From Mongolia, Clinton Takes a Jab at China

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
From Mongolia, Clinton Takes a Jab at China

ULAN BATOR, Mongolia — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in an unmistakable message to China delivered in a speech from this neighboring country, said Monday that economic success without meaningful political openness was an unsustainable equation that would ultimately lead to instability.

Mrs. Clinton arrived in this mineral-rich nation on the border of China on the second day of an Asia tour dedicated to broadening the Obama administration's renewed focus on the region beyond an early emphasis on building up American military strength. The effort was seen as aimed at easing away from a confrontation with China.

But Mrs. Clinton's comments, made at an international forum on democracy, came at a sensitive time for China, where a leadership transition at the top of the Communist Party is proving messy, and as criticism of the government spreads from environmental concerns to social issues, including forced abortion.

Mrs. Clinton did not mention China by name, but it was clearly the target of her remarks.

"You can't have economic liberalization without political liberalization eventually," she said. "It's true that clamping down on political expression or maintaining a tight grip on what people read, say or see can create an illusion of security. But illusions fade — because people's yearning for liberty don't."

In a dig at China as it wrestles with an economic downturn after a decade of double-digit growth, Mrs. Clinton added, "Countries that want to be open for business but closed to free expression will find that this approach comes at cost: it kills innovation and discourages entrepreneurship, which are vital for sustainable growth."

The notion that democratic values were for Western societies only, an idea spawned in the 1990s by Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, was antiquated, she said. "In the last five years, Asia has been the only region in the world to achieve steady gains in political rights and civil rights, according to the N.G.O. Freedom House," Mrs. Clinton said.

But in contrast to governments that had made democratic gains, she said, there were those "that work around the clock to restrict their people's access to ideas and information, imprison them for expressing their views, usurp the rights of citizens to choose their leaders and govern without accountability, closed off from public view."

Mrs. Clinton is well known to the Chinese as a critic of their model of government, a fact that she recalled on Monday by referring to her visit to Beijing 17 years ago as first lady.

On that occasion, in 1995, she addressed a United Nations conference on women and created a firestorm when she declared that "human rights are women's rights — and women's rights are human rights." Immediately after that conference, she visited Mongolia for the first time and was struck, she said, by the emergence of a democracy, a contrast that appears to have left an indelible impression.

In the eyes of the Chinese government, Mrs. Clinton was further identified as a promoter of human rights when, during a visit to Beijing in May, she negotiated the departure of the dissident Chen Guangchen to the United States.

Formerly aligned with the Soviet Union, Mongolia has been held up by the administration as a model of how democracy can be born from authoritarianism. Its democratic credentials were tarnished in April when the government arrested former President Nambaryn Enkhbayar on corruption allegations; he was held for a month until formally charged and released on bail in May, according to the State Department.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton did not refer to the arrest, choosing to praise parliamentary elections last month in which nine women were elected to the 76-member Parliament, three times the number in the previous legislature.

She met President Tsakhia Elbegdorj in a ceremonial yurt, the traditional abode of nomadic herders, that featured a carved wooden ceiling, elaborate chairs and a glistening chandelier.

With Mr. Elbegdorj seated on the stage at Government House, a Soviet-style building from the 1950s, Mrs. Clinton extolled Mongolia as an excellent example of how freedom and democracy were not exclusively Western concepts. To those who doubted, she said, "Let them come to Mongolia."

The Obama administration has taken a special interest in Mongolia, largely because of its position next to China. Mr. Elbegdorj visited the White House last year, and Vice President Joe Biden went to Mongolia last year, as well.

Washington is backing an American company, Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, to win a contract to mine a massive coal deposit at Tavan Tolgoi. The other main contender, Shenhua Energy, is a state-owned Chinese enterprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/w...linton-offers-message-to-china.html?ref=china
US is going hammer and tongs to isolate China.

Now Ms Clinton is in Mongolia and who knows she maybe giving impetus to the Mongolians to encourage the Mongolians in Inner Mongolia to clamour for reunification.

Or else why make adverse comments on China, which is already facing internal Communist Party insurrection started by Bo?
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
nice talk - must be followed-up with nice action - - - how about allowing manufacturing setups in mongolia instead of the usual channelling to dragon ?
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
nice talk - must be followed-up with nice action - - - how about allowing manufacturing setups in mongolia instead of the usual channelling to dragon ?
Nothing new. Political will of a nation often cannot be translated to industrial actions. Big corporations act on their best commercial interest, not necessarily in coherence with what Hilary Clinton advocates. Once she leaves Outer Mongolia would continue on tiptoe btwn Russia and China.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The US is taking baby steps.

Guess who all are investing in Mongolia and who all that defence understandings?


Mongolia's parliament is considering a new law that could dramatically curtail foreign investment across the country, restricting foreign ownership to 49 per cent or less in wide swathes of the economy.

Mongolia is rich in resources and its $8.5bn economy has been buoyed by foreign investment in the mining sector. However, a backlash against a big Chinese investment deal last month has made foreign investment a central issue in the forthcoming parliamentary elections in June.

http://emergingfrontiersblog.com/2012/05/04/mongolia-eyes-new-foreign-investment-law/
Apparently not tip toeing to China.

But trapaising away!
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
So China loses XJ, Tibet, HK and Inner Mongolia?
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,015
Likes
2,311
Country flag
US is going hammer and tongs to isolate China.

Now Ms Clinton is in Mongolia and who knows she maybe giving impetus to the Mongolians to encourage the Mongolians in Inner Mongolia to clamour for reunification.

Or else why make adverse comments on China, which is already facing internal Communist Party insurrection started by Bo?
Chinese obviously doesn't share your opinion:

Asking these countries to isolate their biggiest customer?

Regarding the mongolians in inner mongolia, you need to do some homework of history and tradition:
They belong to different portions among mongolians.
They fighted far more war against each other rather than hans.
Hell, when Qing emperor order the massacre killing every single person of the biggiest tribe in outer mongolia-from childern to women, guess who provided major support. Yes, those mongolians in inner mongolia.
When outer mongolians declared independence, again, those inner mongolians provided soldiers to build the army trying to stop them.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Chinese obviously doesn't share your opinion:

Asking these countries to isolate their biggiest customer?

Regarding the mongolians in inner mongolia, you need to do some homework of history and tradition:
They belong to different portions among mongolians.
They fighted far more war against each other rather than hans.
Hell, when Qing emperor order the massacre killing every single person of the biggiest tribe in outer mongolia-from childern to women, guess who provided major support. Yes, those mongolians in inner mongolia.
When outer mongolians declared independence, again, those inner mongolians provided soldiers to build the army trying to stop them.
It is obvious that I would not be thinking like a Chinese, for if I did, I would be a Chinese and not me.

Business and strategic necessity are not two peas in a pod. They can run concurrently, even if not complementary. China does business with India, but the strategic equations are hardly similar.

US has its strategic interest in the Asia Pacific region. There is no second guessing that the US and Chinese strategic interest do not coincides.

China is a challenge to the US interests not only in the Asia Pacific Region but elsewhere too. Therefore, the jockeying to outdo each other is not unanticipated. The US is out manoeuvring China in Asia Pacific, while China in concert with Russia is putting a spanner in the US' works in Syria and Iran.

Now, if China is at loggerheads with the US in Syria and Iran, how would your argument on US being chary to close in on China because of business necessity gel?

If Hans of China consider themselves as of the same stock, then Mongolians can claim the same distinction.

Warring amongst each other? Is that something new in any race/ community's history? Every race/community has a history of internecine strife.

How did the present China come about? Peacefully?

Here is something will show you how it came about:



Now, go figure your history.

I might as well help you recollect that Chengiz Khan consolidated the Mongol State and even subjugated parts of China.


Genghis Khan's conquest

This is how (as below) the Mongol Empire fragmented



The Kyakhta agreement of 1915 between the Russian empire, Mongolia and the Republic of China "downgraded" the independence of Outer Mongolia to autonomy within China.
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,015
Likes
2,311
Country flag
It is obvious that I would not be thinking like a Chinese, for if I did, I would be a Chinese and not me.
Just I pointed out before most of mistakes you and other indians made are the result of using indian logic to analyse chinese affairs.

As an old chinese saying: To know your enemy's next move, thinking as your enemy.

Business and strategic necessity are not two peas in a pod. They can run concurrently, even if not complementary. China does business with India, but the strategic equations are hardly similar.

US has its strategic interest in the Asia Pacific region. There is no second guessing that the US and Chinese strategic interest do not coincides.

China is a challenge to the US interests not only in the Asia Pacific Region but elsewhere too. Therefore, the jockeying to outdo each other is not unanticipated. The US is out manoeuvring China in Asia Pacific, while China in concert with Russia is putting a spanner in the US' works in Syria and Iran.

Now, if China is at loggerheads with the US in Syria and Iran, how would your argument on US being chary to close in on China because of business necessity gel?
Strategy is always serving economic interest. Any strategy would fail eventually if it cannot generate economic benefit.
China maybe challenging USA. However, the profit brought be the co-orpation is far beyond these challenge. With Chinese cheap low-end products and financial support, USA is able to continue its expensive military building up and R&D. So far, most of chinese challenges you refer to are economic expansions. USA can stop them at any time if it really think they are damaging its interest. Do you really think that US cannot terminate chinese contracts in africa or latin american when it can control the head of these areas' gov?

If Hans of China consider themselves as of the same stock, then Mongolians can claim the same distinction.
Warring amongst each other? Is that something new in any race/ community's history? Every race/community has a history of internecine strife.
How did the present China come about? Peacefully?
Here is something will show you how it came about:
Now, go figure your history.
I might as well help you recollect that Chengiz Khan consolidated the Mongol State and even subjugated parts of China.
No, Hans don't think they are the same race. We knows, however, they will choose our side if there is any conflict between china and outer mongolia.
Why we have this confidence?
Because:
Historilly, we standed with them in the war fighting those outer mongolians;
Traditionally, they had far closer relationship with us than outer mongolians. To them, hans were the neighbours living in the next door while those outer mongolians are the strangers of another town;
Most importantly, we are combined together with economic interest for hundredes years.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Just I pointed out before most of mistakes you and other indians made are the result of using indian logic to analyse chinese affairs.

As an old chinese saying: To know your enemy's next move, thinking as your enemy.
So, it only the Indians who makes errors in understanding the Chinese?



Strategy is always serving economic interest. Any strategy would fail eventually if it cannot generate economic benefit.
The problem with the Chinese is that boil everything down to Money. Even the imperialistic expansionism that they indulge in is basically to usurp the world resources so as to make money and more money.

Economic Interest is just one input for national strategy. National power is based on a strategy that includes military, information, diplomatic, legal, intelligence, finance, and economic inputs. The aim is to ensure that one's country synergises these to national advantage. Therefore, it is essential to have a geostrategic matrix that ensures ascendancy globally in all these field and it has to be backed by physical might.


China maybe challenging USA. However, the profit brought be the co-orpation is far beyond these challenge. With Chinese cheap low-end products and financial support, USA is able to continue its expensive military building up and R&D. So far, most of chinese challenges you refer to are economic expansions. USA can stop them at any time if it really think they are damaging its interest. Do you really think that US cannot terminate chinese contracts in africa or latin american when it can control the head of these areas' gov?
Sun Tsu had said For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Therefore the aim, it appears, for the US is to subdue China and contain it. The more areas China bring under its control, by whatever means, will mean greater amount of world's natural and mineral resources will come under China's control, leading to China becoming economically powerful and hence will have abundant money to squander on increasing her military might.

If China increases its military might, then one day, China will surpass the US and start dictating terms to the US and the world. That scenario, obviously be disastrous to the US.

Therefore, as Sun Tsu has suggested, allow China its space but do not allow China to grow beyond acceptable control – thus, not going to war, but winning the 'battle'.




No, Hans don't think they are the same race. We knows, however, they will choose our side if there is any conflict between china and outer mongolia.
Hans are 93% or so of the Chinese population. Are all these Hans of the same stock?

No!

They have been assimilated people known as 'barbarians' to the Han.

I have written enough on this, to include the issue of X and Y Chromosomes, and so I will it out.


Why we have this confidence?
Because:
Historilly, we standed with them in the war fighting those outer mongolians;
Traditionally, they had far closer relationship with us than outer mongolians. To them, hans were the neighbours living in the next door while those outer mongolians are the strangers of another town;
Most importantly, we are combined together with economic interest for hundredes years.
Mongols are Mongols and so they are not Hans.

Why should Mongols not prefer to be Mongols and instead want to side with Hans?

History of Mongolia I have just given a glimpse.

If you see the history, you will find that they were never allied to the Hans and instead the unequal The Kyakhta agreement of 1915 is what allowed China the part that is Mongol area within China.
 

tony4562

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
836
Likes
49
Inner Mongolia is 80% Han and other ethnicities plus 20% fully-sinisized mongols (oddly enough there are twice as many mongols living in China than they do in outer mongolia). I would say there is greater chance Outer Mongolia returns to China than Inner Mongolia gaining independence.

China already accounts for most of Outer Mongolia's trade. I think with China's economy expanding further, and Russia increasingly turning against the west, Mongolia will have no choice but to rethink her pro-west policies.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Inner Mongolia is 80% Han and other ethnicities plus 20% fully-sinisized mongols (oddly enough there are twice as many mongols living in China than they do in outer mongolia). I would say there is greater chance Outer Mongolia returns to China than Inner Mongolia gaining independence.

China already accounts for most of Outer Mongolia's trade. I think with China's economy expanding further, and Russia increasingly turning against the west, Mongolia will have no choice but to rethink her pro-west policies.
The part in bold is day dreams.

Who will give away their independence to be second class in another country?

What has economy got to do with this?

Typical Chinese outlook of boiling everything down to money.

If that was so, then you would not have the problems in Xinjaing, Tibet, and Chinese part of Mongolia because I learn from you that a whole lot of money is being poured into these areas!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Mongolia - 3,133,318

Mongolia in China - Population: 4 million (total population including Chinese: 24 million)

The Mongols comprise around 17% of the total population of Inner Mongolia, which includes many diverse Mongolian-speaking groups, such as the Buryats and the Oirats, all of whom are officially considered as Mongol. According to a 2004 census, 4 million Mongols were living in Inner Mongolia. In addition to this, there are more than half a million Mongols living in other regions of China such as Eastern Turkistan (Xin Jiang) , Khokhnuur ( Qing Hai), Kharamuren ( Hei Long Jiang ), Kirin ( Ji Lin ), Liao Ning, and Bei Jing .

The Hans have come an settled en mass in Inner Mongolia to change the demography, as they are now doing in Xinjiang and Tibet.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top