Thanks for the link, Martyn. These Russian/Chinese joint exercises are getting blown out of all proportion. Yes, it’s a big step to see the two countries getting along. They share a massive border and have some interests in common and the world’s better off with them as friends rather than enemies.

That said Russia still decided to build it’s oil pipeline in Japan’s favour rather than China’s. This isn’t a budding nexus to counter America’s superpowerness (if that’s a word).

Back to French – basically he nails it. China cannot be a superpower until it works out what it stands for, how it intends to stand for it and/or how it intends to move on from the events of the past century and deal with those of the next.

August 19, 2005 @ 1:15 am | Comment

Thanks Simon, you focused on, what is for me, the critical point:

Simon writes:

“China cannot be a superpower until it works out what it stands for, how it intends to stand for it and/or how it intends to move on from the events of the past century and deal with those of the next.”

China simply isn’t a confident country. There’s no national ideology except cynical and xenophobic appeals to Great Han Chauvanism and getting rich by any means necessary.

It’s a spiritual wasteland where, domestically, the govt mobilize the full power of the state to oppose and crush an (albeit large) group of elderly breathing exercise practicioners and, externally, blame most of the nation’s problems on “Little Japan” and the “Paper Tiger” United States. The national paranoia towards all things foreign is astounding.

What does China stand for? Which road does it intend to take into the future? Can it ever learn to adequately deal with the past?

These are the questions that need addressing IMO.

August 19, 2005 @ 1:33 am | Comment

If a superpower status means military alignment and power domination, then China will never be a superpower and I certainly wish it won’t be one. The wrold will be a better place if people don’t align countries into different blocks.

August 19, 2005 @ 1:43 am | Comment

I always thought China’s definition of superpower is a country that can get what it wants by force. Its rise as a superpower is shown by its renegotiation of “unequal treaties”, and demanding return of its historical lands.

Is it still true that there are land disputes between China and every single country it borders (and some it doesn’t, eg Phillipines)?

August 19, 2005 @ 1:50 am | Comment

Martyn wrote:
>blame most of the nation’s problems on “Little >Japan” and the “Paper Tiger” United States.

How did you reach this conclusion. It seems to me that, these days, the oppsite is true, many people outside China blame most of their problems on China. I don’t think most Chinese consider the US paper tiger (it may be true under Mao).

>”The national paranoia towards all things foreign is astounding.”

Martyn, what would you say about the talks of so-called China-threat in the media?

August 19, 2005 @ 1:53 am | Comment

And the Rodney King, Why can’t we all be friends award goes to… Renxu

August 19, 2005 @ 1:53 am | Comment

Renxu, countries have been alligning themselves into different blocks long before The Great Game between Imperial Britain and Tsarist Russia a few hundred years ago. It’s the way of the world.

While China often had temporary alliances, particluarly, when the empire was weak, China has largely been a slight exception to this rule because of “The Great Celestial Empire” had no equals under heaven.

Re potential Chinese military projection and domination, Chinese leaders have long made no secret of their wish to make the country the dominant power in Asia and re-take its rightful place in the world.

Its current diplomatic efforts (particularly in the Pacific for example) along with its perceived aims only serve to back up this view, which, as I said was never a secret.

August 19, 2005 @ 1:54 am | Comment

Sean,

China has settled most land disputes with other countries it borders. The only exception that I know of is some land dispute with India, which they are talking.

I think during the time that China was isolated and angry, there were more talks about the unequal treaties. Now that China is more integrated into the international system, there are very little talks on that.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:03 am | Comment

Martyn,

>countries have been alligning themselves into >different blocks long before The Great Game >between Imperial Britain and Tsarist Russia a >few hundred years ago. It’s the way of the world.

That’s a result of power domination pursued by the western countries. I am not condemning the West. It is a fact if one looks at the world history.

>Its current diplomatic efforts (particularly in >the Pacific for example) along with its >perceived aims only serve to back up this >view, which, as I said was never a secret.

The fact is that the US deplays very powerful force in many countries at the backyard of China. Do you expect the Chinese to stay still and be contained?

August 19, 2005 @ 2:14 am | Comment

Renxu,
Okay, so I have to admit that there aren’t many issues compared to before. But I believe there are more disputes than just with India. I just discovered that there was a settlement with Russia in 2004, which is great.

By my count, there are still problems with India, Vietnam, Korea (both N & S), Japan, Tajikistan, …

and apparently one of my searches hit something bad because I’m now in Google time-out.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:21 am | Comment

The US has forces in S. Korea and Japan and is reducing the troops levels in both. What other countries does the US deploy troops in around China? Vietnam? No. India? No. Pakistan? No. Myanmar? No.
Bhutan and Nepal?? No and No. Russia? No. Mongolia? No (excluding US Marines in Maggies)

Your paranoia is palpable.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:26 am | Comment

GWBH,
Don’t forget Taiwan. The US has always threatened China from Taiwan. I haven’t understood this since there isn’t any military there, but every Chinese book I’ve read says its so. It’s standard for them to talk about the US “opening another front”.

For example, during the Korean War, one of the resons they entered was to prevent a third front from opening (in addition to Taiwan and Vietnem). Now, of course, Korea is still considered a US front. Other fronts coming soon!

August 19, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment

GWBH – Please read up a little bit on the history of ASEAN.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:33 am | Comment

The history of ASEAN, Ok: Singapore? No. Malaysia? No. Indonesia? No! I’m pretty sure that the US has no troops in any ASEAN country. I could be wrong.

Anyways, the topic is current US troop positioning. Use the Force Luke… stay on topic.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:38 am | Comment

GWBH,

The US reducing the troop levels in Japan? I can believe it for the troops in South Korea (due to the policy differences the US has with South Korea on North Korea).

It has moved a few more nuclear attack submarine to Guam. In the current military base closure, many bases on east coast will be closed and moved to the west coast, with an eye on China.

I am not paranoia; I think a war between the US and China is very remote.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:40 am | Comment

Guam is a US territory.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:43 am | Comment

First, why should China even care about its “containment”? If it’s a nice country that doesn’t meddle in other countries affairs, containment would mean nothing.

Second, ASEAN was created so that the US could invade any one of those countries when its dem0cracy was threatened, and thus they’re all puppet goverments of the US. The US can use any excuse to place troops in these countries. Fine. Again, if China doesn’t meddle in other’s affairs, it can denounce the US for this, and be contently contained.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:46 am | Comment

GWBH,

I know Guam is a US territory. With the US forces in many places not far from China, do you expect the Chinese to stay still and be contained?

By the way, I think the US has a small navy base in Singapore.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:50 am | Comment

renxu,

Also note that the US’s immediate concern in the region is the little twerp of a country that China props up. While, yes, the 7th fleet will always have its Chinese role, almost all other US forces are looking a little to the east of China.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:50 am | Comment

Sean,

It is easy to say that. But, when the Soviet based their missles on Cuba, Americans got mad.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:54 am | Comment

Renxu, you forgot Alaska, Hawaii and San Diego. Add a little imagination to your paranoid containment theory and you can probably add Newport News into the string of bases containing the peace loving PRC

No US base in Singapore ( I’m pretty sure).

Anyways, I’m just killing time until Martyn gets around to posting an economics related thread.

August 19, 2005 @ 2:57 am | Comment

I lived in Singapore for a few years and I know there is a small US navy base in Singapore.

August 19, 2005 @ 3:01 am | Comment

I beg to differ but only becasue I’m bored. The US has docking rights and maintenance facilities there but that hadly translates into a naval base, big or small;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/singapore.htm

August 19, 2005 @ 3:06 am | Comment

Superpowers need friends – does China have any?

I think the Chinese point of view may be that powerful countries can have friends any time they want, because weaker countries will be eager to win favour.

August 19, 2005 @ 5:19 am | Comment

Here is my second “eye rolling”, it must be Friday and I’m bored.

August 19, 2005 @ 8:04 am | Comment

“blame most of the nation’s problems on “Little >Japan” and the “Paper Tiger” United States.”
Renxu writes:

“How did you reach this conclusion. It seems to me that, these days, the oppsite is true, many people outside China blame most of their problems on China. I don’t think most Chinese consider the US paper tiger (it may be true under Mao).”

Whatever the world says/thinks about China is quite another debate, but you are right anyway.

Re the US/Paper Tiger, sometimes westerners here will frequently hear certain conversations/words/phrases that perhaps other non-western foreigners might not. This is one example of that. I heard the US referred to as a paper tiger hundreds of times.

Renxu also writes:

“Martyn, what would you say about the talks of so-called China-threat in the media?”

I’d say that most are them are over-hyped rubbish. China isn’t (yet?) a threat of any kind. Sure, buying Soviet weapons has put China on a fast track from military non-entity to adequately-armed country in certain areas but this, and tinkering with an old Soviet aircraft carrier does not a superpower make.

Also, the govt already hasa its hands full with maintaining a ‘harmonious society’ and keeping the economy together to launch any external military adventures.

August 19, 2005 @ 8:24 am | Comment

One advantage the US has over China re the stationing of troops is that the US does not need to garrison it’s own territory.

I mean, the 101st are not required in, say, Ohio to prevent splittist activity and keep the local population supressed nor are marines needed to patrol the Canadian border in fear of the dreaded Canadian Armed Forces and/or Canadian refugees.

The same can’t be said for PLA garrisons in the west and on the North Korean border.

August 19, 2005 @ 8:31 am | Comment

Martyn,

I agree. That’s another reason people need not worry about the rise of China. China has enough of its own problems to deal with in foreseeable fulture (and many of them are man-made).

August 19, 2005 @ 8:47 am | Comment

renxu,

A few things to keep in mind,

1. CCP is evil, so thank god if you didn’t join CCP or otherwise you are part of the evil. There is a big difference between CCP and Chinese, those who are in CCP are really not Chinese.

2. The old Pope said communism is evil, this is to reinforce point No. 1.

3. You are brainwashed by CCP if you come from China. If you are having a good life in China, CCP has nothing to do with it. However if you are suffering in China, CCP is the evil force behind it.

August 19, 2005 @ 9:09 am | Comment

That’s the truth of it Renxu.

Unfortunately, there’s too much ignorance about China in the world, even among bloody jouranlists and correspondents. I think most people who live here, quite rightly, treat the ‘China threat’ rubbish as, er, rubbish. This was part of the reaosn why I decided to blog this particular post.

August 19, 2005 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Wawa,

Me brainwashed by CCP? That’s funny. If the definition of “hostile force” was loosen a little bit, I think I would be included. I am not a religion person so I don’t believe in what the Pope said on China.

And I don’t want to argue with you on your other points.

August 19, 2005 @ 9:29 am | Comment

anyone who thinks the US isn’t trying to constrain china is plain daft. of course the US is trying to contain china!
just because china says something doesn’t always mean it isn’t true.

it’s also a bit naive to assume that the main advantage for the US in having troops in the region is so it can invade China. No, the main advantage is so the US can project its power more capably in the region. And I’d have the main reason china and russia are uneasy about the US presence in the region is that the US could use its power to influence other countries in the region and gain their loyalties, and correspondingly weaken the strength of russia and china in the region.

surely what I’m saying isn’t contentious — it’s just plain obvious. and it’s perfectly understandable that china wouldn’t want US troops and influence around.

as for this superpower stuff, that term is I think now reduntant unless a country attains equal or greater power to the US — because at the moment the US is so far ahead, it needs a category all to itself. unless you rename the US a supersuperpower!

August 19, 2005 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

KLS,

Yes, I agree with you. But the problem is that the containment of China won’t have the designed effects. The rise of China is changing the power alignment in Asia. The trade between China and many asian countries has exceeded that of the US with those countries, and that it is bound to grow much bigger. For for their self-interests, these countries don’t want to choose side . They want the US to balance China and China to balancer the US.

August 19, 2005 @ 12:54 pm | Comment

KLS, how’s about a “Super-Duper Super Power”?

August 19, 2005 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

I posted today that the U.S. has all but admitted that they do not trust China, and as a result, they are ‘hedging’ their bets by tightening their relationship with India, Australia, and Japan.

Consider that the U.S. declared its independence in 1776, ratified its Constitution about 1783, and first exercised an international framework with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. [And even today its friends are more often subordinates than friends.]

China’s development of its foreign policy will take a similar length of time; I assume that they will push for a Pan-asian sphere of influence after a while. The East Asian summit to be held in Kuala Lampur may be the first step towards asserting its dominance in its sphere of influence [and creating its first rank of satellite countries].

August 19, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Hi Marty, good to see you over here. I’d better tell readers that Marty runs a blog called “The Big Yuan”. It’s a new blog, at least to me, but definitely one to watch out for, check it out:

http://www.thebigyuan.com/

What some bloggers do Marty is mention their new posts on TPD open threads. It’s a good way of drawing attention to posts.

August 19, 2005 @ 9:31 pm | Comment

Martyn,

After all, it seems to me you do accept the China-threat theory. If China is not a threat, why in a huryy to ganp up on China? Some Chinese like to say, engagement, that’s great; but if you want to have a flight, you better let us know.

August 19, 2005 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

Renxu, are you confusing me with our friend “Marty”?

Our names are very similar but he’s the guy that runs The Big Yuan as I just mentioned above.

August 19, 2005 @ 10:55 pm | Comment

Renxu said:

If a superpower status means military alignment and power domination, then China will never be a superpower and I certainly wish it won’t be one. The wrold will be a better place if people don’t align countries into different blocks.

As to whether or not China will ever be a superpower in terms of “military alignment and power domination”, I think it’s impossible to speculate as to whether China will or won’t. As for the past, however, if you look at Southeast Asia, China has plenty of history in terms of “military alignment and power projection”. Sean talks about ASEAN countries being U.S. puppet governments; true or not, let’s not forget the tributary system that existed between the same region and Imperial China.

Renxu says that we’d all be better off if we didn’t align countries into different blocks. Maybe so, but what about when a country basically forms one lonely little block all by itself? I think the question of China’s allies isn’t about whether or not a country can truly succeed without forming a block; I think the real question is “why do so many Chinese people (I’m going to say the vast majority) believe they CAN’T have friends? Why is it always Chinese vs. Non-Chinese?”

For the United States, it’s “free society vs. not”, for the Soviet Union it was “Leninist/Stalinists vs. not”, even for Al Qaeda it’s “Muslims (or their twisted idea of Muslim) vs. not”. I, or my country, can join any of these groups – I can become a democratic capitalist, a Stalinist or a Muslim. Most of the world talks in these sorts of ideological terms. Chinese people often make these distinctions on race, and their government generally does the same.

No matter what, I can’t become Chinese. Even crazy terrorists say “come be like us”. In China, the message is always “you can never be like us, you will always be Other”. Can you become powerful thinking that way? Probably, in economic and military terms, if you’re big enough. I think China’s got that covered.

But man does that sound like a sad way to think.

August 19, 2005 @ 10:56 pm | Comment

Martyn, I confused you with Marty, sorry.

August 19, 2005 @ 11:07 pm | Comment

DavesGoneChina,

I beg your pardon; I am not fully understand all the points you tried to make (some of your description of the so-called Chineseness sound foreign to me). I have to do some programming, anyway.

August 19, 2005 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

So long as China has only liquid fuel nuclear missles and no nuclear missle subs, I’m not really worried about them as they have no first strike capability. Because the liquid fueling is detectable from space, by the time missles are fuelled, either the Russians, British, French or Americans could have ‘pre-emptively retaliated’.

It’s really the ‘instant launch’ nature of reliable solid rocket boosters that all of the missle control fuss is about more than nuclear weapons per se. So long as that is out of their hands they (the CCP) are ‘contained’ barring large orbital platforms.

It must chap the ass of the CCP and military leadership mightily that FRANCE is a (strategic) military superior, no?

And don’t forget that Japan is number two in military spending world wide. And I guarantee you that the CCP is well aware that the Japanese are allowed to have a large stockpile of (instantly weaponizable) enriched plutonium, which NO other nation aside from declared nuclear powers is ‘legally’ allowed to have. I put legally in quotes above because as every tinpot dictator of the last 60 years has noticed, nukes kind of create their own legitimacy for a regime.

Whoever can get the right orbital weapons platforms up first can also do just about whatever they want. The US is nervous about that because if someone else gets there first it would be the first non-nuke threat to the US Carrier fleet, which is THE power projection tool peak right now.

So THAT is why there is all of the ‘China Threat’ stuff, the taikonauts are making those here (US) militarily informed very nervous.

August 19, 2005 @ 11:29 pm | Comment

Dave,

I think if China is determined, it’s going to get all the necessary weapon technologies by itself; it is just a matter of time. So what? The US have much better technology and nuclear weapons to destroy the whole earth many times. If most people in the world are not nervous about the US, why people in the US should be nervous about them?

August 19, 2005 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

Thanks Dave, I’ve seen you write about this topic
before and I agree with your points. The “us” and
“them” mentality is quite pervasive within China.

Dave writes:
“I think the real question is “why do so many Chinese
people (I’m going to say the vast majority) believe
they CAN’T have friends? Why is it always Chinese vs.
Non-Chinese?””

I think we can look to history for, at least a good
part, of the answer. China was never just another
“nation”. It was the Great Celestial Empire, The
Middle Kingdom from which the divinely-appointed
emperor ruled “everything under heaven” (Tian Xia) with
a “heavenly mandate”.

The superiority of Great Han Chavanism and the way
that the advanced Chinese culture dominated and
Sinofied not only the surrounding peoples but also
those non-Chinese (Mongols, Manchus etc) who conquered
China has been taught to billions of Chinese over the
years.

Add the so-called “bullying” from foreign nations over
the last 200 years and there you have your
“us” and “them” mentality.

Despite Mao’s genuine dislike of Confucianism, he
easily fit into the role of emperor and deftly
played upon the percieved superiority of the Han
tribe. For instance, he would and could never accept
the leadership of the Soviet Union in the International Block. China was “different”, China
was….China!

August 20, 2005 @ 12:06 am | Comment

Just to confirm, from a retired military type who visited there recently and would have dearly lived to find employment on one: There is no U.S. Military Base in Singapore. And Sean, you really do need to read and understand the definition of “puppet”. Smacks of that old 60’s ideology rattled by the Left to impune the legitimacy of emerging democratic states, such as the defunct Republic of Vietnam, and glorify their opposition in such places as Hanoi and Pyongyang.

August 20, 2005 @ 1:36 am | Comment

It’s interesting you talk about the Monroe Doctrine Marty. perhaps the US is indeed worried about a chinese version of that and knows that if it has a couple of nearby stubborn outposts of US troops and a few more pro-US nations in the area, then it’d be impossible for china to put such a policy into practice.

on a separate point, Martyn with an “n”, I have one problem with what you’re saying about the Han notion of superiority — it doesn’t take into account that so many (especially) young chinese are studying and working and so on in the west.
also if you’re going to use historical references, can you remember (I can’t exactly) the story about steam trains in imperial china? — one of many modern things hated by the rulers of china and considered of no use (because from outside).
compare that with today’s embrace of all kinds of modern technology!

final thought: your original post (good post, by the way) looked at how people in china want economic improvement for the country more than they want anything else. it’s hardly suprising is it that when so many have moved from poverty into, say, the slippery lower rungs of a nascent urban middle class, that they want the dramatic (relatively speaking) material improvements that such a move implies to be replicated across the whole country?

August 20, 2005 @ 4:16 am | Comment

Regarding some of the earlier discussion of the American “containment” strategy, we need to distinguish a genuine Kennan-style “containment” strategy from the Shultz-Armitage-Wolfowitz approach taken toward China and Asian policy. One of the reasons Armitage and Wolfowitz rose so quickly within the bureaucracy was their advocacy of an approach toward Asian diplomacy that emphasized Japan first, Korea second, and China third. The idea, of course, is to strengthen US alliances while de-emphasizing the US-China relationship, creating a situation where the US has more leverage to influence Chinese behavior because critical US interests in Asia (the alliances) are reinforced.

Has this worked? Well, sort of (see recent events in the US-ROK alliance for contrary evidence). Often, however, China describes this strategy as “containment,” but often only because China’s leaders want to assume a more prominent spot in American diplomacy. However, it’s largely a strategy focused on diplomatic leverage, because the US knows that Chinese leaders pay attention to threats of “containment.”

Aside from a few people in Congress and Bill Gertz, there aren’t any advocates of genuine containment anymore. If you look at the record of the past seven American presidencies, China policy has changed remarkably little. David Shambaugh has even argued that Bush-43 has effectively ended the “grand” China policy debate, because he is a Republican president with solid neo-conservative credentials who has nonetheless embraced engagement with China.

August 20, 2005 @ 7:46 am | Comment

renxu,

The PRC is currently in dispute with: India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, possibly Brunei (no one is sure), Japan, North Korea, Burma and Thailand.

A century old border dispute with Russia was resolved last year.

August 20, 2005 @ 8:17 am | Comment

I agree that, formally, the PRC government has signed agreements with most of its *land* neighbours (India being the key exception) but does that mean the disputes are “resolved”? To me resolved would mean no more harping on about the “unequal treaties” or China’s victimisation by outside powers when it was weak. This not being the case, I would suggest the disputes have been “shelved” rather than “resolved”. A future PRC government (in an economically and militarily stronger China) could easily decide it was in its interests (for purposes of domestic legitimacy for instance) to re-open any of these disputes. Chinese students are still inculcated that Chinese land was “stolen” by foreign devils during the Qing. This hardly implies that China accepts for all time its present boundaries (cf say Russia which does not harp on about “losing” Alaska). You can sign all the agreements you like, but if a state’s people are still told that their territory was stolen that is hardly going to make neighbours relax.

August 20, 2005 @ 12:50 pm | Comment

If most people in the world are not nervous about the US, why people in the US should be nervous about them? -renxu

Hm, let’s first take a look at where getting conquered by the Americans vs. the Chinese gets you. Seems to me that getting your culture remade after a severe American ass-whipping gets you right to the top of the world economy a few decades down the road.

Getting ‘re-integrated into the Middle Kingdom’ gets you what, a ghetto in Lhasa where you can watch the ethnic Han get ‘rich’ (comparitively) while your people struggle? Doesn’t seem to have done the non-Han in the West of China much good, either.

I know, my Cherokee ancestors didn’t fare too well in getting conquered by my Anglo-American ancestors, but I got non-European teeth out the deal, and they got an alphabet. Not sure what causes the most inner tension for me, that or the fact that some of my ancestors owned each other (within the last 200 years!) Just to lay out my personal history with ‘getting conquered by the Americans’.

On balance, I rather think I’d be an American than not, but damn the Bush Dynasty is making it hard sometimes! (If Jeb is elected, We Are Gone!) At least there’s something for Real Americans to Get Rebellious About, as that is indeed the essence of our national character!

But I digress…perhaps people fear the CCP having first strike capability more than the US having had it for decades because the CCP is the most murderous regime of it’s own people IN HISTORY? How’d anyone like domination by such an evil sub-culture of the Middle Kingdom?

Where are the Taoists and Bodhidharma???

Where is the Superior Man?

August 20, 2005 @ 1:15 pm | Comment

Renxu said:

DavesGoneChina,

I beg your pardon; I am not fully understand all the points you tried to make (some of your description of the so-called Chineseness sound foreign to me). I have to do some programming, anyway.

My point, Renxu, is that most groups trying to attain some kind of global power and influence have done it on the basis of ideology and beliefs, not race. China has for the most part pursued global power for “Chinese people”, not “the people”, “the oppressed”, “the faithful”, “the poor”, “the proletariat”.

Dave,

I think if China is determined, it’s going to get all the necessary weapon technologies by itself; it is just a matter of time. So what? The US have much better technology and nuclear weapons to destroy the whole earth many times. If most people in the world are not nervous about the US, why people in the US should be nervous about them?

I agree with you that China will eventually have the all the big toys. Technology will not be what prevents China from having global influence. What I think will prevent China from having great global influence is that they have nothing in their foreign policy to share with others. The U.S. promotes the idea that everyone, everywhere should enjoy capitalist democracy and transnational openness. China basically promotes the idea that no one should bother anyone else and each country should pursue its own raw power. Now maybe China is just being more honest, and the U.S. is sugarcoating the grim realpolitik that all countries in actuality follow, or maybe the U.S. actually sincerely pursues these goals. Whichever you believe, no one can deny that the rhetoric of openness, democracy, the American Dream has contributed enormously to U.S. global power. Tons of people dislike our government, but those same people would still love to live here because they see genuine opportunity for anyone from anywhere. People in Iran, Brazil, China, Europe, believe that if they can make it to the U.S. they can achieve things they couldn’t in their own or other countries. This belief creates enormous goodwill (despite the fact that the current administration squanders it) and has inspired revolutions and such things as massive student demonstrations in front of a certain authoritarian government residence in 1989.

When is the last time that people had a revolution because they wished their country looked like China? More importantly, what dream for the world has China ever expressed that people in other countries would embrace? The only dream for the future China seems to express is that they be number 1 for their own sakes. I’ve never heard any Chinese official say “As a global superpower, China will strive to provide everyone in the world with X”, whether X is freedom, the emancipation of the proletariat or lollipops. It’s always power for the sake of China, not for the sake of the world. And that’s why Chinese power makes people more nervous than American power does – because America makes promises that it will use its power for the good of the world, and there have been times it’s actually done it! China only promises to use its growing power for itself.

August 20, 2005 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

Dave wrote,

>And that’s why Chinese power makes people more nervous than American power does.

That’s none sense. Americans should not put their heads in the sand and need to wake up to the world. Poll by poll shows that most people in the world are more comfortable with China than with the US; it is even true for people in most western countries.

August 20, 2005 @ 4:12 pm | Comment

Dave,

One thing I do agree with you is that even if China is very successful in economic term, its influences in the world will be limited. But most Chinese simply do not have the desire to be very influrential in the world. They don’t have the missionary zeal and change-the-world mentality. If a westerner does not understand this and judges from the exteriences from the western history, he will be nervous about the rise of China.

August 20, 2005 @ 4:40 pm | Comment

Dave wrote,

>I’ve never heard any Chinese official say “As a global superpower, China will strive to provide everyone in the world with X”.

The fact is that for most people in the world, they don’t need the many ‘X’. Even today, many americans still think the US is doing the Iraqis a favor.

When George Bush declared his second terms’s goal to spread demacacy to other countries, many americans might feel good. What’s the reaction from people around the world? They knew it was an empty slogan and they knew emaricans are just as selfish as most people in the world.

August 20, 2005 @ 4:52 pm | Comment

i dont know if china plans on playing nice for much longer. i read this disturbing bit of writing this morning. anyway you look at it, its a bit frightening.

http://www.halturnershow.com/ChineseDefenseMinisterTalksWarAgainstUS.html

if this guy really said that…yikes. if this is written by someone outside of china, in an attempt to sway public opinion, or direct policy…still insideous, and scary in its own right. i live in beijing, and the few people i talked to seem to think this is totally outlandish, but none of them are on the politburo.

August 20, 2005 @ 10:11 pm | Comment

Renxu said:

But most Chinese simply do not have the desire to be very influential in the world. They don’t have the missionary zeal and change-the-world mentality.

Renxu, with all due respect, that is the biggest line of bullshit that I’ve heard in awhile.

Sure, maybe some Chinese do not hope to project their influence into the rest of the world, but unfortunately those aren’t the ones running the Chinese government.

If the Chinese lack such zeal and desire, why do the continue to use “Yuan diplomacy” with other nations that still recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China?

Why does China continue to try and exert an illegitimate claim over disputed territories with its neighbors.

Why does China try to buy out foreign corporations and make investments in other third-world dictatorships?

Why does is China really so afraid of Japan becoming a military power again?

It all has to do with influence.

If a westerner does not understand this and judges from the experiences from the western history, he will be nervous about the rise of China.

One doesn’t need to look at western history to make any such conclusions about China.

How many times did ancient China try to invade Japan? Korea? Vietnam?

China seems to have this mentality that everything belongs to them and they try to sinosize everything.

Hell, you don’t have dinosaurs in China…you have Chinasaurs. WTF?

(note: I apologize if my thoughts seem to be coming out rather scattered today. I’m just a weeee bit hung over.)

August 20, 2005 @ 10:13 pm | Comment

Lis,

The tinyurl.com link for Chris’s border-blasting long link is:

http://tinyurl.com/b3nmn

Thanks.

August 20, 2005 @ 11:05 pm | Comment

Gordon, have you been drinking that formaldehyde enriched beer again???

August 21, 2005 @ 12:28 am | Comment

Yes Lisa, I’m afraid so.

August 21, 2005 @ 1:30 am | Comment

Gordon,

Please lower your blood pressure. If my comments today offended any westerners or sound like I am anti-US, then I am sorry ( I think I was a bit emotional with some of my comments today). However, I would like to answer some of your points:

> How many times did ancient China try to invade Japan? Korea? Vietnam?

Did China invade these countries? If it did invade, did it stay there. The fact is that even when China was the most powerful country on earth for many hundreds of years, it id not go around the world and invade other countries.

>If the Chinese lack such zeal and desire, why do the continue to use “Yuan diplomacy”

The westerners have been used to setting rules, so when China starts to show up on the table, they are not used to it. “Yuan displomcy”, do you expect the Chinese to be foolish?

>Why does China continue to try and exert an illegitimate claim over disputed territories with its neighbors.

As you said, the territories are disputed and China did not grab the territories by force.

>Why does China try to buy out foreign corporations?

Why companies outside China can make all the money in China and people are so nervous when China wants to buy their assets?

>make investments in other third-world dictatorships?

Do you need examples of your country dealings with the third-world dictatorship? China is shameful on this. But the point is that it is not worse than many western countries on this. And also, China itself is a dictatorsip, why would you expect China to be better on this?

August 21, 2005 @ 1:33 am | Comment

Absolute tripe renxu. When China was powerful and confident in the past it invaded its neighbours and other states that China’s rulers felt it was in their interest to take out, just like every other great power in history. China is not special or unique or any other fantasy you may try to create by saying something enough times. China has been just the same as every other big power, when it has felt the balance of forces in its favour.

August 21, 2005 @ 2:06 am | Comment

Oh dear Renxu, I’m going to have to call you on this mate:

Renxu writes:
“Did China invade these countries? If it did invade, did it stay there. The fact is that even when China was the most powerful country on earth for many hundreds of years, it id not go around the world and invade other countries.”

How many examples do you need? The essential difference between China and the Europeans was that the European empires (with the exception of Russia) lay overseas whereas China’s empire simply expanded outwards during times of imperial strength.

By way of Sinification, the non-Chinese peoples of yesteryear now conveniently become Chinese. No harm done as far as Chinese historians would put it. A bright shining lie I would say.

China has invaded Japan twice to my knowledge, the last in the Yuan. China invaded Vietnam multiple times over 1,000 years, Chinese control of T1bet and XJ and T1betan/XJ control of China has swung backwards and forwards for millenia. Add Korea, Mongolia, SE Asia, India, Russia—-you get the picture?

Every country on the Chinese periphery has been invaded over China’s imperial history of constant expansion.

Guangdong/Fujian Provinces only became part of China proper in the 14th century (They were formerly part of the Kingdom of Yue). Guangdong had only been part of China for a few hundred years when the British arrived in the 1800s.

With the exception of Emperor Han Wudi (140-87BC) who’s armies marched to Korea and Vietnam, for thousands of years “China” was only made up of the eastern half of today’s Chinese territory. The borders were significantly expanded during the heyday of the Qing.

Unfortunately, China has always taken the view that any land or territory seen, touched or conquered AT ANY POINT in history….remains Chinese forever. Hence the current territorial disputes which abound even to this day—particlarly in this day.

August 21, 2005 @ 2:11 am | Comment

Let me say something on the term “change the world mentality” I used in my comments. I mostly view it positively. Without the forceful opening up of China by the western powers, the Chinese people probably are still living in the old world. It is also true for many other thirld world countries. But there is a percetion gap between people in the West and people in the thirld-world countries.

Back to the original topic of this thread, the point I tries to make is that China, even if it become very powerful, will be an inward-looking country, just like Japan. I think that most westerners look at the term inward-looking” negatively they only care about themselies, rarely look ouside their borders like helping people in other countries); but it is not so in asian culture.

August 21, 2005 @ 2:24 am | Comment

Martyn,

It looks like I am a bit ignorant about Chinese history.

“Difference between China and the Europeans”

T1bet and XJ might not belong to China. But the map of China today is at least centered around the China of 5000 years ago. As for the Europeans, they had taken lands and are now living in countries around the world.

August 21, 2005 @ 2:34 am | Comment

Renxu writes:

“But the map of China today is at least centered around the China of 5000 years ago”

Mate, we have little in the way of anything older than 3,300 years, never mind maps. China’s claim that the mythical Xia dynasty arbitarily extends China’s history to 5,000 years is relatively new. When I first arrived in China everyone used to talk about China’s history being 3,300 years old, then, several years later in 1995 *bosch* every Chinese leader began his/her speech with this 5,000 year line.

Enter Jiang Zemin in the mid-90s and his injection of uber-nationalism into the arteries of the Chinese nation. He commisioned leading academics to “study” the evidence of the Xia Dynasty (up to this point it was merely the stuff of legend and folk tales). As with similar “studies” the academics were told of their “findings” before they even started.

The result? China has 5,000 years of history. Oh, by the way, Santa Claus is also real, as is the Loch Ness Monster.

August 21, 2005 @ 3:10 am | Comment

Martyn,

The number of years of China history doesn’t really matter here for our discussion. By the way, please don’t mention Jiang Zemin, he is the one, along with Li Peng, who created many of China’s problems today.

My point is that when China was the most poweful country on earth hundreds of years ago, it could have went around the world and made other countries its colonies, but it did not (the Chinese went to most part of Europe but it was a peaceful mission). For the Europeans, they grabed whatever land they could get and made many countries their colonies around the world (disclaimer: not Europeans bashing here). Any disagreement here?

August 21, 2005 @ 3:28 am | Comment

It’s an interesting point, a very interesting point and one that I’ll readily admit I haven’t given any previous thought to.

I respectfully request some time to consider this one but my immediate reaction would be to say that Europe’s heyday, starting with the Spanish/Portugese in the 1500s and then increasing 10-fold with Britain’s Industrial Revolution in the 1800s gave the Europeans the technology (fast ships, military quipment and weapons etc) to invade and maintain by force overseas dominions.

However, in China’s heyday (let’s say, for the sake of argument ALL of the period pre-1500s to 200BC) the technology available and the means available for worls travel were strictly limited.

Before the 1500s, their no vessels capable of round the world voyages. Gunpower (a touchy subject in China!) had still not been stolen by the Europeans from China and used to make weapons. The bow and arrow, sword and spear still predominated.

Therefore, I would say that China’s demise and Europe’s rise coincided with international travel and advanced weaponry.

August 21, 2005 @ 3:49 am | Comment

Martyn,

> Guangdong had only been part of China for a few hundred years when the British arrived in the 1800s.

What are you talking about? I am from Guangdong. You are living in Guangzhou, go and talk to *any* Chinese there with your assertion here, they will just laught at you.

August 21, 2005 @ 4:22 am | Comment

Then again, you could make an assertion that Taiwan is not part of China, Tibet is not part of China, Mao was somewhat less than “70% good” and the Chinese would laugh at you. The CCP has been busy making sure they are not really the best source on issues of Chinese history…

August 21, 2005 @ 7:20 am | Comment

And renxu, polls are a poor source for determining public policy Read Zakaria’s “Illiberal Democacy” to see why. (and yes, there is a difference between a liberal democracy and an opinion of poll-ocracy)

Even if ‘global opinion polls’ (a dubious undertaking if there ever was one) say China would be better than America, I don’t see how that could be true.

It’s a function of ignorance of China’s history and excessive harping on America’s. This will naturally change with time and people would be less apt to side with China with greater awareness of their reprehensible means of social control and historical proclivity for invading other countries without even pretending to have noble ideals (unless you consider “teaching vietnam a lesson” to be a noble ideal of course…)

August 21, 2005 @ 7:27 am | Comment

Johnny,

As George Bush said, I don’t read newspapers and I don’t read (or care about) poll numbers.

I did not and I am not saying that China is better than America. Generally speaking, I would say the US is better than China, probably much better. But the term of the foreigner policy of the last few years, I am not sure. The poll I talked about was conducted on countried around the world. It was conducted by a westerner polling agency (either The Economist or the Gallup poll). On of the items is that which country poses the most thread to internation peace. China ranks well below the US in that poll. Another poll I read is on The Economist, asking people opinion about the Rise of China. Most people of different countries believe it is good for the world; it is particularly true for people in asia, even in India that many people belive it as China’s competitor, over %70 of its people view the Rise of China positively.

All in all, my point is that most people in the world do not view the Rise of China negatively.

August 21, 2005 @ 11:53 am | Comment

What’s all this about China not having friends? China is buddy-buddy with North Korean tyranny, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, the genocidists in Sudan, the dictatorship in Burma, the mad mullahs in Iran and the civilian-killers in Uzbekistan.

What’s that old saying — “One is known by the company one keeps.”

As for the US military presence in Singapore, the US navy uses facilities at Sembawang Wharves and Changi especially built for US use by the Singaporeans, under docking arrangments, so it is technically not a US base. But about 100 Sailors (officer and enlisted) and 50 Navy civilians work are perminently assigned to facilities in Singapore, in addition to the regular presence of docking ships.

The US Airforce also uses Singapore’s Paya Lebar airfield short-term rotations by USAF aircraft.

More than 100 US Navy ships dock in Singapore annually. US fighter aircraft are regularly deployed there. Singapore was a transit point for US ships, troops and aircraft during the Persian Gulf War. Paya Lebar Air Base supported US airlift operations to Somalia.

August 21, 2005 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

For hundreds of years, Vietnam was under China’s dominion. It was known as ˆÀ“ì, meaning “Pacified South”, and its emperor was permitted to rule with Beijing’s consent. Later, France seized Vietnam from China under one of the Unequal Treaties. But France is now gone, so why hasn’t China reclaimed this historical territory? Looking at Tibet and Xinjiang, there don’t seem to be any ideological reasons why Vietnam shouldn’t be part of China again.

August 21, 2005 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

Sorry, the characters in that last post didn’t come out. They should have been “an1nan2”, as in “calm”, “south”.

August 21, 2005 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

Did someone mention Vietnam? (everyone groans).

China-Vietnam is a history soaked in the blood of Chinese aggression. China controlled the Viet regions (Yue) from approx the Han period (100BC) until approx 1,000AD. About this time the far south of Viet became independent and the northern parts became modern day Yunnan, Fujian, Guangdong and Guangxi.

As you say, Annan was the Chinese imperial name for Viet/Yue. The name “South Yue” (Yuenan) is still used in China today as the name of Vietnam However, the Vietnamese call their nation South Viet.

August 22, 2005 @ 12:34 am | Comment

That’s none sense. Americans should not put their heads in the sand and need to wake up to the world. Poll by poll shows that most people in the world are more comfortable with China than with the US; it is even true for people in most western countries.

Posted by: renxu at August 20, 2005 04:12 PM

OK Renxu, I’d like to see a global poll asking the following question: If given a choice between the U.S. and China, which country would you rather live in?

When George Bush declared his second terms’s goal to spread demacacy to other countries, many americans might feel good. What’s the reaction from people around the world? They knew it was an empty slogan and they knew emaricans are just as selfish as most people in the world.

In Xinjiang I had alot of difficulty finding Uyghurs who didn’t think George Bush was a hero who liberated an oppressed people living under a dictator. They followed that up by saying that they were sure that when he finished in Iraq, he’d come liberate them – from the CCP. I was shocked to hear this, but then I heard it alot. I personally don’t like Bush and I don’t think he’s going to drop the Marines into Xinjiang, but there are plenty of people in the world who want him to do that in their country. The Economist just had an article about Burma and how Buddhist monks there want Bush to come liberate them. Burma, as Conrad pointed out, is a run by a bunch of insane military generals who make economic policy based on astrology readings and butcher their own people – all with the blessing of CCP friendship!

But I have reconsidered whether China has a global ideology they try to sell. I said earlier that they basically only think about Chinese power for the sake of Chinese, but there is a worldview they promote: absolute sovereignty. China supported Serbia against NATO, because ethnic cleansing is “an internal matter”. China has blocked UN resolutions on Sudan for the same reason. And let’s not forget the same rationale was used to cover up good ol’ SARS. To Conrad’s list of Iran, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan and Sudan we can also add places like Cambodia, Laos and good ol’ Belarus, which has new military deals with China and is basically a living museum of Soviet style totalitarianism.

China claims they don’t interfere – got genocide? Not a problem. But China makes demands too, asking Nepal and Singapore to crack down on Tibetans and FG, as well as having Uzbekistan shut down Uyghur language broadcasts. Sure, the U.S. is hypocritical when it preaches democracy and then supports Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov. But at least U.S. policy pays lip service to the idea that genocide is simply wrong, that unlawful imprisonment is wrong, that there is such a thing as universal human dignity. China doesn’t even pay lip service to this, because apparently respect peoples lives and beliefs is “an internal matter”.

August 22, 2005 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

Amen to that!

August 22, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

davesgonechina:

You’ve surpassed yourself mate. Great post.

August 23, 2005 @ 12:11 am | Comment

Yeah, Davesgonechina – email me if you want to guest post!

August 23, 2005 @ 1:36 am | Comment

“but there is a worldview they promote: absolute sovereignty”

Yes, quite poingant Davesgonechina. And I have to say that this isn’t a new worldview. They’ve been this way since their creation.

Korean war? It was civil war, an internal affair, before the Americans intervened. Same with Vietnam.

Americans in the Middle East or Latin America during revolutions? Interference in internal affairs.

This worked very well with the Communist agenda: advocate this sovereignty, but secretly give money and munitions to communist revolutionaries in other countries.

This also helped us, in that they didn’t become a Soviet state. They also fully supported the Non-Aligned movement started by Yugoslavia.

August 23, 2005 @ 2:20 am | Comment

Korean war? It was civil war, an internal affair, before the Americans intervened. Same with Vietnam.

Ah, someone has read Bruce Cummings and bought the hype. Sean, you are correct only in the sense that the two major combattants were Korean. Yes, Korea which was to have been a single, liberated country, ended up divided between two antagonistic states. But, it was the Soviet supported state which launched an invasion of its southern neighbor. The U.N., by sanctioning the U.S. action in Korea, recognized the “external” nature of the conflict. You might want to read Dr. Andrei Lankov’s recent article in the Asia Times as to the Pyongyang government’s “independence”. He cites authoritative Soviet documents which today’s Korean revisionists pointedly ignore. It was about as much a civil war as an armed invasion of Austria by Hitler’s Germany would have been.

As to Vietnam, the legitimacy of two Vietnamese states was established in the wake of the Geneva Accords that ended the First Indochina War. Again, from a legal standpoint, it was hardly an “internal” affair. And, as is well established, it was the DRV who initiated the guerrilla campaigns which grew into the Vietnam War when the United States decided to back up an allied state.

Reunification, of course, was the goal in both wars. Hitler called it “lebensraum”, and his goal was to unite all Germans into a “greater Reich”, whether they were Alsatians, Czechs, Austrians, or Volga German. Terming Korea and Vietnam “internal” affairs is merely another way of saying that Hitler was in his legal rights to start WWII.

August 23, 2005 @ 9:17 am | Comment

“Ah, someone has read Bruce Cummings and bought the hype.”

Never read this Mr. Cummings. I’m quoting the PRC foreign policy books that I’ve read in Chinese, rather. Sorry if it’s confusing without quotes.

The Chinese (ans Soviets) completely rejected the UN’s ruling, as Chinese were persona non-grata and the Soviets were throwing a fit. BUT, it’s even less “internal” than you state. Kim Il-song sought PERMISSION from both Stalin and Mao before preparing the attack. After giving his blessing, Mao allowed the “repatriation” of Korean vetrans hardened from the Chinese civil war, even if they were only ethnic-Korean Chinese. They got to take along tanks and other arms back with them. Meanwhile, on the US side, we routinely denied the South tanks, as it might provoke a war. (Goodness, THAT sounds familiar.)

August 23, 2005 @ 1:31 pm | Comment

China has got many friends. S-Korea, Australia, many countries in the EU, such as France, Canada, many S-American countries, many African countries…I bet China has got more friends than the US.

August 25, 2005 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

To those of you who are always harping on China this and that, this and that, this and that….

Look, China just wants to be respected. And that means leaving Chinese national integrity ALONE. Do you see China telling Britain to let Northern Ireland secede? Or do you see China telling the United States that it should grant more autonomy to California, to Spain that it should give the right of secession to the Basques? I don’t think so. It’s the West, especially, from some of these arrogant Europeans and Americans that have telling China to let Taiwan go, let Tibet go, let Xinjiang go. Let me ask you this: May be America should let all of its 11 southern states (texas, alabama, mississippi, etc. etc. ) regain the right to secede, as they once did before they were brutally crushed by the Union army.

Chinese people are really sick of this meddling by non-Chinese. And I don’t mean just the Chinese government, it’s all/most of us Chinese. We’re really pissed. You know, I would argue that most Chinese people today are much more open-minded than you in the West are. We want to learn from the West, including democracy. But let me tell you, stop your hypocritical arrogant judgements. YOU ARE NO BETTER. If you want to repair history, you Europeans still have to repay all the opium which poisoned our people and all the indemnities which were forced upon us, before you can even be in a position to judge.

DON’T blame us for getting arrogant when you’re the arrogant b’tards.

August 27, 2005 @ 8:38 am | Comment

THIS post is intended to be posted in response to a CHINA-HATER who thinks it’s better China breaks up into tiny principalities, but I couldn’t post it there for some odd reason. possible censorship…
But here is my post:

To those who wish to DIVIDE and CONQUER,

So you feel a divided China would do better? eh?

Why don’t we first divide your country?
Hey, let the United States divide into 4 zones, the Pacific, Central, South, and the Atantic? How’s that? They’re all different anyways, in terms of culture, political orientation, and even in terms of race. Gosh, just the other day, I was driving through Los Angeles, and guess what? In a country of Anglo-Saxons, I didn’t even see one !!!

I guess we can parcel out Los Angeles, or major parts of it anyways, and make it into an independent separate republic pretty soon in the near future. That way, it’ll further ENHANCE the people’s CREATIVE spirit!!! Hey, most Hispanics here I talk to think it’s a burden learning all this White culture and history stuff that aren’t even related to them. They’d rather speak Spanish than English!. Give them the right to self-determination!!!

What about America’s Southeast? yeah, that’s another peculiar region, which once demanded independence but after fighting a BLOODY “War Between the States” were forced to surrender their demands for independence. But you know, here in the South, like Alabama, people really don’t think the same as Californians. It’s almost like a separate country and land. So I guess the United States government is just going to have to EVER so GENEROUSLY give up the Southeast eventually. NOT!

So let’s see let China divide, keep America united. The logic is simple, KEEP AMERICA number 1, and everyone else below. The fact is China is the largest economy and world’s only economy and political powerhouse that has the potential to overtake America. That breeds FEAR and ENVY.

But how about the Euro-threat? The former Soviet Union? Forget it, after taking the advice of their friendly Americans, the Russians lost not only their groins but their economy and importance. They’re left to die in poverty. And the rest of the Europeans? Forget them and their European Union. They are too BLOODY in their history of incessant warfare to see beyond their pettiness to unite. So who do you have left? China. That’s it, keep beating down China. Harp on that, harp on this…until the Chinese will is broken….once again…UNTIL America is now the only sole HEGEMON of the world.

August 27, 2005 @ 9:29 am | Comment

No censorship. If you comment to a post more than 30 days old it waits for me to approve it. This helps cut down on spam postings.

Who has suggested China break up into tiny principalities? I’ve never seen that suggested here. Please provide the quote and link. Thanks.

August 27, 2005 @ 9:58 am | Comment

China-Vietnam is a history soaked in the blood of Chinese aggression. >

There goes our good pal martyn, always diggin up stuff to hate China, even stuff that had happened 1000 years ago. Now, I don’t know where are dear Martyn is from. But I am certain to be able to dig up some DIRT about his ancestry. Let’s see…

American killing of the natives
Australian genocide of the aborigines
British selling narcotics to Chinese
British, American, and European in general enslavement of Blacks
Bloody nationalism perpetrated by British against French and vice versa in 100 years war..two great world wars were started by Europeans in the last century…Communism was European invention..so was Nazism, and the idea of racial purity and superiority most well elaborated in the Western mind…ok..and the list goes on and on and on….

And even TODAY in the past 50 years,

French bloody war in Vietnam
American bloody napalm in Vietnam
American support of central american
dictatorships and in the 1980s American support for Saddam Hussein…and now uranium nuclear shells in Iraq…and the list goes on….and on…and on….

IF YOU WANT TO DIG, we’ll DIG….

August 27, 2005 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

It’s a function of ignorance of China’s history and excessive harping on America’s.>>>

You know, we Chinese are less apt to harp on America’s history than Americans are to harp on ours. JUST look at yourself.

>>>

So are you saying it’s ok to invade other countries if you have noble ideals?

You know, that’s IT !!! I figured it out,
the difference between us Chinese and you Westerners is that Chinese are more honest. If we do invade another place, we’re honest. WE state our intentions and our reasons clearly. We’re not like George BUSH going out there high-sounding with all that ‘we’re to free you’ rhetoric and then using nuclear uranium shells on Iraq and killing some 100000 Iraqis in the process when in FACT it’s all really for the OIL and strategic command for the Middle East.

You know, may be that’s why Westerners are better at conquering other nations than Chinese.

Posted by Johnny K at August 21, 2005 07:27 AM

August 27, 2005 @ 3:40 pm | Comment

>>>It’s a function of ignorance of China’s history and excessive harping on America’s. This will naturally change with time and people would be less apt to side with China with greater awareness of their reprehensible means of social control and historical proclivity for invading other countries without even pretending to have noble ideals (unless you consider “teaching vietnam a lesson” to be a noble ideal of course…)>>>

Sorry, my post above is done in response to this quote.

Posted by at August 27, 2005 03:44 PM
Name:

August 27, 2005 @ 3:45 pm | Comment

>>>>>>Then again, you could make an assertion that Taiwan is not part of China, Tibet is not part of China, Mao was somewhat less than “70% good”>>>>>>>

Posted by Johnny K at August 21, 2005 07:20 AM

THEN AGAIN, you can also assert that Hawaii, and the entire American West, including California, were all not a part of the United States and its entire native population was either killed or forcibly Americanized….

From: MOVEMENT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA DEMAND THE RIGHT TO SECESSION WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS

August 27, 2005 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

The current situation here is that China has more friends than the United States, especially in Asia, Middle East, and Latin America. If you don’t like it, well, TOO BAD..

August 27, 2005 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

AC, I’m British.

You’re correct about one thing. The history of OUR world is filled with atrocities, carried out by all nations. Bit of a basic point but well done nonetheless.

The difference is that Britain, for example, doesn’t constantly tamper with it’s own history books nor does it censure people who wish to oppose the govt-approved view of history.

In China, Chinese middle-school students have to wade through 9 whole chapters of history regarding Japans’s invasion of China. Whereas, the 1,000+ years of Chinese invasions in Vietnam isn’t even mentioned.

When I was at school in Britain I learned about the evil slave trade and the evil Britiah Empire, such as the Indian Mutiny etc. The same cannot be said for the eqivilent teachings in China.

Therefore, if you’re going to compare the West and China, then you’d better get your facts right and compare everything.

Please keep it coming.

I can keep this up all day long if you require me to keep telling you about history….and I mean ALL of history, not just the selective parts.

August 28, 2005 @ 2:36 am | Comment

AC writes:
“the difference between us Chinese and you Westerners is that Chinese are more honest.”

No comment needed.

August 28, 2005 @ 11:42 am | Comment

The difference is that Britain, for example, doesn’t constantly tamper with it’s own history books nor does it censure people who wish to oppose the govt-approved view of history….Martyn< To Martyn, Let me ask you a frank question: What do you think history is? Some child's play? Do you honestly think that you can get away with murder and somehow tell me that you are better than I simply because you now realized that the past murders were wrong, when in fact you are still sitting upon the spoils of your past robbery and rape of other societies? Look, ever since the demise of the European empires, Europeans have been sorry and bitter. So what can the average Euro do all day? He complain and mutter about other so-called empires, like the American, Russian, or Chinese, and then he makes himself feel better, that's all. WELL, so what if you read about the evils of your own empires? What? You want me to now kneel before you and call you a saint for being so self-sacrificing? The FACT is the Brits don't have an EMPIRE. IT'S OVER. So you can go and read about the histories of your evil British Empire and entertain yourself all day with it like a nice lil' fairly tale that has a happy ending. And then afterwards, you can tell the world, that the Brits are such conscienable and humble race, and thereby still self-congratulate yourself and somehow convince yourself that YOU ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. I just don't buy that. But that's just my opinion. Look, China has its problems. Like many Chinese we don't like the CCP. But we don't like China-HATERS, either. We want to build up China, not destroy it. And if your aim is to destroy China, then you'd better watch it because we ain't gonna let the 19th century repeat itself. As for getting into a history debate on whose better historically, Britain or China, yeah, I welcome your challenge whenever you feel like it...

August 28, 2005 @ 4:33 pm | Comment

AC writes:
“the difference between us Chinese and you Westerners is that Chinese are more honest.”—Martyn< Just like the good'ol Brits to take things out of context and then use it as a pretext for war.... The world's BEST conquerors and destroyers still originate from the WEST. sorry buddy.

August 28, 2005 @ 4:47 pm | Comment

AC, the only comment I saw from you about the topic, China’s friendships, was:

The current situation here is that China has more friends than the United States, especially in Asia, Middle East, and Latin America. If you don’t like it, well, TOO BAD..

Posted by: AC at August 27, 2005 03:55 PM

Could you maybe back that up? What are we talking about when we say friends? My point hasn’t been to count how many people have such and such treaties or agreements with China or the U.S., my point has been that superpowers tend to export some ideological vision for the whole world so that people everywhere go “yeah, China knows where we all should be going”. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it, but the US and USSR both did that, and I think there might even be a case for the EU doing it as an entity, albeit inconsistently and only occasionally.

As for your comments on China hatin’ and territorial integrity: I’m all for a discussion of Hawaiian separatism! I’d like to point out that Bill Clinton signed the Hawaii Apology Act, which specifically stated in federal law that the U.S. illegitimately conquered Hawaii by force. Do we have ugly skeletons in our closet? Hell yeah. Do we actually allow people to publish books mentioning them? Hell yeah. Did our federal government recognize this? Hell yeah. Is there currently legislation underway in the Senate to further address these issues? Hell yeah. Do we go around saying Hawaiians are happily singing and dancing after we liberated them from the feudal tyranny of Queen Liliuokalani?

Hell no.

Do we imprison Hawaiians for publishing webpages advocating separatism like this one?

Hell no.

Ooooooh, snap! U.S. 1. China 0.

As for Martyn’s “out of context” quote, let’s see some context:

You know, that’s IT !!! I figured it out,
the difference between us Chinese and you Westerners is that Chinese are more honest. If we do invade another place, we’re honest. WE state our intentions and our reasons clearly.

I direct you to nyah, previously in these here pages.

August 28, 2005 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

Davesgonechina,

I can see that you are bitter. When you calm down a bit, may be then, we’ll talk more seriously.

As for Hawaii…So what if Bill Clinton signed an apology bill. Are you so brain-washed and enmeshed in your own self-delusions of grandeur that you forget that nowhere did BIll Clinton or the anyone else ever gave the Hawaiians the RIGHT TO SECESSION. And as long as that is the case, who cares how many textbooks talk about Hawaii’s oppression, or how generous the American people are to even apologized to the Hawaiians. Who cares. The day when America grants Hawaiians the right to a referendum for secession is the day I’ll shake hands with you. Otherwise, your claims have no substance.

Oh, yeah, I am also waiting for the day when the United States grant Califonia the right to secede. The same goes to all 11 U.S. states of the Confederacy which once tried to secede but was put down by the Union Army. Until then, the U.S. has no business teaching China about Taiwan indenpendence, or Tibet for that matter.

As for friends, you can keep deluding yourself that USA has most friends in the world today, but let’s face it, that’s not the case anymore. So no need to get so defensive. And why do you keep harping on some world ideology China must have? The good thing about China today is China doesn’t screw around with other nations. Chinese recognize each nation has its own problems and must work them out themselves, rather than go throwing bombs at them, like what the US did.

August 29, 2005 @ 4:26 pm | Comment

Listen i just read most of these posts and most people seem to have valid points, though from different angles. To me, there are two key things that differentiate the US from China.

1. The US has a transparent political system, facilitated by open, unrestricted media, news and internet etc. where everybody has access to information allowing them to make informed choices, whether they be the president or senator whom they choose to elect, or their opinion of foreign countries like China. Although it may be that many Americans do not have any real idea about China, the important point is that there is a system in place that allows them to become informed as they choose to do so. My understanding (correct me if im wrong), is that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) places heavy restrictions on the chinese media and internet to prevent ‘disturbances to the peace’ or whatever u want to call it. The implication is that most, not all, but most chinese people, and we’re talking an enormous population, would have access only to the propaganda, or information, made available to them by the CCP – the point being that although the US system isnt perfect, if an american chooses to become more informed, they can easily do so – a far cry from the situation in the PRC.

2. My second point is more theoretically and i think has been discussed previously in this blog, but i believe is worth mentioning again. That is – the US, in the global arena, stands for something (freedom, democracy etc.) and although many may question its true motives, at least they have made that declaration and promise to the world. The distinction here between the US and China is that China has not taken a lead on any international issues, has not, as a growing power made clear any principles by which she is built on – people, over the world do not yet know what china is about, there lies the ambiguity. People are generally pretty anxious about things they dont understand, and whether or not China’s motives are good or bad, they will not gain any support internationally, nor will they be recognised as anything close to a superpower until they truly explain to the world, in way or the other, what there all about.

September 1, 2005 @ 8:58 am | Comment

I wanna look for friend from china or else regardless the age I am single male 28 yrs living in East africa

January 25, 2006 @ 6:48 am | Comment