Later in the article, the writer refers to Xi JinPing as having crossed the Rubicon if he cracks down violently on the Hong Kong protests, and outlines some possible ramifications of that in the...
Later in the article, the writer refers to Xi JinPing as having crossed the Rubicon if he cracks down violently on the Hong Kong protests, and outlines some possible ramifications of that in the South China Sea, Taiwan, and even for the US economy.
While those issues you mention might be outrageous, they are mostly limited to the USA. This issue, on the other hand, could have repercussions all around the world. Imagine what a confident militaristic China would do if it learns that it can act violently without consequences.
It's more that you're the only ones with enough power to compete with China. For example, we here in Australia don't have the clout to do it. Even the European Union might not have the clout. And...
All due respect, the implication of what you're saying here is that China could or will become violent if not kept in check, and it's the job of the righteous United States to fix it, because we're the only ones who've got our heads on straight and can wield that power responsibly.*
It's more that you're the only ones with enough power to compete with China. For example, we here in Australia don't have the clout to do it. Even the European Union might not have the clout. And the Russians don't want to keep China in check. The USA is the only realistic choice to keep China in check. You've spent the past 70 years setting yourself up as the world's policeman, and you need to step up.
Or, if you won't work unilaterally, you should support multilateral organisations, such as APEC and the United Nations and NATO, who will do this work instead. If you don't want to be the world's policeman, that's fine. But stop undermining those organisations which are trying to do the job you don't want to do. It would also help if you stopped undermining international laws and rules and conventions.
But this went off on a tangent.
You wanted to know why people were saying that Trump's response (or lack of response) to China would be his biggest mistake, so I was explaining that this decision will have bigger repercussions than anything he does domestically.
There are four major powers of influence currently in the world. US, EU, Russia, and China. Five, if you count the monetary influence of the GCC. Russia is attacking the US and EU, weakening...
But why do they need to be competed with, presumably in a struggle for power that it is preferred that China lose?
There are four major powers of influence currently in the world. US, EU, Russia, and China. Five, if you count the monetary influence of the GCC.
Russia is attacking the US and EU, weakening Western Democracies while performing aggression on former Soviet States. The government is held by a man who's held power, though not the Presidency, since essentially the Soviet Union's collapse. When Putin's term is up, it's doubtful he'll truly yield power. The Oligarchs that own much of Russia's industry are highly tied to their organized crime, and arguably there isn't much separating the two.
China is led by an authoritarian President with a lifelong rule. They're unprecedented in their Orwellianism, and their people have little voice. There's ethnic cleansing ongoing, and the government is frighteningly nationalistic. They are investing heavily in African infrastructure, which opens up vast wealth in the form of resources that won't be so accessible to anyone else. Their sphere of influence is wide, and they are expanding it. Especially now that the US is becoming less reliable resisting it under this administration.
Saudi Arabia funds religious extremism, and their investments into renewables will keep them relevant even in a post-oil world.
The US and EU are the only powers that are democratic and progressive, however flawed. And both are under attack.
China needs to be competed with, at least to maintain the balance of influences. If the US and/or EU drop in relevance enough then the world powers will be mostly authoritarian. If one values democratic systems of government, then it would be wise to prevent countries like Russia and China from having too much control and influence over world affairs.
The West has its share of problems, there's no shortage of sin on its shoulders or blood on its hands. But I value democratic governance over the alternatives.
China doesn't have to lose. They just have to be contained. They shouldn't take over the South China Sea by stealth. They shouldn't claim that countries they invade are "theirs". They shouldn't...
But why do they need to be competed with, presumably in a struggle for power that it is preferred that China lose?
China doesn't have to lose. They just have to be contained. They shouldn't take over the South China Sea by stealth. They shouldn't claim that countries they invade are "theirs". They shouldn't use predatory loans to take control of infrastructure in other countries. They shouldn't use economic intiatives such as Belt and Road to gain footprints in other countries which they can then leverage to more control.
They need to operate fairly and legally. They need other countries & international organisations to tell them where the line is and that they shouldn't cross it.
Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on who the "you" is here.
My "you" is your "we" and "us". You repeatedly referred to "we" and "us" in your comment; I'm replying in kind.
Effectively, your argument boils down to this: "Those countries did the wrong thing, so China should be allowed to do the wrong thing as well." I'm not sure I can agree with that. However, if I...
Effectively, your argument boils down to this: "Those countries did the wrong thing, so China should be allowed to do the wrong thing as well." I'm not sure I can agree with that.
However, if I have to choose which imperalist immoral superpower I want breaking the laws and hypocritically enforcing the laws it breaks, I'll choose the one that has more freedoms for people, the one with democracy, the one with human rights. There are degrees of badness (not all badness is equal), so I'll choose the less bad option.
Even if we agree, for the sake of discussion, that the USA is not the right entity to make China accountable, there are other options. Let's hand the responsibility for enforcing international law over to an entity that can do this. Let's beef up the United Nations. Let's give it some teeth. Let's remove the power for 5 selected countries to veto anything the UN decides. Let's make every country - including both China and the USA - equal in international law.
Okay. Let's turn this around. Instead of focussing on what you think should not happen, let's find out what you think should happen. Let's get practical. China is building (has built?) military...
Okay. Let's turn this around. Instead of focussing on what you think should not happen, let's find out what you think should happen. Let's get practical.
China is building (has built?) military bases on atolls in the South China Sea. It is using its presence on those atolls to support its claim to the South China Sea as part of its territory, and will probably use the weapons on those bases to back up that claim. Do you believe anything should be done about that? If so, what and by whom?
China is making loans for infrastructure in poorer countries. Sri Lanka defaulted on their loan and handed a port over to China. Should anything be done about that? What and by whom?
What if China invades Taiwan? Should anything be done about that? What and by whom?
All I'm seeing from you here is negativity and impotence. "Noone can do anything about China because we're all just as morally compromised as they are!"
So, what do you think should happen? Should China be constrained to operate within international law? Should it be kept in check? Or not? Should it be allowed to continue its slice-by-slice salami tactics take-over of territories outside its control?
In summary, you think we should do nothing at all. When I asked you what you think should happen, you have not suggested, for instance, that you want the United Nations to intervene, or that a...
in the case of China, the US should just back off and stop breathing down China's neck so much, allow it to control what is reasonably considered to be its sphere of influence,
these are also bilateral agreements. Third parties don't really get to say, you can't do that!
In summary, you think we should do nothing at all. When I asked you what you think should happen, you have not suggested, for instance, that you want the United Nations to intervene, or that a multilateral coalition should intervene. You think noone should intervene at all.
This isn't about the USA not being qualified to act on China. You simply think China should be allowed to do these things (except maybe for invade Taiwan).
Later in the article, the writer refers to Xi JinPing as having crossed the Rubicon if he cracks down violently on the Hong Kong protests, and outlines some possible ramifications of that in the South China Sea, Taiwan, and even for the US economy.
While those issues you mention might be outrageous, they are mostly limited to the USA. This issue, on the other hand, could have repercussions all around the world. Imagine what a confident militaristic China would do if it learns that it can act violently without consequences.
It's more that you're the only ones with enough power to compete with China. For example, we here in Australia don't have the clout to do it. Even the European Union might not have the clout. And the Russians don't want to keep China in check. The USA is the only realistic choice to keep China in check. You've spent the past 70 years setting yourself up as the world's policeman, and you need to step up.
Or, if you won't work unilaterally, you should support multilateral organisations, such as APEC and the United Nations and NATO, who will do this work instead. If you don't want to be the world's policeman, that's fine. But stop undermining those organisations which are trying to do the job you don't want to do. It would also help if you stopped undermining international laws and rules and conventions.
But this went off on a tangent.
You wanted to know why people were saying that Trump's response (or lack of response) to China would be his biggest mistake, so I was explaining that this decision will have bigger repercussions than anything he does domestically.
There are four major powers of influence currently in the world. US, EU, Russia, and China. Five, if you count the monetary influence of the GCC.
Russia is attacking the US and EU, weakening Western Democracies while performing aggression on former Soviet States. The government is held by a man who's held power, though not the Presidency, since essentially the Soviet Union's collapse. When Putin's term is up, it's doubtful he'll truly yield power. The Oligarchs that own much of Russia's industry are highly tied to their organized crime, and arguably there isn't much separating the two.
China is led by an authoritarian President with a lifelong rule. They're unprecedented in their Orwellianism, and their people have little voice. There's ethnic cleansing ongoing, and the government is frighteningly nationalistic. They are investing heavily in African infrastructure, which opens up vast wealth in the form of resources that won't be so accessible to anyone else. Their sphere of influence is wide, and they are expanding it. Especially now that the US is becoming less reliable resisting it under this administration.
Saudi Arabia funds religious extremism, and their investments into renewables will keep them relevant even in a post-oil world.
The US and EU are the only powers that are democratic and progressive, however flawed. And both are under attack.
China needs to be competed with, at least to maintain the balance of influences. If the US and/or EU drop in relevance enough then the world powers will be mostly authoritarian. If one values democratic systems of government, then it would be wise to prevent countries like Russia and China from having too much control and influence over world affairs.
The West has its share of problems, there's no shortage of sin on its shoulders or blood on its hands. But I value democratic governance over the alternatives.
edit: bad at grammar
China doesn't have to lose. They just have to be contained. They shouldn't take over the South China Sea by stealth. They shouldn't claim that countries they invade are "theirs". They shouldn't use predatory loans to take control of infrastructure in other countries. They shouldn't use economic intiatives such as Belt and Road to gain footprints in other countries which they can then leverage to more control.
They need to operate fairly and legally. They need other countries & international organisations to tell them where the line is and that they shouldn't cross it.
My "you" is your "we" and "us". You repeatedly referred to "we" and "us" in your comment; I'm replying in kind.
Effectively, your argument boils down to this: "Those countries did the wrong thing, so China should be allowed to do the wrong thing as well." I'm not sure I can agree with that.
However, if I have to choose which imperalist immoral superpower I want breaking the laws and hypocritically enforcing the laws it breaks, I'll choose the one that has more freedoms for people, the one with democracy, the one with human rights. There are degrees of badness (not all badness is equal), so I'll choose the less bad option.
Even if we agree, for the sake of discussion, that the USA is not the right entity to make China accountable, there are other options. Let's hand the responsibility for enforcing international law over to an entity that can do this. Let's beef up the United Nations. Let's give it some teeth. Let's remove the power for 5 selected countries to veto anything the UN decides. Let's make every country - including both China and the USA - equal in international law.
Okay. Let's turn this around. Instead of focussing on what you think should not happen, let's find out what you think should happen. Let's get practical.
China is building (has built?) military bases on atolls in the South China Sea. It is using its presence on those atolls to support its claim to the South China Sea as part of its territory, and will probably use the weapons on those bases to back up that claim. Do you believe anything should be done about that? If so, what and by whom?
China is making loans for infrastructure in poorer countries. Sri Lanka defaulted on their loan and handed a port over to China. Should anything be done about that? What and by whom?
What if China invades Taiwan? Should anything be done about that? What and by whom?
All I'm seeing from you here is negativity and impotence. "Noone can do anything about China because we're all just as morally compromised as they are!"
So, what do you think should happen? Should China be constrained to operate within international law? Should it be kept in check? Or not? Should it be allowed to continue its slice-by-slice salami tactics take-over of territories outside its control?
In summary, you think we should do nothing at all. When I asked you what you think should happen, you have not suggested, for instance, that you want the United Nations to intervene, or that a multilateral coalition should intervene. You think noone should intervene at all.
This isn't about the USA not being qualified to act on China. You simply think China should be allowed to do these things (except maybe for invade Taiwan).
Thanks for your answer.
I think I'll stop wasting our time now.