaced with a more uneasy balance of power.
This emerging geopolitical drama was underlined by a fascinating statement in Hanoi at the end of last month by Hillary Clinton. En route to her daughter's wedding, the US secretary of state told a regional meeting that the US was willing to act as a mediator in talks over the islands in the South China Sea disputed by, among others, China.
Many of the islands in question might be little more than rocks, but given that they are close to the sea lanes for a significant chunk of world trade, they have huge strategic importance. As such, Mrs Clinton's speech is one of the most striking symbols of the diplomatic battle that will define Asia for the next few decades – a tussle between the US and China to be the dominant voice.
The Clinton statement had two goals. One was to emphasise that in Asian diplomacy, the US is back. During the presidency of George W. Bush, some Asian governments felt that the US had lost interest in the region. Whether this impression was justified or not, she was telling Asia's leaders that the US is not packing its bags any time soon.
Most of all, the speech was a message to the region about China and its seemingly inevitable rise. Since the sinking of South Korea's Cheonan warship in March, Washington has taken advantage of Beijing's reluctance to criticise North Korea to boost its ties with Seoul and drive a wedge between China and South Korea. As suspicions grow in south-east Asia about China's intentions in the South China Sea, the US is presenting itself as the natural honest broker.
The broad outlines of this strategy are not new – since the end of the cold war, Washington has approached China through a mixture of engagement on economic issues and diplomatic containment. The nuclear deal with India was partly motivated by such considerations.
But the Obama administration also has to make up for lost time. Over the last decade or so, China has stolen"Ša"Šmarch on the US"Šin Asia. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be a strategic gift for Beijing. While the US was chasing al-Qaeda and hunting for WMD, China settled border disputes with a string of once suspicious neighbours – from Russia in the north to Vietnam in the south (although not India). As a decade of double-digit growth in China helped shift the axis of the Asian economy, Beijing drove pipelines into central Asia, invested in natural resources projects in Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines, and financed new ports in the Indian Ocean.
China has been happy to engage with the US on economic issues, joining the World Trade Organisation and stockpiling Treasury bonds, but Beijing has also accelerated a military build-up that has the US in its sights. Rather than preparing for a fight with the US, Chinese planners want gradually to squeeze the US out of its dominant position in Asian waters by developing a series of missile systems they describe as "anti-access" weapons.
Yet in the last year or so, China's charm offensive in Asia has run into trouble – not least in the South China Sea, which for many Asian countries is a barometer of how a powerful China might treat them. The Paracel and Spratly islands are claimed in full or in part by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Brunei. On China's maps, however, the islands are inside a U-shaped line of its territorial waters, which stretches down to cover most of the South China Sea.
Amid rising tensions, China has reportedly told other Asian countries not to discuss the issue among themselves. According to US officials, Beijing also now says it considers the area a "core interest", alongside Taiwan and Tibet. Some push-back was inevitable. Sure enough, Vietnam – the one country in the region with a Leninist political system comparable to China's – lobbied its old nemesis in Washington to get involved. (The USS George Washington aircraft carrier visited Vietnam at the weekend.) Even Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who has spent much of the past decade praising Beijing, called last year on the US to remain the Pacific's "superior power".
In Asia's new diplomatic contest, the momentum is still very much with Beijing. While the US faces debts and deficits, China could easily grow by 8 per cent a year for one if not two more decades and its naval power will also inexorably expand.
Yet Mrs Clinton has laid a trap for Beijing in the South China Sea. If China stands up to US interference in its backyard and presents itself as the regional power, it risks pushing wary neighbours into the US camp. Indeed, this is the broader diplomatic test that China faces in Asia over the coming decades. The more dependent Asian countries become on China's economy, the more uneasy they will be about its power. The ball is very much now in Beijing's court.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 13,811
- Likes
- 6,734
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,772
'Arrogant' China oversteps, shoots itself in the foot
Venkatesan Vembu
What a difference a year makes! Exactly a year ago, the official Chinese media was hectoring India on its "unwise military moves" along the two countries' disputed border and publishing spurious opinion polls to claim that 90% of Chinese people believed that India posed a security threat to China.
In every other way too, such official media reportage reflected a belligerence in official Chinese strategic thinking that was calculated to rattle India.
We haven't seen too much of that lately. It's not that Chinese strategic thinkers and the official media have suddenly acquired a pacific frame of mind or have taken to 'contemplating their navel'. It's more that Chinese strategists have acquired a Pacific frame of mind and are contemplating the naval power of foreign forces in China's own backyard! Let me explain"¦
China is at the moment preoccupied with weighty problems on its western and southern coasts. China's muscle-flexing against its maritime neighbours in the South China Sea and on the Pacific Ocean has whipped up a spirited, concerted pushback against China — and driven those small states to invite the US to police their neighbourhood.
Just this week, the US aircraft carrier George Washington steamed into the South China Sea — in a powerful symbol of American power projection in East Asia directed at China. It was also US President Barack Obama's way of signalling that the US, which was 'missing in action' in Asia, given its preoccupation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was back.
The sight of US aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea has Chinese commentators hopping mad, and their hostile rhetoric — which they directed at India last year — is now being focussed on the US and, to a lesser extent, against Vietnam.
Not a day passes without the Chinese media publishing thunderous commentaries that warn the US it will "pay for provoking China" or accuse the Obama administration of "seeking to contain China."
A recent editorial in the jingoistic Global Times called the US 'provocation' on the western Pacific "a typical act born out of the Cold War mentality."
The US administration, it warned, "should note that its military activities near Chinese territorial waters will do nothing but stoke up the growing nationalism of the Chinese people, which will pressure the government to"¦ get tougher in defending its national interests."
But what China does not acknowledge is that there's a reason the US Navy warships have been 'invited' into the region by China's neighbours. And that reason is that China has fallen victim to its own nationalistic rhetoric, and effectively intimidated its neighbours.
China has long sought to convince the world, and in particular its neighbours, that its economic rise represents a force for good — and that its rise would be "peaceful". These claims always lacked conviction, given its muscular assertion of its territorial claims on the South China Sea, overriding similar claims from other littoral states, including Vietnam and the Philippines.
However, events of the past few months in the South China Sea have wholly demolished the myth of China's peaceful rise. Ever since a North Korean mini-submarine sank a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, China has thwarted international efforts to bringPyongyang to account for its maritime lawlessness. And when the US and South Korean navies organised a joint patrolling to keep open the sea lanes in the South China Sea, China staged its own maritime drill.
And when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced in Vietnam last month that the US considered it in its "national interest" to ensure peace in the South China Sea, China erupted in rage: Foreign minister Yang Jiechi said that Clinton's words amounted to a US "attack" on China.
What accounts for Chinese muscle-flexing against its neighbours?
Strategists believe that China is beginning to believe its own nationalist rhetoric about its unparalleled rise, and perceptions about a decline of American influence worldwide. Even Chinese scholars are beginning to acknowledge that China's economic success of the past three decades has given rise to "national arrogance" and "unprecedented conceit".
But as the events of recent weeks show, China doesn't quite have the 'soft power' to win over its neighbours or adequate 'hard power' to beat back lingering American influence in East Asia.
That even Vietnam, which fought a war with the US not long ago, turned to the US for defence against Chinese belligerence accentuates the limits of China's influence in its own backyard. China's 'peaceful rise' theory just became a little harder to sell.
Venkatesan Vembu
What a difference a year makes! Exactly a year ago, the official Chinese media was hectoring India on its "unwise military moves" along the two countries' disputed border and publishing spurious opinion polls to claim that 90% of Chinese people believed that India posed a security threat to China.
In every other way too, such official media reportage reflected a belligerence in official Chinese strategic thinking that was calculated to rattle India.
We haven't seen too much of that lately. It's not that Chinese strategic thinkers and the official media have suddenly acquired a pacific frame of mind or have taken to 'contemplating their navel'. It's more that Chinese strategists have acquired a Pacific frame of mind and are contemplating the naval power of foreign forces in China's own backyard! Let me explain"¦
China is at the moment preoccupied with weighty problems on its western and southern coasts. China's muscle-flexing against its maritime neighbours in the South China Sea and on the Pacific Ocean has whipped up a spirited, concerted pushback against China — and driven those small states to invite the US to police their neighbourhood.
Just this week, the US aircraft carrier George Washington steamed into the South China Sea — in a powerful symbol of American power projection in East Asia directed at China. It was also US President Barack Obama's way of signalling that the US, which was 'missing in action' in Asia, given its preoccupation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was back.
The sight of US aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea has Chinese commentators hopping mad, and their hostile rhetoric — which they directed at India last year — is now being focussed on the US and, to a lesser extent, against Vietnam.
Not a day passes without the Chinese media publishing thunderous commentaries that warn the US it will "pay for provoking China" or accuse the Obama administration of "seeking to contain China."
A recent editorial in the jingoistic Global Times called the US 'provocation' on the western Pacific "a typical act born out of the Cold War mentality."
The US administration, it warned, "should note that its military activities near Chinese territorial waters will do nothing but stoke up the growing nationalism of the Chinese people, which will pressure the government to"¦ get tougher in defending its national interests."
But what China does not acknowledge is that there's a reason the US Navy warships have been 'invited' into the region by China's neighbours. And that reason is that China has fallen victim to its own nationalistic rhetoric, and effectively intimidated its neighbours.
China has long sought to convince the world, and in particular its neighbours, that its economic rise represents a force for good — and that its rise would be "peaceful". These claims always lacked conviction, given its muscular assertion of its territorial claims on the South China Sea, overriding similar claims from other littoral states, including Vietnam and the Philippines.
However, events of the past few months in the South China Sea have wholly demolished the myth of China's peaceful rise. Ever since a North Korean mini-submarine sank a South Korean naval vessel earlier this year, China has thwarted international efforts to bringPyongyang to account for its maritime lawlessness. And when the US and South Korean navies organised a joint patrolling to keep open the sea lanes in the South China Sea, China staged its own maritime drill.
And when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced in Vietnam last month that the US considered it in its "national interest" to ensure peace in the South China Sea, China erupted in rage: Foreign minister Yang Jiechi said that Clinton's words amounted to a US "attack" on China.
What accounts for Chinese muscle-flexing against its neighbours?
Strategists believe that China is beginning to believe its own nationalist rhetoric about its unparalleled rise, and perceptions about a decline of American influence worldwide. Even Chinese scholars are beginning to acknowledge that China's economic success of the past three decades has given rise to "national arrogance" and "unprecedented conceit".
But as the events of recent weeks show, China doesn't quite have the 'soft power' to win over its neighbours or adequate 'hard power' to beat back lingering American influence in East Asia.
That even Vietnam, which fought a war with the US not long ago, turned to the US for defence against Chinese belligerence accentuates the limits of China's influence in its own backyard. China's 'peaceful rise' theory just became a little harder to sell.
The 4th Annual Michael Hintze lecture was delivered by Professor John Mearsheimer to over 450 people in The Great Hall on Wednesday 4th August. In the lecture Professor Mearsheimer discussed the balance of power in Asia and how it is expected to change significantly over the next few decades as China increases its military capabilities. University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer argued Australia should worry that China and the US might end up in an escalating strategic competition laden with the potential for miscalculation.This was delivered under the auspices of the Centre of International Security.
An interesting analysis from the US/Western viewpoint and how they see the next 20-30 years in the Asia pacific region.
The Gathering Storm: China's Challenge to U.S. Power in Asia
An interesting analysis from the US/Western viewpoint and how they see the next 20-30 years in the Asia pacific region.
The Gathering Storm: China's Challenge to U.S. Power in Asia
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
China's opinion poll will always indicate that 90% of Chinese find India a security threat. It is not surprising. After all, polls in Communist countries indicate exactly what the Government wants them to feel. Good for them and good for us too, since we do not take their polls seriously and at face value.
China will always worry about India and its policies. After all, they have tested India many a time, starting from Nathu La in 1965 to the present attempted incursions. Each time, a suitable reaction given by India has made them realise, India is no longer a pushover. The beefing up of defences with addl mtn divs and mtn arty, does give good reasons for China to worry.
China is well aware that it cannot attack India. Not only that India will give China its money's worth and more, but the international community is surely not too enamoured with China's hegemonic pursuits and that can spell a disaster in many ways for China. It is thus natural that the official Chinese media has run up hysteria because of a uncontrolled tizzy. None worth their salt in India have been rattled.
China has turned her strategic sabre rattling East because they have realised that India is standing rock firm and so it wishes to consolidate against weaker neighbours along the South China Sea. It has backfired. The smaller nations are scrambling to enter US' warm and willing embrace. China ill conceived hegemonic desires has only warmed the US into its stereotype role of the 'global policeman' – a role that was on the backburner with Afghanistan and Iraq hogging their attention.
Too bad that the US aircraft carriers in the Pacific and the South China Seas is giving China the shivers. It is only China's misconceived hegemonic belligerency that has prompted the reviving the US. And that spells disaster for the quite military ascendancy of China in Asia.
Containing China is no great shakes for the US. What should be of concern is that the US meddles with the rebellious elements of Tibet and Xinxiang. While HH the Dalai Lama is under check of the Indian government's agreement for his asylum, the same cannot be said of the Uighurs, whose leader, a lady, is well established in the US.
China is still in no position to take on the US and that is why the shrill protestations. As if the noise of the shrillness will drown their fears!
China has always been guilty of double speak. They talk loudly of peace, lulling all and at the same time, prepare with alacrity for war. Having poised themselves in a favourable position, they conjure excuses and then flex their muscles to show their true intent.
The future does not auger well for China!
China will always worry about India and its policies. After all, they have tested India many a time, starting from Nathu La in 1965 to the present attempted incursions. Each time, a suitable reaction given by India has made them realise, India is no longer a pushover. The beefing up of defences with addl mtn divs and mtn arty, does give good reasons for China to worry.
China is well aware that it cannot attack India. Not only that India will give China its money's worth and more, but the international community is surely not too enamoured with China's hegemonic pursuits and that can spell a disaster in many ways for China. It is thus natural that the official Chinese media has run up hysteria because of a uncontrolled tizzy. None worth their salt in India have been rattled.
China has turned her strategic sabre rattling East because they have realised that India is standing rock firm and so it wishes to consolidate against weaker neighbours along the South China Sea. It has backfired. The smaller nations are scrambling to enter US' warm and willing embrace. China ill conceived hegemonic desires has only warmed the US into its stereotype role of the 'global policeman' – a role that was on the backburner with Afghanistan and Iraq hogging their attention.
Too bad that the US aircraft carriers in the Pacific and the South China Seas is giving China the shivers. It is only China's misconceived hegemonic belligerency that has prompted the reviving the US. And that spells disaster for the quite military ascendancy of China in Asia.
Containing China is no great shakes for the US. What should be of concern is that the US meddles with the rebellious elements of Tibet and Xinxiang. While HH the Dalai Lama is under check of the Indian government's agreement for his asylum, the same cannot be said of the Uighurs, whose leader, a lady, is well established in the US.
China is still in no position to take on the US and that is why the shrill protestations. As if the noise of the shrillness will drown their fears!
China has always been guilty of double speak. They talk loudly of peace, lulling all and at the same time, prepare with alacrity for war. Having poised themselves in a favourable position, they conjure excuses and then flex their muscles to show their true intent.
The future does not auger well for China!
amoy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 5,982
- Likes
- 1,849
I'd love to offer my double speak
1) no, few Chinese feel India a security threat or are worried. I boldly challenge that alleged poll result (90%?) majority of us don't think so, nor does the gvnmt want us to believe that. on the contrary India probably is resorting to an external "threat" to mobilise or consolidate domestic consensus to achieve her bigger ambitions (beyond dealing with China).
2) u probably have a very negative view about interactions btwn people and the gvnmt in a 'communist' country (quote "polls in Communist countries indicate exactly what the Government wants them to feel"）as if people here were brainless.
viewing foreign relations through ideological prisms is often very misleading.
what if China becomes a 'democracy' like India (very likely)? what will Chinese choose in a free election?
one thing for sure smart Chinese would elect one advancing Chinese interest - the scenario of a rising power (havenot's)challenging an established global power (have's) may not be quite different from what's going on now.
3) " It is only China's misconceived hegemonic belligerency that has prompted the reviving the US. And that spells disaster for the quite military ascendancy of China in Asia."
+++++++ long before China's 'belligerency' or 'ascendancy' wasn't the US still containing China? werent the US aircraft carriers cruising the Taiwan Straits?
In my opinion whatever posture China takes doesn't make much difference for the US as the single superpower. the US will anyway play 'global policeman' for self interest. what China can do is not fear or shiver, but take care of her own business, make progress and get prepared against all odds.
Isn't 'democratic' Russia transformed from 'communist' USSR a good example? NATO a cold-war product instead of going out of existence, is even pushing towards Russian doorstep? Disillusioned, Russia had to initiate SCO for strategic space and fought back in Ukraine (gas) and Georgia, and most recently Kyrgystan.
4) "Having poised themselves in a favourable position, they conjure excuses and then flex their muscles to show their true intent."
++++++++ that sounds saying about every (big) nation in the world.
1) no, few Chinese feel India a security threat or are worried. I boldly challenge that alleged poll result (90%?) majority of us don't think so, nor does the gvnmt want us to believe that. on the contrary India probably is resorting to an external "threat" to mobilise or consolidate domestic consensus to achieve her bigger ambitions (beyond dealing with China).
2) u probably have a very negative view about interactions btwn people and the gvnmt in a 'communist' country (quote "polls in Communist countries indicate exactly what the Government wants them to feel"）as if people here were brainless.
viewing foreign relations through ideological prisms is often very misleading.
what if China becomes a 'democracy' like India (very likely)? what will Chinese choose in a free election?
one thing for sure smart Chinese would elect one advancing Chinese interest - the scenario of a rising power (havenot's)challenging an established global power (have's) may not be quite different from what's going on now.
3) " It is only China's misconceived hegemonic belligerency that has prompted the reviving the US. And that spells disaster for the quite military ascendancy of China in Asia."
+++++++ long before China's 'belligerency' or 'ascendancy' wasn't the US still containing China? werent the US aircraft carriers cruising the Taiwan Straits?
In my opinion whatever posture China takes doesn't make much difference for the US as the single superpower. the US will anyway play 'global policeman' for self interest. what China can do is not fear or shiver, but take care of her own business, make progress and get prepared against all odds.
Isn't 'democratic' Russia transformed from 'communist' USSR a good example? NATO a cold-war product instead of going out of existence, is even pushing towards Russian doorstep? Disillusioned, Russia had to initiate SCO for strategic space and fought back in Ukraine (gas) and Georgia, and most recently Kyrgystan.
4) "Having poised themselves in a favourable position, they conjure excuses and then flex their muscles to show their true intent."
++++++++ that sounds saying about every (big) nation in the world.
The west must stand up to China
Western liberals who assume they can gradually influence China are wrong – it is an expansionist power without a conscience
Pity the Chinese. The inhabitants of the world's next superpower cannot search the internet or assemble or travel or speak or read or write or even reproduce without restriction. Yet in the lands where freedom is abundant, China, rather than earning well-deserved rebukes, continues to be championed as the ineluctable future. This disgraceful journey began with a liberal assumption: the west, it was claimed, is more likely to influence China by partnering with it, by giving it a prominent position inside, rather than pushing it outside, global institutions.
But in the decades since, far from moulding the Chinese state's behaviour, it is the west that has incrementally given up on its own values in order to appease Beijing. It has been customary since the early 1990s for American presidents to invite the Dalai Lama to Washington. Last year Barack Obama did away even with this minor gesture of solidarity with the Tibetans for fear of offending Beijing. Even the brief private audience Obama eventually granted the beleaguered Tibetan leader was accompanied by humiliation: the Dalai Lama was made to exit the White House through the back doors.
Contrary to the claims made by western apologists, China is not a substantially freer country today than it was a decade ago. The tools that have empowered the Chinese people – the internet, for instance – have strengthened the state in equal, perhaps even greater, measure: an ordinary Chinese citizen's ability today to communicate instantly with the outside world is matched by the state's capacity to silence him equally rapidly. Freedoms mean nothing if they are not accompanied by corresponding restrictions on the state's power to check them on a whim. Liu Xiaobo may be celebrated as a hero in the west, but in China he does not even have recourse to an appeal.
Liu's plight casts light also on the fundamental uselessness of the so-called "social networking" sites. If Facebook could foment revolutions, Liu's Charter 08 would have attracted many more signatories than the 8,000 it managed. If Twitter could bring down governments, the number of "netizens" detained following Liu's win would not be limited to 20. In 1989, millions of Chinese marched through Beijing and thousands were killed. The symbol of their struggle was the Goddess of Democracy. They did not "tweet".
In any event, Beijing, with its empirical success in crushing dissent with extraordinary force, is unlikely to yield to nonviolent calls for substantive reforms, especially when control of the Chinese state today offers significantly richer rewards than it did a decade ago. But the plight of the oppressed has rarely deterred western liberals from exalting the oppressor. Mao's cultural revolution – ignited in response to a play by Beijing's vice-mayor that was considered to be mildly critical of the ageing megalomaniac – dispossessed hundreds of thousands, resulted in as many deaths, and in some rural parts led to cannibalism.
But one visiting leftwing British academic at the time (the late Joan Robinson) could not see beyond the romantic "long marches" in which the Chinese "learned more about their own country in a few months than they ever could have learned out of books".
This trend continues today. Even a shrewd observer such as Martin Jacques makes the absurd case in his authoritative recent book, When China rules the world, that China's rise is "peaceful". Jacques is driven by sympathy for the non-western world. But his premature exoneration of China as a potentially peaceful power is based on a western-centric reading of the world, because it overlooks the violence Beijing is inflicting on people in the non-western world, either directly or by shielding dictators from international action. China's neighbours expressed their own fears at the Asean summit in Hanoi.
And to millions in Darfur and Burma, Xinjiang and Tibet, China's rise is anything but peaceful. Besides, Beijing's early support to the rogue nuclear programme of Pakistan's AQ Khan – who subsequently went on to sell nuclear secrets to bidders in Iran and North Korea, among others – demonstrates China's indifference to global security when it comes to furthering its own interests.
Erasing its own history, massacring its own people, shielding genocidal dictatorships abroad, bullying its neighbours, China is an expansionist power without a conscience. There is much that is wrong with the west – and liberal democracies elsewhere – but imagine a world in which China can no longer be held to account. That future is not very far. But if the west continues to cower, it will be here sooner than we think.
The west must stand up to China
Western liberals who assume they can gradually influence China are wrong – it is an expansionist power without a conscience
Pity the Chinese. The inhabitants of the world's next superpower cannot search the internet or assemble or travel or speak or read or write or even reproduce without restriction. Yet in the lands where freedom is abundant, China, rather than earning well-deserved rebukes, continues to be championed as the ineluctable future. This disgraceful journey began with a liberal assumption: the west, it was claimed, is more likely to influence China by partnering with it, by giving it a prominent position inside, rather than pushing it outside, global institutions.
But in the decades since, far from moulding the Chinese state's behaviour, it is the west that has incrementally given up on its own values in order to appease Beijing. It has been customary since the early 1990s for American presidents to invite the Dalai Lama to Washington. Last year Barack Obama did away even with this minor gesture of solidarity with the Tibetans for fear of offending Beijing. Even the brief private audience Obama eventually granted the beleaguered Tibetan leader was accompanied by humiliation: the Dalai Lama was made to exit the White House through the back doors.
Contrary to the claims made by western apologists, China is not a substantially freer country today than it was a decade ago. The tools that have empowered the Chinese people – the internet, for instance – have strengthened the state in equal, perhaps even greater, measure: an ordinary Chinese citizen's ability today to communicate instantly with the outside world is matched by the state's capacity to silence him equally rapidly. Freedoms mean nothing if they are not accompanied by corresponding restrictions on the state's power to check them on a whim. Liu Xiaobo may be celebrated as a hero in the west, but in China he does not even have recourse to an appeal.
Liu's plight casts light also on the fundamental uselessness of the so-called "social networking" sites. If Facebook could foment revolutions, Liu's Charter 08 would have attracted many more signatories than the 8,000 it managed. If Twitter could bring down governments, the number of "netizens" detained following Liu's win would not be limited to 20. In 1989, millions of Chinese marched through Beijing and thousands were killed. The symbol of their struggle was the Goddess of Democracy. They did not "tweet".
In any event, Beijing, with its empirical success in crushing dissent with extraordinary force, is unlikely to yield to nonviolent calls for substantive reforms, especially when control of the Chinese state today offers significantly richer rewards than it did a decade ago. But the plight of the oppressed has rarely deterred western liberals from exalting the oppressor. Mao's cultural revolution – ignited in response to a play by Beijing's vice-mayor that was considered to be mildly critical of the ageing megalomaniac – dispossessed hundreds of thousands, resulted in as many deaths, and in some rural parts led to cannibalism.
But one visiting leftwing British academic at the time (the late Joan Robinson) could not see beyond the romantic "long marches" in which the Chinese "learned more about their own country in a few months than they ever could have learned out of books".
This trend continues today. Even a shrewd observer such as Martin Jacques makes the absurd case in his authoritative recent book, When China rules the world, that China's rise is "peaceful". Jacques is driven by sympathy for the non-western world. But his premature exoneration of China as a potentially peaceful power is based on a western-centric reading of the world, because it overlooks the violence Beijing is inflicting on people in the non-western world, either directly or by shielding dictators from international action. China's neighbours expressed their own fears at the Asean summit in Hanoi.
And to millions in Darfur and Burma, Xinjiang and Tibet, China's rise is anything but peaceful. Besides, Beijing's early support to the rogue nuclear programme of Pakistan's AQ Khan – who subsequently went on to sell nuclear secrets to bidders in Iran and North Korea, among others – demonstrates China's indifference to global security when it comes to furthering its own interests.
Erasing its own history, massacring its own people, shielding genocidal dictatorships abroad, bullying its neighbours, China is an expansionist power without a conscience. There is much that is wrong with the west – and liberal democracies elsewhere – but imagine a world in which China can no longer be held to account. That future is not very far. But if the west continues to cower, it will be here sooner than we think.
anoop_mig25
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,804
- Likes
- 3,151
West would never be able to stand aginst CHINA
. They do not have will(very important) and next money
. They do not have will(very important) and next money
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 8,354
You mean to say China not pakistan? pakistan is a rabid pet god of US which can be Shot-dead/deposed-off by master USA at any given time.
Last edited:
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Please do not insult dogs this way. Even dogs suffering from hydrophobia will have some gratitude and will not betray someone as much as Pakistan will. They (Pakistan) are more like rodents or bed-bugs that keep coming back. Even if the State of Pakistan ceased to exist, the mess will take eons to clear up.You mean to say China not pakistan? pakistan is a rabid pet god of US which can be Shot-dead/deposed-off by master USA at any given time.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
I don't want WEST powers to rise more than Chinese or the Chinese rule the entire ASIAN continental.. :happy_2:
I WANT INDIA to be full sufficient and powerful equal or more against anyone, now its China or the US..
Enemy Only respects his opponents power ( Muscles ) that can be archived only by INDIA`S own rapid developments in defense and Civil sectors..
Yes, Russia and others can stand beside us but its INDIA who face the thread no one else..
JAI HIND!
