Conquer Club

Why do clowns like the authors of this article think it is any of America's business how China manages its internal affairs? And why are people like this so obsessed with the idea that having any other country in the world with power comparable to that of the US is automatically a threat that must be suppressed?

I really don't get what they gain from writing stuff like this. Is it just propaganda designed to make Americans think their system is awesome? A way to justify aggressive foreign policy? Both? Something else?

Let's liberate China, patriots!

You only linked to part of the article. Here it is in full, and more legible to boot: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 41091.html

Should countries have foreign affairs policies?

Does promoting civil liberties make the world safer or less safe?

Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?

A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world: The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity. With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history. The United States long tried to side with China, from the Stimson Doctrine calling for Chinese territorial integrity to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s support for China against Japan’s aggression and his strategic concept that China would act as one of the four “policemen” that would help govern the post-World War II global order. This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.

Why would a stronger, more innovative, creative, freer China be a negative outcome?

macbone wrote:Should countries have foreign affairs policies?

All nations have interests that extend beyond their own borders, so naturally they will need to take actions of some sort on the international stage.

Does promoting civil liberties make the world safer or less safe?

Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.

Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?

Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?

A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world... With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history.

Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China? The reason the US is uncomfortable with a rising China is because they resent the rise of a power that has the capacity to directly compete with them in the global arena, and they resent the presence of a power in the Asia-Pacific which threatens US regional hegemony. Were China to start aping Western models of democracy, none of that would change.

The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity.

Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.

As for:

This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.

You have got to be kidding me.

1840 - early 20th century: was one of the imperial powers who repeatedly invaded China and forced it to sign unequal treaties
1927 - 1937: sent military aid to the KMT during the Chinese civil war
1931: ignored Japan's invasion of Manchuria
1937 - 1941: responded to Japan's invasion of the rest of China by applying some sanctions to Japan*
1941-1945: fought Japan in the Pacific in response to being directly attacked by Japan, continued to stay out of China
Post-1945: continued to offer heavy military support to the KMT; refused to recognize the CCP's legitimacy after their victory and continued to support the KMT militarily; has consistently supplied all manner of armaments to Taiwan, even after recognizing the CCP as legitimate rulers of China

*the oil embargo doesn't count as that was applied in response to Japan's invasion of Indochina

Yup, look at all that help the US has been giving China over the years!

Anything and everything is a threat to America. What you think the war on terror is for? The right to claim any idea a terrorist idea. Most of those countries with dictatorship were American puppets. I believe America overthrow government. Let regional factions fight it out. America comes in as savior to install corporate dictatorship. Many Americans companies cannot do business in many of the countries stated above due to religious ideology. America has no religious ideology unless you count money as god. If money and power isn't involved America doesn't care.

China has worked wonders for over 6000 years being a semi fascist/communist/totalitarian state ... the onlu time in recorded history they didnt were during the japanese occupation... and the japaneese are bad they dont know shit about stuff...NOT

US been a country what like ... 350-400 years ... no other country in the world (outside maybee india) got htis kind of history... china will only change if china itself wants to change!

And the world needs diversity... the day every country is like sweden, china or us im going back to my revolutinary ways of my youth! Perspective and diversity is needed... and We of the West should really keep our slimy paws out of chinas internal affairs imean ... come on us meddling in stuff usually dont end good...vietnam, irac, libya, chile ... and so on:)

So Go Mrs!

Lord Arioch wrote:China has worked wonders for over 6000 years being a semi fascist/communist/totalitarian state ... the onlu time in recorded history they didnt were during the japanese occupation... and the japaneese are bad they dont know shit about stuff...NOT

US been a country what like ... 350-400 years ... no other country in the world (outside maybee india) got htis kind of history... china will only change if china itself wants to change!

And the world needs diversity... the day every country is like sweden, china or us im going back to my revolutinary ways of my youth! Perspective and diversity is needed... and We of the West should really keep our slimy paws out of chinas internal affairs imean ... come on us meddling in stuff usually dont end good...vietnam, irac, libya, chile ... and so on:)

So Go Mrs!

What is wrong with Sweden? Sweden is ranked 11th on the Global Peace Index(UN), while the US is ranked 101st and China 108th.

macbone wrote:You only linked to part of the article. Here it is in full, and more legible to boot: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 41091.html

Should countries have foreign affairs policies?

Does promoting civil liberties make the world safer or less safe?

Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?

A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world: The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity. With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history. The United States long tried to side with China, from the Stimson Doctrine calling for Chinese territorial integrity to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s support for China against Japan’s aggression and his strategic concept that China would act as one of the four “policemen” that would help govern the post-World War II global order. This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.

Why would a stronger, more innovative, creative, freer China be a negative outcome?

bazinga mrs wdk!!!!!!!!!

Bah im getting pretty feed up with Sweden our political system suck, our tax system really suck, our medical system suck...
And yeas we havent been to war for over 200 years ... but het first we sided (unofficially) with the nazis, then we sided (unofficially) with the US vs Soviet ... and the we go about exporting weapons all over ...
i mean a country this size and we are what like the 3rd-4th largest weapon supplier in the world?

But yeah its pretty nice so is germany... and i still think if china works for chinese who are we to argue:)?

Lord Arioch wrote:Bah im getting pretty feed up with Sweden our political system suck, our tax system really suck, our medical system suck...
And yeas we havent been to war for over 200 years ... but het first we sided (unofficially) with the nazis, then we sided (unofficially) with the US vs Soviet ... and the we go about exporting weapons all over ...
i mean a country this size and we are what like the 3rd-4th largest weapon supplier in the world?

But yeah its pretty nice so is germany... and i still think if china works for chinese who are we to argue:)?

3-4th? lol. Not even close.
1 United States 10194
2 Russia 5971
3 France 1978
4 United Kingdom 1074
5 Germany 1200
6 Spain 1110
7 China 1083
8 Israel 824
9 Italy 786
10 Ukraine 664
11 Netherlands 561
12 Sweden 394

It's easy to criticize the country you live, and see everything that's wrong with it. But despite our declining school results, healthcare, and some of the worlds highest taxes, Sweden is still considered by most people standards to be one of the best countries in the world to live in. Try living in some other country, you'll find it aint perfect there either, and that there are plenty of injustices to go around.

---

@mrswdk
Well I suppose one reason people are worried about China is the way it is behaving in the South China Sea, trying to Bully a majority of it's neighbours into giving up their tutorial waters to China. Chinese claims on the South China Sea are ludicrous.

Arama86n wrote:@mrswdk
Well I suppose one reason people are worried about China is the way it is behaving in the South China Sea, trying to Bully a majority of it's neighbours into giving up their tutorial waters to China. Chinese claims on the South China Sea are ludicrous.

This thread is about other countries' governments trying to tell China how to run its own affairs. If you want to talk about the island disputes then you can try this thread ^_^

Lord Arioch wrote:Bah im getting pretty feed up with Sweden our political system suck, our tax system really suck, our medical system suck...
And yeas we havent been to war for over 200 years ... but het first we sided (unofficially) with the nazis, then we sided (unofficially) with the US vs Soviet ... and the we go about exporting weapons all over ...
i mean a country this size and we are what like the 3rd-4th largest weapon supplier in the world?

But yeah its pretty nice so is germany... and i still think if china works for chinese who are we to argue:)?

hey if it's any consolation... the swedish ambassador in france is the one who managed to convince the nazis not to destroy Paris.

Thats a fact betiko!
And in comparison to the size of sweden we are really large in weapons ...
And of course its easy to critizes your own country ... thats why its so intresting that people critizes other countries like well china ...
Sweden is a really good country but scrape the surface and all the yucky stuff comes out .. like it will in all the others also i think its the little things that makes the difference not the big ones ...

Lord Arioch wins this thread. Hooray for the Swedes!

mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.

If your neighbor beats his wife or starves his children, should you do or say anything about it?

Must we be morally perfect before we can speak against injustice?

Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?

Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?

You didn't answer my question. =) Is authoritarianism good or bad for the world? Do you propose that authoritarianism is the best form of government?

Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China?

I think the answer here is self-evident, isn't it? See the cooperation between the world's democracies. Compare them to the conflict between the world's authoritarian governments.

Most democratic countries/regions:

Rank Country / Total Score 2009-10 / Total Score 2012-13 / Rank Change (loss/gain)

1 Norway 87.4 87.8 0
2 Switzerland 84.6 85.9 +2
3 Sweden 85.5 85.8 -1
4 Finland 85.2 85.5 -1
5 Denmark 83.4 84.8 0
6 Netherlands 81.2 82.6 +1
7 New Zealand 81.6 81.3 -1
8 Germany 79.7 81.0 0
9 Ireland 79.4 80.1 0
10 Belgium 78.2 79.8 +4
11 Austria 78.5 79.4 0
12 Australia 78.2 78.9 +1
13 United Kingdom 78.6 78.4 -3
14 Canada 78.5 78.2 -2
15 France 74.8 77.7 +2
16 United States 76.7 76.9 0
17 Hong Kong SAR, China 74.7 74.6 +1 (Boo-yeah!)
18 Spain 76.7 74.3 -3
19 Portugal 74.4 73.9 0
20 Slovenia 72.9 73.9 0


Least democratic:

92 Armenia 44.5 45.9 -3
93 Kyrgyz Republic 44.0 45.7 -3
94 Venezuela, RB 46.9 45.5 -8
95 Madagascar 43.0 45.2 -1
96 Zambia 40.2 44.4 +5
97 Russian Federation1 43.5 44.4 -4
98 Mozambique 42.8 44.0 -3
99 Burkina Faso 40.3 43.0 +1
100 Morocco 41.3 42.9 -2
101 Uganda 43.8 41.7 -9
102 Burundi 41.1 41.0 -3
103 Guinea 34.4 40.4 +7
104 Nigeria 37.0 39.9 +1
105 Egypt, Arab Rep. 1 34.5 39.3 +4
106 China1 38.2 39.2 -3 (You're going the wrong way!)
107 Bahrain1 42.3 38.7 -10
108 Togo 35.8 38.3 -2
109 Pakistan 35.6 35.9 -2
110 Cote d'Ivoire 27.6 34.0 +2
111 Yemen, Rep. 1 29.2 29.6 0
112 Syrian Arab Republic1 35.2 28.3 -4

Source: http://democracyranking.org/

Which countries are more stable? Which are better neighbors? Is there a correlation between more democratic countries and more stable countries? Do you think China benefits by ranking comparatively closer to Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria?

Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.

Nonsense. Legislation can either stifle or nurture creativity and innovation. Everything is connected, politically, socially, culturally, economically. To reform China's education system requires a reformation of its political system, unless you're proposing another Cultural Revolution. China has already taken steps to ban "Western ideology" from textbooks. Is this the kind of educational reform you have in mind? (Strangely, no one seems to include socialism or communism within the ill-defined "Western ideology" category, despite Engels and Marx being German.)

And yes, hooray for Sweden! Northern Europe by all accounts is the best place to live on the planet.

I always like mrswdk v. macbone discussions.


--Andy

macbone wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.

If your neighbor beats his wife or starves his children, should you do or say anything about it?

Must we be morally perfect before we can speak against injustice?

Reform is a gradual process, and China's current government is already taking substantive steps to punish official corruption, strengthen the rule of law and tackle institutionalized inequalities that disadvantage society's most vulnerable group, migrant workers (I'm happy to elaborate on all those points if you want). One day, if it is in China's best interests, then China will come to resemble a country like South Korea or Japan. Or maybe, given China's enormous size, such a system will never be in China's best interests. Either way, people from developed countries would do well to consider the lengthy process their own countries went through in order to reach the position they are currently in, and then butt out and let China develop in whichever way that China decides is appropriate for China.

And you certainly cannot criticize someone else for doing something that you yourself also do. At least, not if you want anyone to take you at all seriously.

Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?

Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?

You didn't answer my question.

I directly answered your question. Making moves to undermine any regime, authoritarian or otherwise, has generally ended in total disaster for the country that was previously ruled by that regime. I don't think undermining authoritarian regimes leads anywhere positive.

Is authoritarianism good or bad for the world? Do you propose that authoritarianism is the best form of government?

It's neither good nor bad for the world. It's just another country's system of governance.

Is authoritarian government good for China? I'm of the view that different forms of government suit different countries at different times. Once upon a time pretty much every developed country had a government that resembled that of today's China. Generally those countries only shed that form of government and started to pluralize once they had already developed. Countries like Russia tried to rush the process, and collapsed. What good reason do China's leaders have for rushing through political reforms at a time when history suggests China should maintain a strong, single government, and when few people are asking for such reforms anyway?

Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China?

I think the answer here is self-evident, isn't it? See the cooperation between the world's democracies. Compare them to the conflict between the world's authoritarian governments.

[big list]

Which countries are more stable? Which are better neighbors? Is there a correlation between more democratic countries and more stable countries? Do you think China benefits by ranking comparatively closer to Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria?

What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation? Pretty much every single one of those countries on the 'most democratic' list you just posted are members of the EU. The ones that aren't are all Five Eyes members with a long history of close military alliance, based on the fact that they are all ex-British colonies born of the British system. If they have an unusually strong level of cooperation with one another, it has very, very little to do with having similar systems of governance.

Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.

Nonsense. Legislation can either stifle or nurture creativity and innovation. Everything is connected, politically, socially, culturally, economically. To reform China's education system requires a reformation of its political system, unless you're proposing another Cultural Revolution. China has already taken steps to ban "Western ideology" from textbooks. Is this the kind of educational reform you have in mind? (Strangely, no one seems to include socialism or communism within the ill-defined "Western ideology" category, despite Engels and Marx being German.)

No it doesn't. What makes you say that?

The recent attempts to remove 'Western ideology' from textbooks are basically just another attempt to control political ideology. There is no reason why that would have any knock-on effect on people's ability to innovate technologically. As I said, the challenges China faces in producing creative, innovative graduates has everything to do with its emphasis on rote learning and fact retention and nothing to do with Marxism classes for undergrads.

bah u are wrong this country could be waaaay better!

Meh, the US is suffering from extreme hubris. Same thing will happen to whomever takes our place in the future.

I especially like the arrogant assumption that "democracies" get along with each other. It's not true BTW, but it makes for a good story I suppose for the masses. Long ago the Spartans viewed Athens democracy as too warlike, HAHA, the Spartans didn't like democracy because they thought it made people more prone to going to war. Plato held basically the same view of democracy.

Democracy makes it easy to whip the public into supporting ill advised wars and foreign debacles because the masses are deluded into thinking they are something special, that they think they know what's right for everyone else.

I especially love it when the US fosters democracy and then gets results we don't like, (such as Hezbollah taking power democratically, the West Bank, etc etc. We seem all for democracy unless the people we impose it upon decide to stay with someone we don't particularly like. It would be comical if it weren't so tragic.)

mrswdk wrote:Why do clowns like the authors of this article think it is any of America's business how China manages its internal affairs? And why are people like this so obsessed with the idea that having any other country in the world with power comparable to that of the US is automatically a threat that must be suppressed?

I really don't get what they gain from writing stuff like this. Is it just propaganda designed to make Americans think their system is awesome? A way to justify aggressive foreign policy? Both? Something else?

People here go to school just to study how other countries should run internal affairs. Deal with it.

Yoshi, the problem is that people are taught biased views of history.

Not too long ago, the US would have had an argument in terms of human rights versus China, but that's no longer the case post-9-11. It's kind of like the US criticizing Cuba for human rights issues despite the fact that they are the worst offenders in terms of torture on the island of Cuba with Guantanamo...

Macbone, you can't mention the issue of human rights in Hong Kong without any historical context. HK was carved out from China after the West invaded them and repressed the Chinese because they refused to let their opium in. I remember watching the transfer of rule ceremonies a few years ago, not once did they mention the circumstances that created the colony.

It's the same thing in the middle east, you hear a lot about how bad the theocracy is in Iran, but rarely do you hear that it came about as a direct result of the US overthrowing a secular, democratically-elected government and replacing it with a dictatorship that is more subservient to anglo-american oil interests.

Hong Kong makes for a fascinating study. Before I moved here, I assumed it had existed for hundreds of years, on par with other great cities like Shanghai and Beijing. I didn't realize that one hundred and fifty years ago, this place was a small collection of fishing villages. It's been amazing what's been accomplished in such a short amount of time. It hasn't always been smooth, given the riots over the decades, but the infrastructure here is world-class, and despite the people's distrust in their elected leaders, they are listened to in many matters. HKers don't have civil rights at the level of many northern European countries, but this whole "One Country, Two Systems" structure is fascinating.

Mrswdk, I believe that we can demonstrably prove the superiority of one system of government over others. Aristotle, for instance, argued that a dictatorship ruled by an enlightened philospher-king was the highest form of government. The purpose of logic is to examine the arguments on both sides of an issue and come to a conclusion based on what has been explored. I believe that we can honestly examine this issue if we put aside preconceived notions, but doing so is very hard to do (and may not be in our interests at times, such as if I were monetarily incentivized to support my own government's policies).

Still, we can make an effort to do so. =) You're welcome to start another thread for that purpose if you'd like. "What is the best form of government?" would make for a really interesting discussion, particularly if us Beliebervillers can come up with a better system than what's currently available.

mrswdk wrote:What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation?

I didn't make that claim. Note the difference between cause and correlation. Democratic countries have a correlation with stability, freedom of expression, and creativity. Nondemocratic countries have a correlation with repression of creativity and oppression of human rights.

macbone wrote:Mrswdk, I believe that we can demonstrably prove the superiority of one system of government over others. Aristotle, for instance, argued that a dictatorship ruled by an enlightened philospher-king was the highest form of government. The purpose of logic is to examine the arguments on both sides of an issue and come to a conclusion based on what has been explored. I believe that we can honestly examine this issue if we put aside preconceived notions, but doing so is very hard to do (and may not be in our interests at times, such as if I were monetarily incentivized to support my own government's policies).

Re the bolded: I disagree. There is no one system of government, or any specific policy, that is universally better than all others. There are way too many factors at play. How mature are a country's institutions? What is its political culture? What is its history? Who will become leaders under any given system? What geopolitical situation is the country facing? What are the economy's strengths and weaknesses? Being flipped from empire to liberal democracy in a short space of time worked out okay for Japan but was a disaster for Russia. Installing an open and liberal economic system was beneficial for 19th century England and the Netherlands but destroyed 19th century China. There is no one-size-fits-all model for everyone to follow.

While we can't declare any one form of government, policy or leader to be universally the best there is, we can instead judge what kind of government is the best for a particular country/state/region at a particular time. And I believe that at this time, aping the Western notion of democracy is not at all in China's interests. Authoritarian rule is currently working for China, much as it worked for South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan province and many other regions as they developed. Maybe reforms will be beneficial in the future, but China can cross that bridge, on its own terms, once China comes to it.

macbone wrote:

mrswdk wrote:What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation?

I didn't make that claim. Note the difference between cause and correlation. Democratic countries have a correlation with stability, freedom of expression, and creativity. Nondemocratic countries have a correlation with repression of creativity and oppression of human rights.

Why did you even mention it then?

Either way good, we can drop the hypothesis that democratic government* is relevant to the level of cooperation between the countries on that list you posted. As for the other things:

So there are four other things you mentioned in your last post:

Stability: China is perfectly stable, no problems there.
Freedom of expression: Meh. Every country places limits on the ideas its citizens are and aren't allowed to voice, even liberal Western European countries. Feel free to put forward an argument for why you think China limits expression in a way which is detrimental to the nation if you want.
Creativity: As I already mentioned, China's creativity challenge is due to flaws in its educational system, not its political one.
Human rights: China is nothing special here, despite all the scare stories you see in the SCMP or on CNN.

*democratic as measured by things such as suffrage and a free media