Strong Rhetoric on China

[oldtimer]

2 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

So Taiwan is a key player?

More like a key pawn.

[Travis In Austin]

56 minutes ago, richieb said:

 

=== a bit more insight from someone well veresed in the subject - 

 

The Chinese Communist Party emphasized its expanding global ambitions in a remarkable 5,500 character treatise on the front page of Monday's "People's Daily."

"The world needs China, as all humans are living in a community with a shared future ... That creates broad strategic room for our efforts to uphold peace and development and gain an advantage.”

— Communist Party "manifesto" on China's role in the world

Why it matters: This is further evidence of the seriousness of China's broad global vision. President Xi Jinping sees a remarkable opportunity, enhanced by the Trump presidency and its “America First” policies, to reshape the global order in ways that legitimize the Chinese political system and create more strategic advantages for the China. 

Show less

The Xi Era and its growing global ambition was ushered in during the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress last fall, where Xi vowed to increase China’s global influence and reshape global governance. As Xi said in his report to the Congress: “It will be an era that sees China moving closer to center stage and making greater contributions to mankind.”

This week's article — called 紧紧抓住大有可为的历史机遇期 or "Tightly grasping the very promising period of historical opportunity" and signed by the pseudonym “Xuanyan 宣言," which means manifesto — called for the nation to grasp the historic opportunity now before the nation, according to state-run media.

• Noting the problems facing the world, such as a "democratic deficit," "governance deficit," "development trap," wealth gap, terrorism and climate change, the article said "the drawbacks of capitalism-led political and economic systems are emerging; the global governance system is experiencing profound changes and a new international order is taking shape.”

Under the headline "Make China Great Again," the South China Morning Post quoted the manifesto calling out the "drawbacks" of the the capitalist economic system and said "a new international order is taking shape," with China facing an historic opportunity to "restore itself to greatness and return to its rightful position in the world."

Be smart: China is not getting back into the business of exporting revolution as it did in the Mao-Era, and China's style of Leninist-Mercantilism is unlikely to fit other countries. But Xi and the Communist Party's Marxist theoreticians who believe in “historical determinism”, a phrase that appears repeatedly in the manifesto, see America's retreat as a moment to increase China's influence in the world.

 

He has to address a Congress?  Who would have thought?

 

You should read the preamble to their Constitution, the one they adopted about 10 or so years ago, it is about Taiwan and reunification.

 

You poke the bear . . . 

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

Our State Department's budget is being cut by over 30% at a time we need to be funding it more. Research how many people have left and realize when you purposefully cut the budget and kick out experienced Diplomats we are going in the wrong direction--THAT is what Foreign Policy experts have been saying from every administration, Republican or Democrat.  

 

Oh, that explains everything.  Restore the 30%, add another 30%, and we are home free.

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

16 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

More like a key pawn.

Our pawn.  

 

What is we traded that pawn in order to reunify Korea (and topple NK in the process)?

 

Good trade?

[oldtimer]

44 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Our pawn.  

 

What is we traded that pawn in order to reunify Korea (and topple NK in the process)?

 

Good trade?

Interesting question, but not very likely.  It would be a step backwards to the Chinese to set up a western ally right on their border to gain something they already (at least publicly) consider theirs.

[Travis In Austin]

22 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Interesting question, but not very likely.  It would be a step backwards to the Chinese to set up a western ally right on their border to gain something they already (at least publicly) consider theirs.

We already have South Korea, so they are not giving up that much.

 

We also have Japan.  Japan recenty announce they have budgeted funds to develop a hypersonic missle like China is working on.

 

The other thing we have been poking them in the eye with is installing ICBM's in Australia. 

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Our State Department's budget is being cut by over 30% at a time we need to be funding it more. Research how many people have left and realize when you purposefully cut the budget and kick out experienced Diplomats we are going in the wrong direction--THAT is what Foreign Policy experts have been saying from every administration, Republican or Democrat.  

 

Oh, that explains everything.  Restore the 30%, add another 30%, and we are home free.

As another poster mentioned, China is in it for the long haul. We otoh, can't discuss politics and the point I am making is that with the current administration the game is changing and I think not for the better. China is investing in outreach to  potential partners and we are the ones drawing back and sword-rattling...Fwiw, I finished Ronan Farrow's book "The War on Peace The Decline of American Influence" and ironically we've come full circle to some of what I posted here back in 2004--We need to have global allies to address these problems and our Diplomats and Ambassadors need to be MORE than ready for the job on so MANY fronts. When you kid by saying, "Restore the 30%, add another 30%, and we are home free, I will end this evening by saying YES to the first and that will go along way, but it won't be "Home Free." Diplomacy is an ongoing thing. 

 

That's my 2 cents and one thing you and others don't seem to get is that I am not a partisan.  If you go back and look at my post I have always argued for policy issues and not the personalities involved--In fact, Jeff and I were the first ones on here even considering Donald Trump a POTUSA and I wish we still had access to those conversations because they go back to June 16, 2015....

[Jeff Matthews]

4 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

 

 

It isn't me.  I could care less about them.  I just sit and look how everyone runs around in a scurry, our leaders and all of our allies, when Taiwan even remotely comes into play.

Well, considering Taiwan is the last democratic stronghold in China, I can readily see the conflict of interest.  The One China Policy is expressly designed to deal with the conflict on terms to which all parties could agree.

[oldtimer]

27 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

We already have South Korea, so they are not giving up that much.

Border.

[Zen Traveler]

39 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

1 hour ago, oldtimer said:

Interesting question, but not very likely.  It would be a step backwards to the Chinese to set up a western ally right on their border to gain something they already (at least publicly) consider theirs.

We already have South Korea, so they are not giving up that much.

This: 

11 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Border.

Don't assume South Korea will always be as strong an ally as it is....After all, we are also having a *different* relationship with North Korea as well and not everyone is predicting success (for us). 

[Mallette]

6 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

For example, we have no extradition treaty with Taiwan.  Why is that? 

Same reason we have no other treaties with them. An understanding decades ago that we lost "China" and even though we didn't recognize the PRC for a long time, we would eventually have to. I am old enough to remember the artillery barrages against Quemoy and Matsu. Went on for a long time before the PRC quit. Taiwan may or may not eventually return to China peacefully. But China doesn't change it's policy even against places like Tibet to which they have no remote claim and certainly are not going to do so concerning an island that is a historic Chinese territory. They simply consider it to be in rebellion. See U.S. history, Civil War, for how that works out. 

 

When these policies were instituted there was nobody paying attention in the press or public, and it's a good thing. While I am a major believer that people should have a say in their destiny and who rules them, there are places...like Hong Kong, Macau, and eventually Taiwan...where the price is simply too high. 

 

Dave

[richieb]

 

=== and this - 

 I think that the Chinese Century has begun...They still have a bit of catching up to do, but economically and militarily they are getting stronger.  Certainly a regional power; and with Xi's New Silk Road--the One Belt One Road--initiative...they are creating a new economic order.  The dumbest thing that Trump has done (and that's saying something) was withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.   He effectively ceded Asia and the Mid-East to China's economic dominance.  And the Silk Road millennia ago tied China to Europe; so will the new one...

 

I'm not sure if there won't be warfare...but the Chinese are winning without conflict...Let's see what happens in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.  Trump may not be worried; but the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and even the Aussies are very worried.

 

[Zen Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Mallette said:

While I am a major believer that people should have a say in their destiny and who rules them, there are places...like Hong Kong, Macau, and eventually Taiwan...where the price is simply too high

Wow. 

[Mallette]

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

Wow. 

We don't have troops in Taiwan, and never have. Never will. We will howl and posture if the the Chinese invade, and that's it. I rather doubt most Americans are willing to start WWIII over Taiwan.

 

Dave

[Zen Traveler]

5 minutes ago, Mallette said:

We don't have troops in Taiwan, and never have. Never will. We will howl and posture if the the Chinese invade, and that's it. I rather doubt most Americans are willing to start WWIII over Taiwan.

 

Dave

No, but it also won't be a non-issue. IOW, we won't go on as life as usual {Edit: Btw, I also think it's why they won't do it}....After all, it isn't Ukraine. 

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

Same reason we have no other treaties with them. An understanding decades ago that we lost "China" and even though we didn't recognize the PRC for a long time, we would eventually have to. I am old enough to remember the artillery barrages against Quemoy and Matsu. Went on for a long time before the PRC quit. Taiwan may or may not eventually return to China peacefully. But China doesn't change it's policy even against places like Tibet to which they have no remote claim and certainly are not going to do so concerning an island that is a historic Chinese territory. They simply consider it to be in rebellion. See U.S. history, Civil War, for how that works out. 

 

When these policies were instituted there was nobody paying attention in the press or public, and it's a good thing. While I am a major believer that people should have a say in their destiny and who rules them, there are places...like Hong Kong, Macau, and eventually Taiwan...where the price is simply too high. 

 

Dave

You were in Hong Kong, a lot happened with China in the 80s, including the lease between UK and China ending, I know zero on the history behind the lease, I do remember negotiations happening,  reasurances that it would remain a free trade zone, etc.  I think Macau is set up same way.

 

Were there any lessons to be learned from Hong Kong that were not,

 

What was happening with human rights issues with China before 1980, anything?

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

Taiwan may or may not eventually return to China peacefully. But China doesn't change it's policy even against places like Tibet to which they have no remote claim and certainly are not going to do so concerning an island that is a historic Chinese territory. 

You are exactly right on that.   As I mentioned early, the PRC's constitution specifically states that Taiwan will be reunited, it also specifies that if TROC ever declares independence they will invade and take it by force.

 

They wrote it down just so a new generation wouldn't forget.

[Bosco-d-gama]

Regardless of politic and above any particular leadership styles reality seems to be vectored towards environmental collapse and sooner than most expected. The primary planetary pollutant is humanity. There are just too many of ‘us’ to sustain at any acceptable level w/o continuing to swirl down the drain at an ever faster pace. Debating any regional power struggle is moot looking at the bigger picture. Prevention is quite likely already in the rear view mirror. No single country could effectively alter the course. If there is any cure it will require deep sacrifices and real commitment, a level of universal cooperation atypical for our species. The common cause of planetary survival may unite us all in the next few decades............ or not?

[oldtimer]

5 minutes ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

any regional power struggle is moot looking at the bigger picture.

I think that instead the bigger picture will exacerbate regional and perhaps global power struggles.  We aren't headed for extinction, but we do seem to be headed to a much smaller population because of the sustainability issue you mention.  What has happened in the past when the established order collapsed?  The last example is after the fall of Rome.  It became the dark ages, a time of warlords and suffering.  Now of course any warlords will have much more powerful weapons.

[oldtimer]

12 minutes ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

planetary survival

The planet will do just fine in the long run.  Our survival and in what societal form is the question.