Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
- Thread starter nULL
- Start date
Kirkhill said:
Why hire extra folks to do it when you have bored air defence units around?
Putin apparently tried it too http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1135006.ece, but it seems like it didn't work too well at the G8 summit though http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5189048.stm (bottom paragraph)
So who's going to be the first with a 'rain on your parade' crack?
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
Piper said:
If those overseas Chinese are anything like those I know (some very well) then their views (China is being "unfairly portrayed by the media") are quite normal.
I have no doubt that the Chinese government has some hand in organizing and/or supporting this sort of thing, just as I have no doubt that the anti-Chinese protesters get support from someone for their demonstrations and media placements.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Those PAP (People's Armed Police) troops are missing their covers/their version of US Army garrison caps! UNSAT on inspection! UNSAT! UNSAT! ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Very disturbing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008033101573.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008033101573.html
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,285
- Points
- 1,160
Tibet isn't China's only problem, resentment still simmers among Muslims
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080406/w040629A.html
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080406/w040629A.html
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
IOC President Jacques Rogge is in Beijing today as anti-Chinese (or ”free Tibet” or whatever) demonstrations intensify.
I’m guessing that Hu Jiantao’s staff are asking M. Rogge to issue a statement decrying the anti-Chinese demonstrations and asking the Beijing Olympic Committee to help the Olympic movement by rethinking the global torch relay. He might ask the Chinese to stage the relay within China.
I’m guessing, again, that China can live without intensifying protests in Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Canberra, Seoul and points in between. It might be tempting to bring the torch home and stage a public ”love-in” all over China – to be broadcast world-wide because the 24/7 “news” machines need images to fill time.
The relay could be restarted on the Chinese slopes of Mt.Qomolangma (the mountain we call Everest) and pass through Lhasa – with images of adoring crowds, and then make its way throughout China to an increasing crescendo of nationalist fervor.
I’m guessing that Hu Jiantao’s staff are asking M. Rogge to issue a statement decrying the anti-Chinese demonstrations and asking the Beijing Olympic Committee to help the Olympic movement by rethinking the global torch relay. He might ask the Chinese to stage the relay within China.
I’m guessing, again, that China can live without intensifying protests in Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Canberra, Seoul and points in between. It might be tempting to bring the torch home and stage a public ”love-in” all over China – to be broadcast world-wide because the 24/7 “news” machines need images to fill time.
The relay could be restarted on the Chinese slopes of Mt.Qomolangma (the mountain we call Everest) and pass through Lhasa – with images of adoring crowds, and then make its way throughout China to an increasing crescendo of nationalist fervor.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
A historic cross-strait relations summit is coming up.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/11/taiwan.china.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/11/taiwan.china.ap/index.html
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
I think we should all pay attention to his story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080411.wchina0412/BNStory/International/home
The story is not that the CCP and the Government of China spin the news to their advantage – the ‘news’ is spun here, throughout the West, too – to the advantage of governments, agencies, corporations and individuals like the Dalai Lama.
Nor is the story about Jin Jing.
The real story is summed up by Chinese blogger Roland Soong and Charles Burton, a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing who is now a political scientist at Brock University:
• "For the Chinese Communists, the responses from Western governments, media and citizens are immaterial, Song says. “The paramount goal of the Chinese Communists is to retain control of China, and therefore it is the response from the Chinese citizens that matter."
• "The Chinese government has been able to strengthen its credentials as a defender of Chinese nationalistic pride,” accoding to Burton. “People who were not fully supportive of the Communist Party's rule have now united strongly around the party's political agenda for Tibet. The attacks on the Olympic flame have polarized the differences between China and the West, and the West is much more demonized than before."
The important first ‘battle of the torch’ has been won by China.
The matter of how we, in the West, approach the rest of the Beijing Olympics is important. I will reiterate what I have said before:
• China matters – it is a major power, now, and will be a global superpower during the lifetime of most Army.ca members;
• China is not our enemy. It does not want to be our enemy. We do not ‘need’ China as an enemy. But: we can, by action and inaction, turn China from a ‘competitor’ to an enemy;
• Our vital interests might be summed up as “peace and prosperity” and China (as competitor, not enemy) is part of that equation;
• We need to ”engage” China at every level to make it a better place for us to do business – a better, safer, more secure market for our goods and services;
• We do not “engage” by boycotting anything; a boycott is, by definition, disengagement. Nor do we “engage” by insulting the Chinese people – and that is what a boycott of the Olympics will (not might) do.
China has a whole host of problems, including separatist movements in some provinces. Tibet has a whole host of problems – none of which, in my opinion, can be solved by returning to an inept, corrupt Buddhist theocracy. None of Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang are of great import to Canada or even to the West at large - not important enough to make China into an enemy. Taiwan can be, and, I believe, will be absorbed into China under a variation of the “one country, two systems” policy. Tibet and Xinjiang are, like it or not, internal Chinese matters. We can sympathize with the minorities in China but there is not, even remotely, any possible ”Responsibility to Protect” or even to hector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080411.wchina0412/BNStory/International/home
The story is not that the CCP and the Government of China spin the news to their advantage – the ‘news’ is spun here, throughout the West, too – to the advantage of governments, agencies, corporations and individuals like the Dalai Lama.
Nor is the story about Jin Jing.
The real story is summed up by Chinese blogger Roland Soong and Charles Burton, a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing who is now a political scientist at Brock University:
• "For the Chinese Communists, the responses from Western governments, media and citizens are immaterial, Song says. “The paramount goal of the Chinese Communists is to retain control of China, and therefore it is the response from the Chinese citizens that matter."
• "The Chinese government has been able to strengthen its credentials as a defender of Chinese nationalistic pride,” accoding to Burton. “People who were not fully supportive of the Communist Party's rule have now united strongly around the party's political agenda for Tibet. The attacks on the Olympic flame have polarized the differences between China and the West, and the West is much more demonized than before."
The important first ‘battle of the torch’ has been won by China.
The matter of how we, in the West, approach the rest of the Beijing Olympics is important. I will reiterate what I have said before:
• China matters – it is a major power, now, and will be a global superpower during the lifetime of most Army.ca members;
• China is not our enemy. It does not want to be our enemy. We do not ‘need’ China as an enemy. But: we can, by action and inaction, turn China from a ‘competitor’ to an enemy;
• Our vital interests might be summed up as “peace and prosperity” and China (as competitor, not enemy) is part of that equation;
• We need to ”engage” China at every level to make it a better place for us to do business – a better, safer, more secure market for our goods and services;
• We do not “engage” by boycotting anything; a boycott is, by definition, disengagement. Nor do we “engage” by insulting the Chinese people – and that is what a boycott of the Olympics will (not might) do.
China has a whole host of problems, including separatist movements in some provinces. Tibet has a whole host of problems – none of which, in my opinion, can be solved by returning to an inept, corrupt Buddhist theocracy. None of Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang are of great import to Canada or even to the West at large - not important enough to make China into an enemy. Taiwan can be, and, I believe, will be absorbed into China under a variation of the “one country, two systems” policy. Tibet and Xinjiang are, like it or not, internal Chinese matters. We can sympathize with the minorities in China but there is not, even remotely, any possible ”Responsibility to Protect” or even to hector.
- Reaction score
- 7,689
- Points
- 1,160
Edward,
While I have great respect for your opinions and share many of them, including the need for realpolitik policies that are guided by national self interest I fear that you progress too far when you state: "None of Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang are of great import to Canada or even to the West at large - not important enough to make China into an enemy." That, I am afraid, sounds awfully like "....a quarrel in a far-away land between peoples of whom we know nothing.....", a Chamberlain reference I am sure you recognize.
You have argued strongly that China is not, and is not likely to become, a liberal democracy. I concur. You have also argued that Han Chinese society is both conservative and authoritarian. Again I concur. At what point does the realpolitik requirement of maintaining the peace in the interest of commerce and order become appeasement with an authoritarian regime that considers our ways as far too chaotic and disordered?
We don't always get to choose our enemies. In fact, do we ever?
A secondary point, as you have also referenced before is that China is not a nation. It is a State and as a State it is an Empire or nations, each claiming aboriginal territory, dominated by the Han Chinese Majority - a Majority that feels put out because the Tibetans, Taiwanese, Uighurs, Manchus etc reacted violently to the Han's kind offer to manage their lives and lands for them. While Jin Jing is doing wonders for the CCP amongst the Han I wonder if the same can be said of all the subject races?
Those internal stressors amongst the races will inevitably lead us back to Chamberlain's conundrum and require us, again to decide if we need a Chamberlain or a Churchill.
While I have great respect for your opinions and share many of them, including the need for realpolitik policies that are guided by national self interest I fear that you progress too far when you state: "None of Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang are of great import to Canada or even to the West at large - not important enough to make China into an enemy." That, I am afraid, sounds awfully like "....a quarrel in a far-away land between peoples of whom we know nothing.....", a Chamberlain reference I am sure you recognize.
You have argued strongly that China is not, and is not likely to become, a liberal democracy. I concur. You have also argued that Han Chinese society is both conservative and authoritarian. Again I concur. At what point does the realpolitik requirement of maintaining the peace in the interest of commerce and order become appeasement with an authoritarian regime that considers our ways as far too chaotic and disordered?
We don't always get to choose our enemies. In fact, do we ever?
A secondary point, as you have also referenced before is that China is not a nation. It is a State and as a State it is an Empire or nations, each claiming aboriginal territory, dominated by the Han Chinese Majority - a Majority that feels put out because the Tibetans, Taiwanese, Uighurs, Manchus etc reacted violently to the Han's kind offer to manage their lives and lands for them. While Jin Jing is doing wonders for the CCP amongst the Han I wonder if the same can be said of all the subject races?
Those internal stressors amongst the races will inevitably lead us back to Chamberlain's conundrum and require us, again to decide if we need a Chamberlain or a Churchill.
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
But, what's the tipping point?
I cannot believe any sane person wants to go to war with China over either Tibet or Xinjiang.
I think some, indeed many people think Taiwan is worth fighting for - so do many Chinese. I am, personally, confident that the CCP/Gov't of China doesn't want to fight over it - not anytime soon, anyway. I believe the Chinese leadership believes that Taiwan will, eventually, rejoin China without a fight. I'm guessing the Gov't of Taiwan believes the same thing.
Thus, what's the issue now?
None, I suggest.
So let's focus on our own interests that involve engaging China and making it a better market for our goods and investments.
I cannot believe any sane person wants to go to war with China over either Tibet or Xinjiang.
I think some, indeed many people think Taiwan is worth fighting for - so do many Chinese. I am, personally, confident that the CCP/Gov't of China doesn't want to fight over it - not anytime soon, anyway. I believe the Chinese leadership believes that Taiwan will, eventually, rejoin China without a fight. I'm guessing the Gov't of Taiwan believes the same thing.
Thus, what's the issue now?
None, I suggest.
So let's focus on our own interests that involve engaging China and making it a better market for our goods and investments.
- Reaction score
- 7,689
- Points
- 1,160
What's the tipping point? Damfino.
That doesn't mean that at some point in the near or distant future we will not reach it.
While I share your assessment of the current government of Taiwan and the current faction that is in control of the CCP neither of those are immutable. One changes democratically, in the open, and the other changes democratically behind closed doors. (democracy being defined as the will of "people" not "THE people"). But both change.
I consider myself reasonably sane most of the time and while I don't see a current need, or capability (the West is pretty stretched and split) for war I could posit a casus belli in India and China debating Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Kashmir for control of the head waters of the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Irrawady, Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers.
Or from Japan and South Korea feeling threatened if China were to successfully launch an assault on Taiwan.
In the meantime, as a good capitalist, I too will continue to make hay while the sun shines and sell the Chinese the rope with which they intend to hang me, if they can.
That doesn't mean that at some point in the near or distant future we will not reach it.
While I share your assessment of the current government of Taiwan and the current faction that is in control of the CCP neither of those are immutable. One changes democratically, in the open, and the other changes democratically behind closed doors. (democracy being defined as the will of "people" not "THE people"). But both change.
I consider myself reasonably sane most of the time and while I don't see a current need, or capability (the West is pretty stretched and split) for war I could posit a casus belli in India and China debating Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Kashmir for control of the head waters of the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Irrawady, Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers.
Or from Japan and South Korea feeling threatened if China were to successfully launch an assault on Taiwan.
In the meantime, as a good capitalist, I too will continue to make hay while the sun shines and sell the Chinese the rope with which they intend to hang me, if they can.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
I dont see China changing into a democracy.What they have done is liberalize some of their economic policies while cementing their political goals.The CCP runs the country and will not tolerate dissent because of the millions of non-Chinese that they control might actually demand independence.They want to merge Taiwan into their empire the only real question is will they do so by force ? The only way Taiwan willingly rejoins China is if there is democracy in full bloom and I dont ever see that happening. If the Generals get tired of waiting they will have to pick their invasion to coincide with a "friendly" administration in Washington. That day might not be far off if Obama gets into the White House.
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
I agree 100%.
I don’t see many countries becoming democracies – and that includes most of hose, even in Latin America, that are, currently, experimenting with the system.
I know I’m repeating myself, but democracy is a whole helluva lot more than just a few free elections. It is a whole system that rests on a foundation of:
• Government with the consent of the governed – elections being he best but maybe not he only way to determine hat consent;
• A firm respect for the rule of law – in all aspects of life including politics; and
• Equality at law – for governors and the governed alike.
China has no experience with democracy. They have had and have prospered under meritocracies. Their current big problems are “rule of law” and the idea of “equality at law.” Those are problems they share with the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries and with about 165 of the UN’s nearly 200 members. Even a few OECD members have had a few problems making democracy work: France 1958-59 and Greece 1967-74, for example.
Democracy is delightful and people do want to decide, for themselves, how they should be governed but, as experience in Algeria, for example, showed, we might not like the results of the peoples’ choices.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
E.R. Campbell said:
Mr. Campbell,
Well this statement would be true only if you count mainland China, proper. However, one cannot overlook Taiwan, which is very much within the greater Pan-Chinese sphere of influence, regardless of whether they become independent later on. Pres. Lee Tung-Hui got elected President in the island's first "free and fair" elections in spite of the 1996 China Missile crisis which saw the mainland taunting Taiwan. This was to be followed by his successor Chen Shui Bian in 2000, IIRC, then to the current President-elect Ma-Ying Jiu; Taiwan/the ROC thus has had a very vibrant and intense multiparty democracy since 1996- when Pres. Lee Tung Hui was just ending his emergency term as President when he took over from the late Pres. Chiang Ching-Kuo, Generalissimo Chiang-Kai Shek's son- which shows that a Han Chinese society living seperately from China- if not the China itself- is ready and compatible with Democracy.
One little thing that I'd like to add: both the waishengren and the benshengren in Taiwan, in spite of their initially diverging and later converging histories, are ethnically Han Chinese; the benshengren, although they speak a bastardized version of Fujianese/Hokien, must not be confused with the local Aboriginal peoples, like the Atayal, IIRC, who in turn are probably closer ethnically and culturally to the Northern tribes in the island of Luzon in the Philippines just to the South.
Also, are we forgetting about Hong Kong just before the 1997 handover, when the local British Colonial government led by Governor Chris Patten allowed the local Chinese to have a real election? Even though it was Tung-Chee Hwa, a local businessman with strong CCP connections (my, my, these sycophants are everywhere :
, even if he did attend the University of Liverpool), who got elected, this is yet another example of Chinese people practicing true universal suffrage.
- Reaction score
- 4,687
- Points
- 1,160
Touché, CougarDaddy. Taiwan is, indeed, a vibrant democracy – a good demonstration that democracy and conservative values are quite compatible. Ditto, albeit to a lesser degree, for Hong Kong.
There is, I believe some very tentative grass-roots democracy experiments underway at local levels in China, per se. One of the interesting things I have observed is that CCP membership is no longer as highly prized as it once was. I know, personally, of one person who, respectfully but not at all nervously, turned down an offer of Party membership – something that would have been inconceivable 20, perhaps even 10 years ago. She thought that the rewards of Party membership were no sufficient. I think the Party is looking for ways to burnish its reputation and enhance its perceived value by allowing some local ‘democracy.’
There is, I believe some very tentative grass-roots democracy experiments underway at local levels in China, per se. One of the interesting things I have observed is that CCP membership is no longer as highly prized as it once was. I know, personally, of one person who, respectfully but not at all nervously, turned down an offer of Party membership – something that would have been inconceivable 20, perhaps even 10 years ago. She thought that the rewards of Party membership were no sufficient. I think the Party is looking for ways to burnish its reputation and enhance its perceived value by allowing some local ‘democracy.’
Similar threads
