What are Your Thoughts on the Rise of China?

[Cthugha]

russ_watters is talking about nuclear armeggedon or global conflict on par with WW2, not the minor border skirmishes, small-country civil disputes, or various (lame) policing activities initiated by (mostly) the USA.

I do not see your point.

I strongly agree with:

People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in.

But I wanted to point out the logical fallacy arising from:

The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

All I wanted to express is that single party domination is not leading to stability or peace (considering the first quote above), but the fact that there is no country/alliance which can consider itself safe from the threat of getting totally crushed - not even the dominating one - is.

 

[DiracPool]

I do not see your point.

Look harder. I'll help you below.

All I wanted to express is that single party domination is not leading to stability or peace

Yes it is. That is exactly the point. Per capita and per our capability to annihilate one another, the world hasn't been this peaceful since the time of the Romans.

@russ waters
The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

And that is exactly the reason why.

I wanted to point out the logical fallacy

Hence, it's not a logical fallacy.

but the fact that there is no country/alliance which can consider itself safe from the threat of getting totally crushed - not even the dominating one - is.

You got that one right, but the reason for that is that there is more than one country that has nukes, that is the only reason for any instability, not the other way around, as you seem to imply

 

[Bacle2]

russ_watters is talking about nuclear armeggedon or global conflict on par with WW2, not the minor border skirmishes, small-country civil disputes, or various (lame) policing activities initiated by (mostly) the USA. These type of "lukewarm" conventional actions are always going to be with us. They're not even remotely comparable to what a "hot" war we could really face if every country was "packing" nuclear weapons.

I'm not so sure of that; maybe you can argue that there are no wars, because if there was one there is a risk that it will be the last one if anyone uses nuclear weapons. So cuntries' leaders are less willing to risk going to war. One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

 

[Bacle2]

1. The US has already started to nuclear disarm, some of it unilaterally.
2. Most of the West has conventionally disarmed because it has the US to protect it.

So yes, disarmament happens and it has nothing to do with "fairness".
Absurd. Fairness just makes for more, longer and bloodier wars. People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in. The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

So I guess you believe that the leaders of individual countries do not factor issues of fairness into their decisions on whether to build weapons? Do you believe that if they see that others (specially their enemies) are arming theirselves to the teeth they are willing to disarm themselves? I only said this is a contributing factor and not the determining one.

And, yes, I do believe that at a general, abstract level one can reasonably talk about "fairness" , tho there is a great difference in the specifics: practice what you preach, keep your word, pick on someone your own size, have their grievances addressed in ways they consider acceptable, etc., I believe are tenets most would consider to be fair, but at a general level, with differences in the specifics of the context of each country/culture.

But, now, since you're criticizing my use of "fairness" , as being too vague, maybe undefinable or meaningless, it may be a good idea for you to define your own terms more specifically: by what standards/measure is the world more peaceful now than before , and maybe offer some evidence to support other contributing factors.

And, as to the" fairness of wars", I was referring to an international order that would be considered acceptable to the majority.or at least a sincere effort in that direction, I was not referring to the fairness of war itself, tho you may want to contact your congressperson and suggest we do away with the Geneva convention, and restrictions on Bio- and Chemical weapons, etc.

 

[Cthugha]

Yes it is. That is exactly the point. Per capita and per our capability to annihilate one another, the world hasn't been this peaceful since the time of the Romans.

Sorry, I still absolutely do not get your point. What does the capability to annihilate one other have to do with peace? I am much more interested in how much we actually annihilate each other in reality than about how much we could potentially annihilate each other. It is just a guess, but I suppose the people actually getting annihilated would think the same way. If there was some country/culture in the world which had developed some agenda of collective martyrdom, I would understand your point, but even cultures which consider suicide attacks on the individual level still strive for survival as a collective.

The one point where I agree with you is the risk of a society having nuclear weapons going into decline and finally chaos. The risk of nuclear weapons vanishing under such circumstances is indeed a real one. However, this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the international community should try to keep potentially unstable countries from building nuclear weapons to prevent exactly this scenario. On the other hand, this will motivate some countries which are potential targets for military interventions even further to develop nuclear warfare because as soon as they have nuclear weapons the international community will have some immediate interest in keeping these countries stable.

Also, whether the overkill factor is 10, 50 or 1000 does not really matter. Just being able to eradicate mankind 10 times instead of 100 times is not something to measure peace with in my opinion. Turning away from the overkill agenda and having real disarmament to the point that it is not possible to eradicate a potential enemy country anymore, would be a completely different thing. However, it is kind of naive and unrealistic to expect some country to give up such a huge amount of power.

Taking this capability to eradicate each other as a measure, stone age has been as peaceful as it gets. This really should not be the standard we should compare to.

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

 

[Monsterboy]

A reference to the USA. The NSA is not the USA and most of your complaints about the USA have nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA. The NSA is a passive surveillance organization, which by budget is only half a percent of the US government. Just to be clear, I think it is overly charitable to refer to the NSA in such glowing terms,

That's a stupid thing to say, you are saying that USA is not responsible for what NSA does , NSA comes under the USA , if Mute tells anything about the NSA's doings , it applies to the USA too,NSA is not something outside the USA and doesn't take completely independent decisions , you think NSA took the decision to spy on other countries' and their internet activities (including the EU) without the knowledge of the US government?

My arguments are mainly meant to point out that these people may not feel there is much of a difference between China interfering in their countries vs. the US interfering in their countries.

You said "...these people may not feel there is much of a difference Between China...vs the US." The fact that some people feel that there isn't a difference does not change the fact that there actually are major differences. Their feelings are not facts and you should not state them as if they are facts.

Mute did not talk about absolute differences between China and the USA (everybody knows that there are), it was about interfering in other countries,you have taken it out of context, so what the "some people" might have thought, is not completely wrong after what we came to know from the Snowden-leaks .

 

[Tenshou]

What about china's people being oppressed? And what did I say, things could happen over night(Although, that may have been an over statement.)

 

[russ_watters]

This is simply incorrect. The number of hot wars has significantly increased since the end of the cold war.

I wasn't specifically referring to the end of the cold war, but no, sorry, that is wrong too (unless you have an odd way of measuring it:

In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war

Another source: http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflict.htm

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

Really?
1. What foreign policy actions by China are you referring to? Support of North Korea's government? Support of Syria's government? China's ongoing border disputes with India? There are certainly legitimate criticisms of the US's foreign policy, particularly wrt Iraq and our conduct during the cold war (which ended more than 20 years ago). China's actions are at least as bad going back that far and in the past 20 years with the exception of Iraq 2003 the US comes off pretty good by comparison - better if we include Iraq 1991.

2. On what basis do you believe that if China's influence grew they would not export their "horrible" domestic policy track record?

 

[russ_watters]

So I guess you believe that the leaders of individual countries do not factor issues of fairness into their decisions on whether to build weapons?

Of course not!

Do you believe that if they see that others (specially their enemies) are arming theirselves to the teeth they are willing to disarm themselves?

The whole point of an "arms race" is winning, not parity!

Beyond that, again, if your idea is correct, you're going to have to find another way of explaining the actions of the US and Europe wrt the level of armament.

But, now, since you're criticizing my use of "fairness" , as being too vague, maybe undefinable or meaningless, it may be a good idea for you to define your own terms more specifically: by what standards/measure is the world more peaceful now than before , and maybe offer some evidence to support other contributing factors.

Provided in my previous post, but to put a finer point on it (and this was also said by someone else), the number of deaths in war is a better indicator because wars vary in size. For example, if someone says that US was engaged in one major war in 1947 but two in 2005, that wouldn't give a clear picture of the difference.

And, as to the" fairness of wars", I was referring to an international order that would be considered acceptable to the majority.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is Europe interested in fairness WRT their armament levels vs the US? Frankly I wish they would be, that way we wouldn't have to do so much of the dirty-work!

...I was not referring to the fairness of war itself, tho you may want to contact your congressperson and suggest we do away with the Geneva convention, and restrictions on Bio- and Chemical weapons, etc.

The Geneva Conventions have little to do with fairness. They are about civility.

 

[russ_watters]

One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

North Korea's government is perfectly happy watching their citizens die of starvation by the millions in order to maintain control. What makes you think they would have any more problem killing South Koreans by the millions if they felt threatened?

 

[Cthugha]

I wasn't specifically referring to the end of the cold war, but no, sorry, that is wrong too (unless you have an odd way of measuring it:

The way of measuring the number of wars is pretty simple: counting.

1945-1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89

1990-2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990–2002

2003-2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003–10

Taking roughly 1990 as the end of the cold war and comparing a similar time span, we arrive at:
1970 -1980: 30
1980 - 1990: 27

1990 - 2002: 57
2003-2010:32
This gives a rough comparison of 57 to 89.

I agree that it might seem tempting to use the number of deaths as an indicator, as the number of wars does not necessarily say something about the extent of the war, but I think using these also has some drawbacks. The number of deaths measures only "deaths caused directly by war-related violence". On the one hand such statistics are always a bit fishy and it is difficult to find out what is exactly included (casualties? collateral damage?) and how exact these numbers are.

However, that is still the smaller problem I see. Just counting the number of victims does not include all the other effects of war on e.g. economy of the countries at war. If the access to water or basic food goes away in some country in the middle of nowhere in Africa, a lot of people will die from that, too, although it is not directly war-related violence. Other non-lethal, but still negative consequences of war are also not included. Also, the number of deaths has been reduced significantly by the availability of more modern weapon technology which reduces collateral damage. However, the economic impact of war has not really decreased in a similar manner. Maybe instead of the number of wars or the total number of deaths in wars, the total number of people involved in wars might be a more accurate measure. But I doubt there are really significant statistics on that.

During the cold war era, there was at least some interest of the two blocks in African countries. At least everybody tried to keep them from joining the other block. Nowadays, the international community just does not really care anymore about what is happening there, maybe with few exceptions like Nigeria or Sao Tome which have reasonable amounts of natural resources which may become interesting in the future.

North Korea's government is perfectly happy watching their citizens die of starvation by the millions in order to maintain control. What makes you think they would have any more problem killing South Koreans by the millions if they felt threatened?

Because that would be a sure-fire method to lose control. I am quite sure that North Korea is very aware of this.

 

[aquitaine]

American media does talk about how great the US is. American textbooks are accused of being or found to be inaccurate all the time, often portraying a very US-centric view of history and justification of the US's actions. The government does control which information comes out to the public about many of their intelligence and security activities, as recent events have shown. Not all propaganda takes the form of tacky posters (though the US has certainly had its fair share in the past.)

Just because pro-US propaganda is not as extensive or intrusive as Chinese propaganda does not mean that it doesn't exist.

1.) Some of the US media does, but not all. Even the ones that are like that do so out of their own CHOICE. In China there is no such choice, everything you see has been "edited" or deemed safe by government censors.

2.) I really don't know what school you went to, but the whole time I was in American schools we were taught to hate ourselves. We were taught out civilization was destroying the Earth and we were taught everything that's wrong with the world is because of us. We were taught that the colonized people were just innocent people being crushed by the evil white man, which conveniently forgets that many of those subjugated people were themselves imperial powers. There is propaganda in the US school system, but from what I've seen it sure isn't pro-American by any stretch of the imagination.

3.) The government in the US does not have nearly as much control as you are portraying. There's leaks all the time and we have a press that is independent of the government.

I think the West (nor, any country, really)can hardly claim any ethical high ground; the opium
wars alone were enough to disgrace the West for a very long time.

You do realize that China at the time was running perhaps the biggest protection racket in history, right?

[Also, for the record, I have many qualms about the Chinese government. But, the discussion started off as anti-China, and it would be a less interesting discussion if it was just full of people ranting about China.]

So telling the truth about the regime, what it does and what its intentions are is "anti-China"?

And, yes, I am willing to take risks in order to work towards some level of fairness, which is the real way to obtain long-term peace.

Here's what's really going to happen: They'll pay lip service to any sort of upper cap but secretly built as many nukes as they can. They'll do so to gain an edge and they'll do it because they'll assume their rivals are already doing it in secret for the same reason. Suddenly we'll end up with another nuclear arms race. Goody.

Unlike what many believe , the heads of these countries are not suicidal and act rationally in their own self-interest, so their not likely to use these weapons carelessly.

Granted this was in a more conventional war but McNamara assumed exactly that about the Vietnamese. He assumed their leadership was rational and wouldn't sacrifice millions of their own people to conquer the south. Obviously that assertion was hugely incorrect because that's exactly what they ended up doing.

I also said that many Chinese would make the same arguments about the Communist party's control over China. Synaptic also made claims about how the Chinese would love democracy, and I pointed out that that's not necessarily true - in some, perhaps many, cases it is, but other Chinese are just fine with the way things are. "Chinese brainwashing" is a common argument as to why the Chinese would feel this way, so I pre-addressed it by noting that one might claim the same thing about Americans - to be more precise, in that post I was referring to Americans who fully believe the US is spying on its citizens and allies for the sake of our/their safety. These were legitimate arguments I had. Perhaps the statement about Americans being similarly brainwashed gave the impression that I think Americans are as 'brainwashed' as the Chinese; I don't.

Except that most Chinese are not. One of the reasons the regime tries so hard to drum up militaristic nationalism is to maintain its control over the country. It's not very popular, but people will put up with it so long as the economy grows, enough influential people are bought off with patronage (see my first post about the real role of SOE's) and the Party continues to be the stalwart defender of the China.

But this tactic also makes it almost impossible for them to back down in the face of a potential conflict. They can't be seen as weak or conciliatory. That makes the likelihood of a major war in that region much greater than it otherwise would be.

I'm not so sure of that; maybe you can argue that there are no wars, because if there was one there is a risk that it will be the last one if anyone uses nuclear weapons. So cuntries' leaders are less willing to risk going to war. One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

Here was the Soviet nuclear strategy: If war broke out with NATO for any reason they would conduct an immediate full scale nuclear bombardment of the US. Of course they knew we would do the same as soon as their launch was detected, but they were prepared for that. They spent a lot of effort building and stocking public bomb shelters for this reason. Consider that we almost went to war with them many times despite the stakes being so high. Don't assume that they wouldn't have gone for it eventually, especially if they felt any of their key interests were threatened.

Today because their conventional forces have deteriorated so much they revised their nuclear policy to use them against almost anyone with a real army.

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

I don't see how you can view their foreign affairs as being better than ours, especially in light of their recent gunboat diplomacy. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, East Asia has become a powder keg and China has been the biggest reason for the instability. They only want one thing: To dominate and control their neighbors, like they had done historically.

Because that would be a sure-fire method to lose control. I am quite sure that North Korea is very aware of this.

And what if they think they have nothing to lose?

 

[Cthugha]

I don't see how you can view their foreign affairs as being better than ours, especially in light of their recent gunboat diplomacy. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, East Asia has become a powder keg and China has been the biggest reason for the instability. They only want one thing: To dominate and control their neighbors, like they had done historically.

China has been pretty isolationist since about 1980 and did not really engage in hot wars. Indeed they are definitely more aggressive with respect to their direct neighbors in recent times. However, it would be kind of naive to expect that they would not try to influence them. I am definitely not a friend of China's foreign affairs, but since the Iraq war, it is hard to "outperform" the US. Invading a country on wrong assumptions without the consent of the United Nations is pretty much unmatched in recent history. At least in the democratic world. So is "less bad" instead of "better" a better matching description?

And what if they think they have nothing to lose?

Well, on the one hand they know that China wants them as a buffer layer, but the more important point is: It is unwise to bring them into a situation where they have nothing to lose. It is also part of rational politics to ensure that North Korea does not end up in such a situation. In my opinion, this is the main appeal of having nuclear weapons. Others need to be careful. Nuclear weapons are a life insurance for the regime. I do not think North Korea would use nuclear weapons if they are simply threatened. They might, however, when actually being invaded. Do you see any better strategy for North Korea to avoid being invaded?

 

[aquitaine]

China has been pretty isolationist since about 1980 and did not really engage in hot wars. Indeed they are definitely more aggressive with respect to their direct neighbors in recent times. However, it would be kind of naive to expect that they would not try to influence them. I am definitely not a friend of China's foreign affairs, but since the Iraq war, it is hard to "outperform" the US. Invading a country on wrong assumptions without the consent of the United Nations is pretty much unmatched in recent history. At least in the democratic world. So is "less bad" instead of "better" a better matching description?

Throughout the '80's China engaged in a number of skirmishes with India and Vietnam, plus as late as '95 they provoked another Taiwan Straight Crisis. Isolationist indeed.

You know you could have said much the same thing about Germany prior to World War 1 and also prior to it's annexation of Czechoslovakia in '38. Doesn't change the fact they wanted war and would do anything to win, including smashing and pillaging neutral nations. China today is in much the same position, with much the same attitude and is going about it in much the same manner. Relationships with China are pretty one sided, so much so that even Burma got sick of them.

Well, on the one hand they know that China wants them as a buffer layer, but the more important point is: It is unwise to bring them into a situation where they have nothing to lose. It is also part of rational politics to ensure that North Korea does not end up in such a situation. In my opinion, this is the main appeal of having nuclear weapons. Others need to be careful. Nuclear weapons are a life insurance for the regime. I do not think North Korea would use nuclear weapons if they are simply threatened. They might, however, when actually being invaded. Do you see any better strategy for North Korea to avoid being invaded?

So we should bow in the face of nuclear blackmail? Boy is that a Pandora's Box. But you know, you cannot assume these people are rational. As I mentioned in my previous post, McNamara made the same mistake about the North Vietnamese. A regime like this would be perfectly willing to allow millions of their own people to die if they think it will accomplish their goal. The Kim regime won't last forever, sooner or later, whether it be through internal revolution or external intervention. I'd much rather when that day comes that nuclear weapons not be in the equation.

 

[Cthugha]

Throughout the '80's China engaged in a number of skirmishes with India and Vietnam, plus as late as '95 they provoked another Taiwan Straight Crisis. Isolationist indeed.

The Taiwan crisis consisted of missile tests which were of course a sign to demonstrate power and send a signal and threaten Taiwan. However, if interventionalist countries now use missile test as their ultima ratio, the world is a happy place.

You know you could have said much the same thing about Germany prior to World War 1 and also prior to it's annexation of Czechoslovakia in '38. Doesn't change the fact they wanted war and would do anything to win, including smashing and pillaging neutral nations. China today is in much the same position, with much the same attitude and is going about it in much the same manner.

That is constructing parallels where there are none. You could say the same about pretty much every country in the world and justify war with any country that way. Maybe with the exception of the "coalition of the willing". They would not only smash neutral nations. They already did.

Relationships with China are pretty one sided, so much so that even Burma got sick of them.

Yes, relationships as the weaker partner tend to be one sided. That is also true pretty much elsewhere. Why do you think the European countries more or less accept the US having bugged embassies of European countries and the central offices of the European Union? Certainly not because they think it is a great idea.

So we should bow in the face of nuclear blackmail? Boy is that a Pandora's Box. But you know, you cannot assume these people are rational. As I mentioned in my previous post, McNamara made the same mistake about the North Vietnamese. A regime like this would be perfectly willing to allow millions of their own people to die if they think it will accomplish their goal. The Kim regime won't last forever, sooner or later, whether it be through internal revolution or external intervention. I'd much rather when that day comes that nuclear weapons not be in the equation.

I am certainly not in any position to recommend anything. Of course you cannot assume that North Korea is rational and there should be a plan ready for the case they are not. However, you also cannot simply assume the opposite. I just do not understand what you expect. Do you expect North Korea to be fair (to follow the terminology used earlier in this thread) and say "Hey, nuclear weapons are bad. We will stop thinking about that. You will not invade us, will you?" That would indeed be irrational. Sure, I would prefer North Korea not having nuclear weapons, too, but I cannot think of many realistic scenarios, where that happens. The most realistic one seems to be China getting tired of the Kim dynasty and installing a more predictable system. External intervention rarely works well. The people of the invaded country rarely develop a more positive view of the invaders afterwards. It worked in Germany and Italy (and I think also Grenada), but rarely elsewhere. Thus, supporting revolutionary tendencies in that country from abroad always seems like a better option to me unless there is really a huge immediate thread involved.

On the other hand, I am not quite sure Kim is as dumb as the media portraits him(*). He is a pretty young leader and needs to demonstrate strength in order to avoid old elites and high ranked military officers starting a coup. What he says might be show or it might be honest. He might be rational or he might do insane actions. I have been to the DMZ between South and North Korea once (from the southern side obviously). It is still more or less the largest tourist attraction in Korea and all soldiers on both sides are more or less decoration. Kaesong Industrial Complex, where North Korean workers provide pretty cheap work for South Korean companies has also worked quite well for some time and is going to reopen soon.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/n-and-s-korea-meet-for-talks-on-industrial-park/2013/07/06/9ec59220-e641-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html. Escalation looks different.

(*)The image the rest of the world has on what the US thinks of the world is (during the last few years) widely based on Sarah Palin. Simply because some of the things were just so odd that people remembered them and they also were placed prominently in the news all over the world (First and foremost: "They're our next-door neighbours and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."). I think (and hope) that is not really representative of the US way of foreign politics and that the media image emphasizes the most "interesting" statements instead of the most relevant ones.

 

[aquitaine]

Sorry for the delayed response:

The Taiwan crisis consisted of missile tests which were of course a sign to demonstrate power and send a signal and threaten Taiwan. However, if interventionalist countries now use missile test as their ultima ratio, the world is a happy place.

So you say they have been isolationist and yet you admit they have been actively provoking their neighbors?

That is constructing parallels where there are none. You could say the same about pretty much every country in the world and justify war with any country that way. Maybe with the exception of the "coalition of the willing". They would not only smash neutral nations. They already did.

No, it isn't. China is following the same path as Germany under Wilhelm II's reign, up to and including using threats of force to intimidate their neighbors. I would also hardly consider the German rape of Belgium while on their way to attack France comparable to invading Iraq.

But you're missing the point, history does rhyme. Currently in Asia we have two centers of power that are coalescing, an arms race that seriously does not get the media attention it deserves, and periodic crisis that set the stage for a much bigger conflict. Tell me that is not this century's version of turn of the 20th century Europe.

One other aspect of the situation that doesn't get a lot of attention is the New Great Game in Central Asia. Here's a rather informative video about it:



At around 14:30 he discusses China specifically and their relations with the Central Asian states.

Yes, relationships as the weaker partner tend to be one sided. That is also true pretty much elsewhere. Why do you think the European countries more or less accept the US having bugged embassies of European countries and the central offices of the European Union? Certainly not because they think it is a great idea.

Once again you're desperately trying to bring us down to the level of China. If we really were like them then do you seriously believe we would have allowed the Japanese to have continued their predatory trade practices for so many decades? China would never have allowed such a relationship, in no small part thanks to China's active practice of mercantilism, costs to the client state be darned.

I am certainly not in any position to recommend anything. Of course you cannot assume that North Korea is rational and there should be a plan ready for the case they are not. However, you also cannot simply assume the opposite. I just do not understand what you expect. Do you expect North Korea to be fair (to follow the terminology used earlier in this thread) and say "Hey, nuclear weapons are bad. We will stop thinking about that. You will not invade us, will you?" That would indeed be irrational. Sure, I would prefer North Korea not having nuclear weapons, too, but I cannot think of many realistic scenarios, where that happens.

Besides the removal of the regime the best thing we could hope for would be putting North Korea under China's nuclear umbrella. We have done this with many of our allies such as South Korea to prevent this sort of problem from occurring. Since there is precedence it would not be unrealistic to edge it toward this.

The most realistic one seems to be China getting tired of the Kim dynasty and installing a more predictable system. External intervention rarely works well. The people of the invaded country rarely develop a more positive view of the invaders afterwards. It worked in Germany and Italy (and I think also Grenada), but rarely elsewhere. Thus, supporting revolutionary tendencies in that country from abroad always seems like a better option to me unless there is really a huge immediate thread involved.

One thing to consider about the occupation of the main Axis countries was that it was planned well in advance, upwards of a couple of years before their defeat IIRC. In addition to bringing the war home by destroying their cities and industrial base, we systematically cleansed their bureaucracies (but left them mostly in place, we went after the true believers) of competing ideologies. Add to that, we saved most of them from Soviet imperialism.

On the other hand, I am not quite sure Kim is as dumb as the media portraits him(*). He is a pretty young leader and needs to demonstrate strength in order to avoid old elites and high ranked military officers starting a coup. What he says might be show or it might be honest. He might be rational or he might do insane actions. I have been to the DMZ between South and North Korea once (from the southern side obviously). It is still more or less the largest tourist attraction in Korea and all soldiers on both sides are more or less decoration. Kaesong Industrial Complex, where North Korean workers provide pretty cheap work for South Korean companies has also worked quite well for some time and is going to reopen soon.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...080_story.html . Escalation looks different.

I never said Kim was stupid, but smart does not always equate to reasonable. Idi Amin was the poster child of that. In any event, while the Korean DMZ is a problem it isn't the hot spot I'd be most concerned with. The South China Sea is a lot less stable, with one big country trying to bully several smaller countries. Unlike the Korean DMZ there is a lot at stake with huge natural gas and oil reserves believed to exist on the ocean floor.

Tied to this is our mutual security agreement with the Phillipines. China is waiting for a sign of weakness from us, and then they will test how serious we are about enforcing our treaty. Unlike Japan (who we also have an alliance with), the Phillipines can't really defend itself. That makes it a fat potential target.

(*)The image the rest of the world has on what the US thinks of the world is (during the last few years) widely based on Sarah Palin. Simply because some of the things were just so odd that people remembered them and they also were placed prominently in the news all over the world (First and foremost: "They're our next-door neighbours and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."). I think (and hope) that is not really representative of the US way of foreign politics and that the media image emphasizes the most "interesting" statements instead of the most relevant ones.

Part of the problem is that a certain amount of self-loathing has overcome the European and Australian Left. The thinking is, anyone but the US MUST be better, non-western nations are inherently good. I used to be one of those people (though I'm not European or Australian), but witnessing the militaristic nationalism during my time in China and the extent to which it is being promoted as the official state ideology (which was the case in Germany before the World Wars by the way) was a big wakeup call.

 

[Cthugha]

So you say they have been isolationist and yet you admit they have been actively provoking their neighbors?

Yes, sure. I do not think, the global word meaning of "pretty isolationist" can be compared to what it has benn a century ago. If you prefer, we can call it non-interventionist or keep-toyour-own-borderist or whatever, but they clearly have not intervened outside of their immediate area of interest for a while.

No, it isn't. China is following the same path as Germany under Wilhelm II's reign, up to and including using threats of force to intimidate their neighbors.

I do not think you can compare the situations. To understand WW1, you need to take colonialism and the rather complicated diplomatic situation into account. China is not looking for a "place in the sun" as Germany was. Also, Wilhelm II was more or less pretty incompetent. This is something I do not expect Chinese leadership to be.

I would also hardly consider the German rape of Belgium while on their way to attack France comparable to invading Iraq.

Hmm, at least the aim of that attack was clear: Getting to France. What was the aim of the Iraq invasion? Getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? There were none considered as such. Reducing Al-Qaeda influence? Al-Qaeda is Sunni and the Iraq has a Shia majority. Iraq was one of the few islamic states where one could be sure that they are not supporting Al-Qaeda (the others are Iran and Syria by the way). Getting rid of an evil dictator? There are many countries in Africa which feature way more troublesome dictators and nobody cares. What else? Oil? Maybe, it would match the US energy imperialism policy in central Asia, but that seems a little cheap. This is a case of somewhere between 100000 and 1000000 victims (depending on whether you only count direct victims or also consider every indirect victim). This is an order of magnitude worse than the next-insane war of recent times, the Kosovo war. Even in Britain 20% of the population think Blair and Bush should be on trial for war crimes. One can argue about the righteousness of many recent interventions of western countries, but the Iraq war was a complete disaster and that was obvious beforehand.

But you're missing the point, history does rhyme. Currently in Asia we have two centers of power that are coalescing, an arms race that seriously does not get the media attention it deserves, and periodic crisis that set the stage for a much bigger conflict. Tell me that is not this century's version of turn of the 20th century Europe.

Yes, there may be a conflict around the corner, but I think it is way more single-sided than the situation in Europe ever was. Unless Russia and China end up in really huge disagreements about the role of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the other relevant (in terms of energy) countries in central Asia, the roles are clearly distributed. India and Vietnam will not be able to compete with China in any arms race. I do not think Japan will either, but I suppose China will try to keep them out of everything due to their ties to the west.

Once again you're desperately trying to bring us down to the level of China. If we really were like them then do you seriously believe we would have allowed the Japanese to have continued their predatory trade practices for so many decades? China would never have allowed such a relationship, in no small part thanks to China's active practice of mercantilism, costs to the client state be darned.

That is quite an awkward way of reading what I wrote. Using the same strategies does not mean two countries are alike. It is not even really a strategy. The weaker partner in a contract needs to stretch more. I just said that it seems odd to hold that against China.

Besides the removal of the regime the best thing we could hope for would be putting North Korea under China's nuclear umbrella. We have done this with many of our allies such as South Korea to prevent this sort of problem from occurring. Since there is precedence it would not be unrealistic to edge it toward this.

Well, that may work and would provide a desirable solution, but the relations between China and North Korea seem to be pretty special. Nevertheless that would seem to be a good way out. Especially as North Korea seems to be a pretty unattractive country. My bet would be that even if the unrealistic case that a reunion of South and North Korea comes into reach somehow, South Korea might decline as that reunion might ruin Korea's economy.

One thing to consider about the occupation of the main Axis countries was that it was planned well in advance, upwards of a couple of years before their defeat IIRC. In addition to bringing the war home by destroying their cities and industrial base, we systematically cleansed their bureaucracies (but left them mostly in place, we went after the true believers) of competing ideologies. Add to that, we saved most of them from Soviet imperialism.

Well, that did not really work, did it? 1966 chancellor Kiesinger still had a Nazi history. Whether people were really true believers or opportunists was something one could not really say with certainty. Ir probably worked as well as possible, though. Nevertheless, I still think the circumstances were more important. The economy after the war experienced an incredible recovery which is pretty much the opposite of what happened after WWI. I think this was the most important factor.

I never said Kim was stupid, but smart does not always equate to reasonable. Idi Amin was the poster child of that. In any event, while the Korean DMZ is a problem it isn't the hot spot I'd be most concerned with. The South China Sea is a lot less stable, with one big country trying to bully several smaller countries. Unlike the Korean DMZ there is a lot at stake with huge natural gas and oil reserves believed to exist on the ocean floor.

Tied to this is our mutual security agreement with the Phillipines. China is waiting for a sign of weakness from us, and then they will test how serious we are about enforcing our treaty. Unlike Japan (who we also have an alliance with), the Phillipines can't really defend itself. That makes it a fat potential target.

Yes. Maybe. I suppose that depends on how quickly energy will increase in importance. But I do not see why China needs to wait for a sign of weakness. China is on an upswing. At current its position is improving. They can wait for the western reaction to that.

Part of the problem is that a certain amount of self-loathing has overcome the European and Australian Left. The thinking is, anyone but the US MUST be better, non-western nations are inherently good. I used to be one of those people (though I'm not European or Australian), but witnessing the militaristic nationalism during my time in China and the extent to which it is being promoted as the official state ideology (which was the case in Germany before the World Wars by the way) was a big wakeup call.

Better? No, surely not. It is rather a choice of picking the lesser evil. In terms of domestic politics, I know which country I prefer. In terms of foreign affairs I am quite sure that China is willing to go to war for natural resources in the long run. In contrast to the US in Iraq they have not proven that, though - even the former UK chief scientific adviser considers Iraq the first resource war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/12/king-iraq-resources-war). It just seems very odd to say "Hey, China is becoming more conscious of its power. These bad guys will be aggressive and fight with their neighbours over resources.", when the west just did the same thing. The honest answer is simple: This is all about power politics and securing resources which will be needed in the future. This is all about interests. Attaching "good" and "evil" stickers to countries seems absolutely out of place to me.

 

[aquitaine]

Yes, sure. I do not think, the global word meaning of "pretty isolationist" can be compared to what it has benn a century ago. If you prefer, we can call it non-interventionist or keep-toyour-own-borderist or whatever, but they clearly have not intervened outside of their immediate area of interest for a while.

That has nothing to do with lack of intent, rather lack of capability as they don't have the means to project power like we can. They're also surrounded by countries that are either armed to the teeth or are protected (implicitly or explicitly) by powerful countries like Russia or the US. That really limits what they can do.

I do not think you can compare the situations. To understand WW1, you need to take colonialism and the rather complicated diplomatic situation into account. China is not looking for a "place in the sun" as Germany was. Also, Wilhelm II was more or less pretty incompetent. This is something I do not expect Chinese leadership to be.

Yes, actually I can. On what basis can you conclude China isn't looking to take our place? The war was about power and prestige, don't think the same thing will not occur again. You ultimately have the same 2 power bloc dynamic forming with certain countries at the cores of each and other countries leaning towards one or the other.

I also think you're giving the Chinese leadership far too much credit. Germany's biggest mistake in both world wars was having an aggressive foreign policy in the years before war broke out that created multiple enemies on at least 2 fronts. China is doing precisely this and in doing so has pushed neighbors who previously never liked each other into friendship and cooperation. First China starts sending warships into the South China Sea to bully the Phillipines, then it sends warships to Senkaku to try and bully the Japanese, then deciding they haven't made enough enemies they send a small detachment of troops over the Indian border. And that was just the past couple of years! What crises like this do is set the stage for The Big One.

That is quite an awkward way of reading what I wrote. Using the same strategies does not mean two countries are alike. It is not even really a strategy. The weaker partner in a contract needs to stretch more. I just said that it seems odd to hold that against China.

What I hold against China is the blatantly colonialist attitude they take, which was discussed in the lecture I linked to. Relations with them are purely extractive.

Hmm, at least the aim of that attack was clear: Getting to France. What was the aim of the Iraq invasion? Getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? There were none considered as such. Reducing Al-Qaeda influence? Al-Qaeda is Sunni and the Iraq has a Shia majority. Iraq was one of the few islamic states where one could be sure that they are not supporting Al-Qaeda (the others are Iran and Syria by the way). Getting rid of an evil dictator? There are many countries in Africa which feature way more troublesome dictators and nobody cares. What else? Oil? Maybe, it would match the US energy imperialism policy in central Asia, but that seems a little cheap. This is a case of somewhere between 100000 and 1000000 victims (depending on whether you only count direct victims or also consider every indirect victim). This is an order of magnitude worse than the next-insane war of recent times, the Kosovo war. Even in Britain 20% of the population think Blair and Bush should be on trial for war crimes. One can argue about the righteousness of many recent interventions of western countries, but the Iraq war was a complete disaster and that was obvious beforehand.

You cannot compare the rape of Belgium to Iraq. For one thing German troops committed numerous atrocities including executing women and children. In Iraq the vast majority of civilian deaths were caused by the Iraqis themselves. I'm not going to defend Iraq, the whole thing was botched from the start and a lot of the justification was BS, so don't bother trying to bring it up.

Well, that did not really work, did it? 1966 chancellor Kiesinger still had a Nazi history. Whether people were really true believers or opportunists was something one could not really say with certainty. Ir probably worked as well as possible, though. Nevertheless, I still think the circumstances were more important. The economy after the war experienced an incredible recovery which is pretty much the opposite of what happened after WWI. I think this was the most important factor.

In a state like Nazi Germany most in the government bureaucracy had to join the party in order to keep their positions or get promotions. As I said, we only went after the true believers. Take for example the Kripo, many of them were members of the party but we only went after the ones who actively participated in the holocaust. The rest were left alone. This is an example of how to do it properly. The deBaathification of Iraq was an example of how not to do it, which basically was barring anyone with party membership from having a job.

I'll also point out that the German economy after WW2 was also a huge mess and they did have a major hyperinflation which destroyed their currency. Keynesian policies in the Allied areas severely delayed the recovery for years. Here's what really made the situation different:

1.) The army was obliterated as an effective fighting force. While it took huge losses it still managed to knock out Russia and was retreating when the armistice was declared they were still not pushed back beyond the Rhine. In WW2 this was not the case.

2.) The war was brought home. While Allied area bombing campaigns did not "break the will" of the people as intended, it did have an important effect in that it helped to make it very clear to the civilian population that they were in fact losing. In WW1 this was not the case and many in the population still believed they were winning right up until the end, which gave rise to the ever so popular "stabbed in the back" conspiracy theory.

3.) The country was carved up and occupied directly by foreign troops in its entirety for many years after the war was over. With the exception of the Ruhrkampf this did not happen after WW1.

All of these played a far greater role in the success of the German occupation than anything else.

Yes. Maybe. I suppose that depends on how quickly energy will increase in importance. But I do not see why China needs to wait for a sign of weakness. China is on an upswing. At current its position is improving. They can wait for the western reaction to that.

Because we're still a lot more powerful than they are and they know it which is something they take seriously. They're waiting for a sign that we wouldn't be willing to engage in a costly war with them over a small country like the Philippines. Which adds fuel to the to this powder keg, what if they test us, we don't back down, but they also cannot back down because of their own domestic political pressures?

Better? No, surely not. It is rather a choice of picking the lesser evil. In terms of domestic politics, I know which country I prefer. In terms of foreign affairs I am quite sure that China is willing to go to war for natural resources in the long run. In contrast to the US in Iraq they have not proven that, though - even the former UK chief scientific adviser considers Iraq the first resource war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-resources-war ). It just seems very odd to say "Hey, China is becoming more conscious of its power. These bad guys will be aggressive and fight with their neighbours over resources.", when the west just did the same thing. The honest answer is simple: This is all about power politics and securing resources which will be needed in the future. This is all about interests. Attaching "good" and "evil" stickers to countries seems absolutely out of place to me.

They have a long history of expansionism and they resent that the Western colonial powers knocked them off their pedestal 150 years ago. I also don't recall ever saying the US was good and China was evil. What I've been trying to say is that we are better (not a sterling example) and don't assume China's intentions are anything short of restoring themselves to their previous position.

 

[Cthugha]

That has nothing to do with lack of intent, rather lack of capability as they don't have the means to project power like we can. They're also surrounded by countries that are either armed to the teeth or are protected (implicitly or explicitly) by powerful countries like Russia or the US. That really limits what they can do.

So if they attack other countries, they are aggressive, if they do not, they would like to be? That line of reasoning is too simple. It is obvious that their (not really successful) attempts to charm their neighbors away from western influence was definitely not driven by altruism, but they have also have little reason to become involved in armed conflicts. They are heavily armed of course as their number of long-time allies is approximately zero. They will obviously try to solve the leftover territorial disputes to their own benefit, but that is true for every country.

Yes, actually I can. On what basis can you conclude China isn't looking to take our place?

Sure, they may be looking to take that place. So is Russia. Where is the problem with that? Although there are bubbles in China, too, and their economy is also slowing down, China's best bet at current is to wait for the world economy to develop. They are already heavily interacting with African countries and depending on how the economic crisis develops, increasing their influence via economy is a much easier way.

The war was about power and prestige, don't think the same thing will not occur again. You ultimately have the same 2 power bloc dynamic forming with certain countries at the cores of each and other countries leaning towards one or the other.

Hmm, China of course plays the nationalism card to maintain support for the party. Of course this is a good start to prepare for war. If China was on a huge downswing or had really massive and immediate problems with riots, I would agree that we should be careful as a war might be a good opportunity to distract and reunite their people. But right now the possible-gain-to-risk factor is in my opinion too small for China to start a war. If in the future, for whatever reason, we see them completely isolated politically and economically, that might be different. However, keeping China in the middle between too strong and too weak for sure is no easy task.

I also think you're giving the Chinese leadership far too much credit. Germany's biggest mistake in both world wars was having an aggressive foreign policy in the years before war broke out that created multiple enemies on at least 2 fronts. China is doing precisely this and in doing so has pushed neighbors who previously never liked each other into friendship and cooperation. First China starts sending warships into the South China Sea to bully the Phillipines, then it sends warships to Senkaku to try and bully the Japanese, then deciding they haven't made enough enemies they send a small detachment of troops over the Indian border. And that was just the past couple of years! What crises like this do is set the stage for The Big One.

Still China and India are biggest trade partners. While Aksai Chin is kind of a problem and this will not develop into a "deep" friendship anytime soon, I think it is more or less stable. Japan has too much western support to be a target. The Phillipines are the only moderately easy target. In my opinion, China will still not be able to do anything here as the western hemisphere will cover them, too. In the long run, one will have to see how the relationship between China and Russia develops. A firm military alliance between those would shift weights around. However, they both have too much contrary interest in central Asia to be really close.

What I hold against China is the blatantly colonialist attitude they take, which was discussed in the lecture I linked to. Relations with them are purely extractive.

With respect to their neighbors: yes. Their relations with really old partners like Switzerland (sounds odd, doesn't it) or the African countries are a bit more sphisticated in my opinion.

You cannot compare the rape of Belgium to Iraq. For one thing German troops committed numerous atrocities including executing women and children. In Iraq the vast majority of civilian deaths were caused by the Iraqis themselves. I'm not going to defend Iraq, the whole thing was botched from the start and a lot of the justification was BS, so don't bother trying to bring it up.

Well, there was Abu Ghraib to start with...
The number of victims in Belgium was fortunately not high compared to other places. Still many deeds were horrible. Still, I am not convinced thinking in numbers of victims (and comparing wars in general) is a good idea. But, ok. Let's focus on other topics.

In a state like Nazi Germany most in the government bureaucracy had to join the party in order to keep their positions or get promotions. As I said, we only went after the true believers. Take for example the Kripo, many of them were members of the party but we only went after the ones who actively participated in the holocaust. The rest were left alone. This is an example of how to do it properly. The deBaathification of Iraq was an example of how not to do it, which basically was barring anyone with party membership from having a job.

Well, the true believers were usually smart enough to destroy most evidence that they were true believers. Whether or not one could trust witnesses was often a quite complicated decision. There were true believers not participating in the holocaust and there were people participating at low levels like guards which also had to do that to keep their position. It may have been done as good as possible, but one should be aware that it still kept a lot of true believers untouched.

I'll also point out that the German economy after WW2 was also a huge mess and they did have a major hyperinflation which destroyed their currency. Keynesian policies in the Allied areas severely delayed the recovery for years.

Just until 1948, maybe 1950. About 80% of the industrial capacity was still intact at the end of the war - The capacity was higher than at the beginning of the war. In contrast to the eastern part of Germany only few factories were disassembled. Most of the roads and railroad tracks were also still intact.

1.) The army was obliterated as an effective fighting force. While it took huge losses it still managed to knock out Russia and was retreating when the armistice was declared they were still not pushed back beyond the Rhine. In WW2 this was not the case.

2.) The war was brought home. While Allied area bombing campaigns did not "break the will" of the people as intended, it did have an important effect in that it helped to make it very clear to the civilian population that they were in fact losing. In WW1 this was not the case and many in the population still believed they were winning right up until the end, which gave rise to the ever so popular "stabbed in the back" conspiracy theory.

3.) The country was carved up and occupied directly by foreign troops in its entirety for many years after the war was over. With the exception of the Ruhrkampf this did not happen after WW1.

All of these played a far greater role in the success of the German occupation than anything else.

I disagree. After WWI, the economy of Germany was completely shattered and the allies made the unfortunate decision to demand huge compensations after the war which kept Germany locked in a pretty bad economical position. The rather incompetent take at democracy in the republic of Weimar did not help either. The combination of both was fatal.

After WWII, Germany quickly became an exporting nation. The production capacities were still available and the production costs in Germany were incredibly low. Also, the exchange rate between Dollar and Deutschmark was fixed, which also acted as an indirect export subvention. The Korea boom during the Korean also drastically helped the German economy. Also, instead of heavy financial penalty, the Marshall plan was initiated. Without getting a stable economy, an occupied Germany might have been under control, but it would have been a way more dangerous and less stable place and way less integrated into Europe and the west at large.

Because we're still a lot more powerful than they are and they know it which is something they take seriously. They're waiting for a sign that we wouldn't be willing to engage in a costly war with them over a small country like the Philippines. Which adds fuel to the to this powder keg, what if they test us, we don't back down, but they also cannot back down because of their own domestic political pressures?

Scarborough/Huangyan indeed is the largest single powder keg in southeastern Asia. At current time rather works for China, so I suppose they will not jump to conclusions. There are many possibilities for escalation starting from a small conflict if China really intends to go that path. However, they already had that possibility several times. In my opinion China is refusing the offer of a settlement mediated by the international community at the moment because they want to negotiate some special benefits for their willingness to enter such talks. Certainly egoistic, but understandable with respect to their position.

They have a long history of expansionism and they resent that the Western colonial powers knocked them off their pedestal 150 years ago. I also don't recall ever saying the US was good and China was evil. What I've been trying to say is that we are better (not a sterling example) and don't assume China's intentions are anything short of restoring themselves to their previous position.

Well, I think their intent to restore their position is legitimate. The question is what methods they are willing to use to restore their position. "We are better" is a matter of opinion. In previous years the world opinion on whether the US and China have a predominant positive or negative influence on the world have been pretty similar (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22624104). I do not think that is an accident. In the 1990s I would have agreed that the US is way better in terms of foreign poitics. After the Iraq invasion (sorry for bringing up that topic again), I have the feeling that now the burden of proof is with the US and they need to demonstrate that they are really better than China and most importantly better than the US which invaded Iraq. Maybe - and hopefully - they will reach that point again. At least Old Europe seems to think that way.

China is not a country I would put much trust in, but (leaving the western perspective aside) as long as they do not enforce a conflict, I also see no reason to distrust them significantly more than other countries.