Triumphalist China demands steak
An excellent Washington Post piece by John Pomfret outlines the ways in which China’s recent discovery of global influence is manifesting itself with increasing displays of arrogance confidence:
U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.
At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China’s central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.
And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American’s house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. “The director doesn’t eat fish,” one of them told his American interlocutor. “He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak.” The menu was changed.
The remainder of the article is equally illuminating. It is also a disturbing reminder of how the CCP can be expected behave as it makes itself comfortable at the big boy’s table.
Update
Big hat tip to Justrecently for pointing the way to an article in The Economist entitled Facing up to China .
A snippet to ponder:
From its perceived position of growing economic strength, China has been throwing its weight around. It played a central and largely unhelpful role at the climate-change talks in Copenhagen; it looks as if it will wreck a big-power consensus over Iran’s nuclear programme; it has picked fights in territorial disputes with India, Japan and Vietnam. At gatherings of all sorts, Chinese officials now want to have their say, and expect to be heeded.
When the liberally-inclined Economist starts to see the warning signs, it’s time for everyone to wake up to the new reality.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 am
The whole “triumphalist” thing is scheisse, with all due respect stuart. Has China really changed? Not much. How would have China reacted to the US sellings weapons to Taiwan Province 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Actually how did China react the last time the US sold weapons to Taiwan Province? China’s reaction has been pretty consistent, that is being “angry”, “indignant”, whatever you call it. The only difference is that this time China is in a better position to impose its own sanctions on firms involved (after all why should the US and the Europeans be allowed to impose unilaterial sanctions?). What do you and other western pundits and “analysts” expect China to react? Allowing the US to shovel this down its throat without saying anything? Come on guys, China is not the United Kingdom (even Japan under Hatoyama is no longer the UK of East Asia anymore).
I do understand why you guys are frustrated and upset though. For two centuries you guys have been trotting the globe without encountering much of a challenge and folks who dared to stand in your way. You guys are so used to push people around, issue orders and expect compliance from the rest of the world. Now the little guys like China, India, Brazil and South Africa etc. have grown up a bit, even though not full-grown yet but at least bold enough to say “No” sometimes. Why should that be shocking? Why should the world remain western-centric? Why can’t we all be equals? Sure China/anybody can shout at you, you can also shout back at China. What a wonderful world that is!
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
“Has China really changed?”
Am I reading that correctly?
“For two centuries you guys have been trotting the globe …”
I’ve heard there’s a decent chip-removal specialist on Harley Street. Go see him – you’ll be much happier. If all goes well write a letter of recommendation to Zhongnanhai.
“Why can’t we all be equals?”
At least we’re on the same page there.
But is the CCP content with being equals? I have serious doubts about that. A few thousand years of zero-sum thinking doesn’t get shaken off so easily.
Assuming that moral leadership play a part, being confident and assertive is fine. But I’ve yet to see any such quality emanating from Beijing. What we are seeing is a lot of strutting.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:33 am
Stuart,
China historically always behave way better than the west. One just need to look at the number of wars that the west fought and are fighting in to see the west’s aggressive nature.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 am
Is it not a fact that the west has been dominating the world for a couple of centuries without any serious challengers? Is it not a fact that for the past two or three centuries the west has been relatively at ease to impose its wills everywhere without encountering serious resistance? Now China says “no” and you guys are all up in arms? Get used to it.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. It is OK for a “moral leadership” to be confident and assertive? Oh gee, who is that supposed to be? The west? Since when has the west been moral? I am laughing my heart out!
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
@ Mac
“China historically always behave way better than the west.”
Debatable, but not relevant either way.
We exist in the here and now. And if the Chinese government grow up, perhaps we can all exist tomorrow as well.
@ Juche
“you guys”
None of the “guys” you refer to were responsible for sacking the Summer Palace. Get over it. Move on.
“China says “no””
Rest of the World agrees Iran should not have a nuclear warhead.
China says “no”
Rest of the World agrees it’s a bad idea to sell arms to African despots.
China says “no”
Rest of the World agrees that the Dalai Lama is a humble man of peace
China says “no”
Rest of the World tries to do a deal on climate change
China says “no”
Rest of the World makes nice fish supper for emperor
China says “no”
Do the Chinese government possess the necessary moral leadership to advance the cause of civilisation?
Stuart says, “NO!”
But I’d be delighted to be proved wrong.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
*snickers* I’m sure they’ve all read How to make friends & influence people.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:40 am
@stuart
“Rest of the World ”
You mean the west?
February 4th, 2010 at 8:55 am
@stuart
I don’t understand why the alleged behaviors described in article are not proper unless you expect China to kowtow to the west on every issue just like 8 or so western powers together with the Japanese expected China to cede vast tracts of land and consume opium in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The west past transgressions against the Chinese people is an important consideration and factor in dealing with west for obvious reason : The leopard will never loose its spots . Th west’s maneuvring to dominate and control the world to their advantage continue, albeit with more civilised approach than in wwI and wwII but with the same amount of cunning and deceits and immorality I must say.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Yes stuart, who do you mean by “the rest of the world”? The west? Since when has the west been entitled to speaking for the rest of the world? And by who?
Not that I am saying the Chinese leadership is moral, not necessarily. I think the Chinese leadership is no different from those of “the rest of the world” (no pun intended), driven by self-interest and greed. Can you name one government, one regime that is not driven by self-interest? Can you? Can you? Stuart says “No!”
Seriously stuart, what did you and you guys (hey, let’s forget about the Summer Place, I am talking about you guys in the west of 2010 here) expect China to react? How would you react if you were Hu?
Your problem is that you are constantly pitching the “bad, evil Chinese government” theme without offering any alternative solutions or ways of doing things. What would you do stuart? Don’t tell me “I am just a China-critic/cynic, I am just here to bash the evil Chinese government and don’t ask me what to do!”
Will you ever grow up stuart?
February 4th, 2010 at 10:53 am
“You mean the west?”
No.
‘The west’ is a poorly defined collective term used by nationalistic Chinese to describe everything they’re not happy with.
Besides, the last time I looked at a map of the Pacific region China was to the west of the US. Should I turn the map upside down?
February 4th, 2010 at 11:08 am
“The leopard will never loose its spots.”
If the ‘west’ is a Leopard then the CCP is a Hyena.
They have spots, too.
“albeit with more civilised approach than in wwI and wwII”
That lack of civility you refer to saved China’s ass. Remember?
“let’s forget about the Summer Place”
I don’t think the summer palace episode should be forgotten – I just don’t see it as a mature basis for China’s foreign policy.
“Will you ever grow up?”
The premise of the question has no foundation. I would advise addressing it to Hu Jintao next time he throws a tantrum because a world leader wants to meet a Nobel Peace Prize winner. That would be a more pertinent use of the question.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:58 am
“‘The west’ is a poorly defined collective term used by nationalistic Chinese to describe everything they’re not happy with.
Besides, the last time I looked at a map of the Pacific region China was to the west of the US. Should I turn the map upside down? ”
Certainly it was not coined by the Chinese. And look around stuart, especially in the strategic/intelligence/policy/think tank communities, this term is proudly used to indicate that “we”, the civilized, Judeo-Christian-based, “democratic” are different and better than “the rest of them”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
February 4th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Yes I agree that Hu Jintao needs a bit of his own growing-up just as you do, stuart. The world is not as black and white as you and Hu (ironically) believe.
I am still waiting for you to name one government in this world that is not driven by self-interest.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
It’s not just fenqing bloggers that are a bit woolly in their thinking about ‘the West’. Chinese academics I work with – foreign policy specialists – pretty routinely use ‘the West’ to mean ‘everything not China’.
If there is any conceptual under-pinning to the term, it seems to be that it equates to ‘the developed world’. Hence, Japan and Russia are part of ‘the West’.
Occasionally, I also see an implication that India is somehow part of ‘the West’ (historical links with Britain? under American influence now?). Other ‘countries and regions’ are rarely deemed worthy of any consideration.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“Chinese academics I work with – foreign policy specialists – pretty routinely use ‘the West’ to mean ‘everything not China’.”
Speak for yourself Froog. In China “the west” means what “the west” means in the west. Japan is an ally of the west but is not part of the west. Certainly India is not part of the west, neither is the developing world.
It is ridiculous that you and stuart made it sound like this term has completely been abandoned by you guys in the west and somehow is only used in China to get people to be confrontational.
If we don’t say “the west”, what do we say? The NATO? The US and its European allies plus Canada, Australia and New Zeland? Too friggin’ long!
February 4th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
“I am still waiting for you to name one government …”
Why?
“It is ridiculous that you and stuart made it sound like this term has completely been abandoned by you guys”
The use of the term ‘west’ in this context in China often carries a negative, disparaging charge, when in fact the term ought to be neutral.
Otherwise it is used, Qin Gang style, to mean ‘bloody foreigners’.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:15 am
When I said the west I meant Europeans and US.
In 1903-04, The British invaded Tibet at the beginning of 20th century after cannibalising China with 7 or so other western powers along Chinese shores, taking advantage of China’s weak military strengths, chaotic internal political situation and forced chinese people to consume opium at gun point and ceded great swathe of territories to japan, russia and part of Tibet to British India even today. Since then China has always been treated with hostilities by the west as a communist country and even today. You should note that China have not had the unfortunate records of the West of owning empires that straddled continents; of colonising far away lands, slaughtering natives, capturing and trading slaves, plundering resources; and also of repeatedly invading sovereign nations with impunity; and also of outrageously violating human rights(abu gharibs, guantanamo, CIA secret cells..), while not of their own but of foreigners. . Even today the Brits are still at it, not only claiming but occupying Melvinas(aka Falklands) lands thousands of miles off the british borders. Simialrly for the Americans who invaded Iraq, Afghans….Most of all, China has never done to the west what the west have done to China throughout history
I do not mean china’s governement is great or perfect but the west should not pretend to occupy the moral high grounds in just singling out china to bash as and when they like as if the west are god sent to do god’s work on earth when the west have committed most of the atrocities in the world.
How many millions the west massacred in colonies in africa, americas, asia, australia, nz…How many tenths of millions die in WWI and II in the west contest for control of vast swathe of territories and resources driven by greed for power and wealth? How many millions dead in US-vietnam and US Korean wars of aggressions?
This may give a glimpse how aggressive US is militarily.
US-Vietnam war : millions vietnamese dead
Korean war : millions dead
Now Afghan and Iraq : couple of hundred thousands dead
Those are wars that US fought in foreign countries thousands of miles away from US homeland.
To me a nation that contantly invades others are most aggressive and should be condemned. I am very surprise most people in the west support thiese acts despite their purported higher ideals on human rights, democarcy and so on.
The US were secretly (but well known) subverting the security of China by directly participating with Tibetan fighters in the so-called Secret War over few decades. Why would China be very trusting of the west who have always behaved like a cunning, deceitful pack of wolves/hyena in the last couple of hundreds years at least?
It is the same modus operandi of the west in climate issues when the west has cut down all its trees and eaten all its animals and now turned around pretending to be nature loving and quick to admonish poor countries who are struggling to feed their people in not sharing the same ideals; the west acted similarly after polluting the world in an unrestrained manner for hundreds of years to achieve the current industrialised and developed status.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:52 am
@stuart
“That lack of civility you refer to saved China’s ass. Remember?”
China pinned down a couple of hundreds thousands Japanese troops who could otherwise be deployed to swamp US forces and potentially could cause another few hundred thousands GI deaths. Who knows, they could even be on US soil. So who is saving whose ass?
February 5th, 2010 at 9:12 am
“The use of the term ‘west’ in this context in China often carries a negative, disparaging charge, when in fact the term ought to be neutral.”
From your very own paper:
“We need a new capitalism to take on China:
If the West isn’t to slide into irrelevance, governments must be much more active in taking control of the economy”
“We in the West have a choice”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7014090.ece
Need I say more?
February 5th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Need I say more?”
Probably not; the link was interesting and used ‘west’ in the neutral, as I suggested it should be.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:29 am
@ MAC
None of your rather familiar litany of historical grievances has any bearing on this discussion. Nor do they have any connection to the host of this blog.
One is not ineligible from taking a moral stand because of the transgressions of others in the distant past. If they were, the Chinese would also find themselves disqualified from comment.
“Why would China be very trusting of the west who have always behaved like a cunning, deceitful pack of wolves”
You’re very ‘Peoples Daily’ this morning, MAC.
“China pinned down a couple of hundreds thousands Japanese troops who could otherwise be deployed to swamp US forces…”
Hmmm…
It will help you to say the following out loud: “No USA; no victory over Japan”. Allow the words to course freely through bloodstream until they have connected with the very fibre of your being.
Difficult though it might be for a revisionist-fed brain to accept this, it is the truth.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:42 am
@stuart
“None of your rather familiar litany of historical grievances has any bearing on this discussion. Nor do they have any connection to the host of this blog. ”
MAC: Ignoring an unrepentent country’s past criminal behaviors is to encourage more and further crimes against humanity of the greater kind.
“One is not ineligible from taking a moral stand because of the transgressions of others in the distant past. If they were, the Chinese would also find themselves disqualified from comment.”
MAC:So you trust the so-called men of gods who sodomised children whe they preach about morality. If you do, good luck to your society and children.
“You’re very ‘Peoples Daily’ this morning, MAC”
MAC:I am just pointing out the disturbing and consistent aggressive behavior of western countries in cutting down others in order to ensure their own dominance probably because they only way they know how to prosper is by pludering wealth and resources belonging to others. I must add that the west is the 800-pounds gorilla or the elephant in the room (if you like) in most of the troubles that are happening in this world. Could we trust the west to do better? From the west’s past records and high testerone levels behaviors, I am not very optimistics.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:24 am
I’m not sure what any of that had to do with steak, but thanks anyway, MAC.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:35 am
@stuart
Your post is an attempt like so many others in the west’s MSM and blogs to pain an ugly picture of the Chinese government to promote bad press for China just like the global coordinated and synchronised efforts of west against China during the Olympics Torch runs. So that the west could use lots of levers and excuses to harass, contain, put pressure on China at any time the west see fit. What I wrote here is an attempt to show who is uglier. But of course, your criticism of China if valid, sincere and not done with less honorable intention would be appreciated.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:45 am
“the link was interesting and used ‘west’ in the neutral, as I suggested it should be.”
Neutral? If some Chinese say “We need XXXXX to take on the west”, “We in China should…” would you feel it is neutral??
February 6th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
@ MAC,
The CCP are ‘ugly’. They want to dominate, punish, and silence those that ask legitimate questions of where they are taking this planet. When you’re a global player, you should expect global questions and be prepared to answer them. Beijing chooses the rhetoric of denial, obfuscation, or the very familiar dynastic tantrum in dealing with such inquiries.
It’s deeply troubling that such an immature and immoral group should wield so much global influence. The majority of Chinese are either blind to the dangers because their abilities and rights to challenge authority have been systematically attenuated through a strictly controlled education and media.
This
indoctrinationcontrol manifests itself in the knee-jerk responses and hard-wired resentments that proliferate in the comments on any China-related blog or article. Some of those respondents are no doubt being remunerated for their efforts in defence of the Motherland (itself a worrying phenomena), but the rest seem incapable of considering legitimate questions and concerns with any degree of sober reflection. By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.I’ve said it a hundred times before: the world needs the next superpower to start behaving openly and responsibly. We’re all looking to China to see if she can bring a reasonable, tolerant, and ethical voice to global forums.
Under CCP leadership, China hasn’t demonstrated any such capacity. Rather, they have shown an imperial inclination to stonewall, strategise, hamper, demand, insult, and bully.
It’s all about steak, you see.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@ juche
“Neutral?”
Yes, because it doesn’t use the term as either an indication of something superior, or, as it exists in the offices of Xinhua, as a reference to something contemptible.
Btw, unrelated, have you read this book about life in the DPRK?: http://nothingtoenvy.com/
Recommended by Ryan: http://www.thehumanaught.com/
February 7th, 2010 at 6:07 am
@stuart
“The CCP are ‘ugly’. They want to dominate, punish, and silence those that ask legitimate questions of where they are taking this planet. ”
MAC: China has control over its citizen but for people outside China, particular the west and their MSM how on earth can China “dominate, punish, and silence those that ask legitimate questions of where they are taking this planet. ” ?
“When you’re a global player, you should expect global questions and be prepared to answer them. ”
MAC:I am sure China answer most questions if not all where people have business to ask. If not, pls give examples. For internal affairs, just like any other country, China does not run its internal affairs based requirements from any foreign country or US Congress, Bri Parliments or whatsoever.
“Beijing chooses the rhetoric of denial, obfuscation, or the very familiar dynastic tantrum in dealing with such inquiries.”
MAC: Please give specific examples.
“It’s deeply troubling that such an immature and immoral group should wield so much global influence. The majority of Chinese are either blind to the dangers because their abilities and rights to challenge authority have been systematically attenuated through a strictly controlled education and media. ”
MAC: In what specific manners and examples has the CCP used its so-called global influence for the detriment of the world? You should note that the the West has leadership of the world for the last few hundred years. What has the west done using their global influence? You see in the answers in my above post….colonisations, wars WWI, WWII and more wars and nore plunder of resources….Is it not fiar to say the West are accountable for all the troubles now the world faces? Why can’t the west do better without having to resort wars or threats of wars, containments, sanctions,..? We all these end in tears.
“This indoctrination control manifests itself in the knee-jerk responses and hard-wired resentments that proliferate in the comments on any China-related blog or article. Some of those respondents are no doubt being remunerated for their efforts in defence of the Motherland (itself a worrying phenomena), but the rest seem incapable of considering legitimate questions and concerns with any degree of sober reflection. By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.”
MAC:As far as I know most bloggers who responded to anti China posts or articles do not claim China is perfect or a saint or soemthing like that but they just like to point out the double standards that the west practice on issues related to China. Sure, China is not perfect but the west is worse. The west should not pretend that
they have the monopoly on what is right and what is wrong and target China to bash, shame and insult as and when they like when the first thing they should do is to get themselves to account for their own serious transgressions and not just pretend their angels. Is that not fair to the west and shouldn’t bloggers point out that the west have much to work on then just constantly looking for quarrels with others. Again, I am not against constructive and fair criticism but am suspicious of calls or actions to sabotage the stability, peace and security of another country. Btw, the responses are not knee-jerked, they were mostly made after reading so many unfair, arrogant and insulting posts from the west for so long and the actions that the west do to sabotage China’s stability and integrity which were won at the cost of many Chinese lives. After all, the west did play a direct and big part in harming China and its people in the last 2 hundred years.
“I’ve said it a hundred times before: the world needs the next superpower to start behaving openly and responsibly. We’re all looking to China to see if she can bring a reasonable, tolerant, and ethical voice to global forums. ”
As far as I know, China does not call itself superpower, it is the west. As far as I know, China has largely acted responsibly in the global arena as far as it could such as, the rescue teams for Haiti, putting a lot of efforts in helping in the North Korean issues, playing a big and important part in rescueing the global economy from depression with its second largest stimulus packages, naval escorts against piracy,peace keeping missions, cooperating with many developing nations in their developments in ways far better than thenwest’s ways of gun boat policies…and causing no wars…But I think the west should not expect China to compromise on issues of its stability, security and sovereignty which China considered of paramount importance.
Btw, most African and Asian countries do not feel the same as the west do about China. I wonder why.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:12 am
@ MAC
“You should note that the the West has leadership of the world for the last few hundred years. What has the west done using their global influence?”
I refer you to my earlier reply for guidance:
…the rest seem incapable of considering legitimate questions and concerns with any degree of sober reflection. By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
And MAC, you might like to check this post’s recent update.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:12 am
“Yes, because it doesn’t use the term as either an indication of something superior, or, as it exists in the offices of Xinhua, as a reference to something contemptible.”
Please read that timesonline article again. It might not indicate that the west is superior, but it clearly indicates that the west (we), must do something to take on China (them). It is bordering hostile. If this doesn’t shatter your illusion that the west is a bunch of benevolent guys who have no ill wills for China and anyone that might challenge western primacy, nothing will.
It will always be you (the west) vs. us (the rest of the world). It will always be a zero-sum game.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:19 am
“It’s deeply troubling that such an immature and immoral group should wield so much global influence.”
stuart, FYI the CCP doesn’t wield that much global influence. I have said it before, it is a western hype, either China taking over the world or China crashing and burning. You guys created the story and you bought into it.
“By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.”
Why do you not get it? It is highly hypocritical for an ex-con to lecture a thief to be nice. And by the way that ex-con hasn’t come completely clean even today. Stuart, what makes you think you can preach and demand something from others that you don’t have?
“I’ve said it a hundred times before: the world needs the next superpower to start behaving openly and responsibly”
China will not be the next superpower. Never. Once again, western illusion/fear/hype.
“Rather, they have shown an imperial inclination to stonewall, strategise, hamper, demand, insult, and bully. ”
Every other major power displays these qualities. Once again stuart, can you name one government, one country that is different?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:07 am
@stuart
“…the rest seem incapable of considering legitimate questions and concerns with any degree of sober reflection. By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.
MAC: This sounds like the west and you Stuart. The transgressions by the west now and in the last few hundred years are far more serious than that of what the west is accusing China of. Is it the west or you that are deflecting the accountability? Or are the China bashing thing and similar activities are part of the west modus operandi to distract attention for their continuing transgressions at the same time discrediting a country viewed as potential competitor or threat? PLease don’t miss the forest for the tress.
“From its perceived position of growing economic strength, China has been throwing its weight around. It played a central and largely unhelpful role at the climate-change talks in Copenhagen; ”
MAC: The Chinese stand is a stand of most of developing countries and is not a stand taken to throw eight around. When does a differing opinion constitue throwing weights around? The last time I check, the west still the most powerful block on this planet. Only the west are in position to threaten and are threatening other countries. The west could even invade countries based on lies:Is this not throwing one’s weight around?
“it looks as if it will wreck a big-power consensus over Iran’s nuclear programme;..”
MAC: I thought China is acting as a check to the west’s high testerone response for the good of the west and this world. Iran is still responding to UN negotiation and this should be given further chance. In what way is China wrecking a big-power consensus which is up to the big powers concern to keep. The last time I check, Russia has not agree yet for sanctions against Iran. So by big power you mean the west again? BTW, I hope you know that the west is not the UN. Do you think another war is good for the west and this world?
” it has picked fights in territorial disputes with India, Japan and Vietnam…”
MAC: I think you are very one sided to say that China picked a fight because it is disputing territorial claims with its neighbors. Japan and Vietnam are disputing Chinese claims as well:how come you did say Japan and Vietnam pick a fight with China. Btw, the Brits did not pick a fight with Argentina but they have already fought war with Argentina and is occupying Melvinas Island(aka falklands) just off the shores of Argentina but some 6000 miles from Brit shores.This is an example of how blatant is the west’s hegemonic behavior and the double standards the west and you Stuart practise.
With India, southern Tibet was given by the British after British invaded Tibet in 1903-4. British did not pick a fight with China but it invaded China and its Tibetan territory (not to mention the Brit also forced Chinese to consume opium at gun point so that Brit commercial interest could be supported-how immoral. I hope that god already punished those answerable by now). Btw, the 1950’s China-India small war was started by India attacking Chinese soldiers who successfully countered attacked.
” At gatherings of all sorts, Chinese officials now want to have their say, and expect to be heeded…”
MAC: You are incredible! Don’t you understand to speak on behalf and seek to be heeded is the business of the leaders who respresent the interest of their respective countries? Leaders from which moronic country does not want to have their say, and expect to be heeded…?
February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am
@ Juche
“It will always be you (the west) vs. us (the rest of the world). It will always be a zero-sum game.”
Frankly, that attitude can only lead to disaster.
“It is highly hypocritical for an ex-con to lecture a thief to be nice.”
Aside from the straw that was packed into that response, I respectfully (but forlornly) refer you to the answer I gave earlier:
…the rest seem incapable of considering legitimate questions and concerns with any degree of sober reflection. By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.
Whenever I asked Chinese students to describe the nature of their people, I’d get a list like this: tolerant, peaceful, hospitable, humorous, open, friendly etc etc. Yet many of these students would express their desire to see Taiwan punished for her ‘disobedience’; would speak of their hatred for Japan; would hurl party rhetoric at an image of the Dalai Lama; and would bristle with indignation at any discussion of Britain’s imperial past (even though they raised the issue themselves).
Needless to say, very few saw the dangers of the conflict between their perceptions of self and their carefully nurtured attitudes of resentment.
It is this intellectual immaturity that drives the spurious justifications for all that a CCP-led China does – and will do – in this world.
Where is the home-grown body of opinion, the collective opposition, the voice of outrage, or the moral debate about some of China’s foreign policies?
Domestically, those questions and voices are left unspoken and silent. And when the questions come from outside – as they must – the world hears only the familiar tune of the tu quoque anthem.
As Basil Fawlty famously once said, “Please try and understand before one of us dies.”
February 8th, 2010 at 11:23 am
@ MAC
I think your comments are best addressed to The Economist if you feel so strongly about what they wrote.
Explain to me your vision for the future and how a dominant CCP can play a responsible role in reducing poverty, war, famine, disease, environmental degradation and raising the level of civilized debate.
Can they ever reject their need to control, punish, and justify actions with lame logical fallacies? I have my doubts.
Any resort to tu quoque in your response will be marked ‘fail’.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Stuart,
By the way that Economist article is a load of crap, typical TE sytle. TE has always been very biased when it comes to China, I remember when I was 19 I wrote a letter to them challenging one of their articles painting China as the same old evil empire it does now (it is amazing that TE will never change) and the nasty British guy sent me a letter (he did have the decency to respond) bascially saying “screw you, we are the Economist!”. What a joke!
You remain clueless, stuart. What really makes you think that you can lecture China or anyone else on moral issues? Should China lecture you on that too? You see where I am going? China is in no position to lecture anyone on that because its own record is not good. Similarly, you guys are not in the position either because you are no better than China in that regard. I am OK with Maldives lecturing China. But the west? Give me a break!
Sure China has its fair share of jingoistic, nationalistic and hateful folks, who doesn’t? The UK? Germany? I am cracking up, crying out loud! But just like in any other country, China has folks that are not jingoistic, nationalistic and hateful too, and they are the majority I’d argue. You are silly enough to judge a whole country based on some and you tend to see the country as a monolithic entity and that is so retarded, stuart.
Once again stuart, cut your BS with measuring China with one set of standards and measuring others, especially your very own with another set of standards. I am in general agreement with you that the Chinese government needs to be more open, democratic, transparent and accountable. So does everyone else. China should be more moral, so does everyone else.
Stuart, for the Nth time, please tell me why you westerners are so friggin’ self-righteous and preachy? Why makes you think you have moral high grounds and that you are in a position to preach? Could you just give me a straight answer instead of playing dodge ball?
February 9th, 2010 at 8:52 am
“Once again stuart, cut your BS..”
Gee, what took you so long to realise ?
I usually give his blog a glance once in a blue moon and then treat it with the irrelevance it deserves.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:09 am
“What really makes you think that you can lecture China or anyone else on moral issues?”
More straw than ten hectares of prairie in drout season.
“You are silly enough to judge a whole country based on some and you tend to see the country as a monolithic entity and that is so retarded, stuart.”
And a bit more straw on top of that.
You know very well I’m questioning the CCP’s conduct and intentions here. With cause.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:25 am
“I usually give his blog a glance once in a blue moon and then treat it with the irrelevance it deserves.”
St !! How nice to have you pop in for coffee.
Interestingly, your views echo the attitude that increasingly sees Beijing regard the rest of humanity with irrelevance.
But, in the spirit of openness that hallmarks this site, all sides are free to contribute.
I can only assume that this site being blocked in China is the result of some sort of clerical error.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:55 am
ok … there were two blue moons this year
http://ow.ly/14612
someone’s head is so swallon that he assumes (stuart =) west = rest of humanity
February 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
St –
That review of Deborah Brautigam’s (in my mind) overly optimistic view of China in Africa is one of the more favourable ones.
Let’s hope she’s right. But I doubt it, because the CCP is a selfish, self-serving animal; and Africa doesn’t need any more of that.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
@stuart
“Explain to me your vision for the future and how a dominant CCP can play a responsible role in reducing poverty, war, famine, disease, environmental degradation and raising the level of civilized debate.”
MAC:Firstly, my vision is not important but the vision of China as a nation.
reducing poverty: China is feeding 1.3 b people, much more than most countries on this planet and has lifted hundreds of millions of people from below poverty line.
wars: China did not invade other countries based on lies. Perhaps China can prevent some wars by seeking UN sanctions against countries who are waging illegal wars against Iraq. Also China should caution western countries against starting a war with Iran without exhausting available avenues.
Climate change: China is top producer and user of green energy technology and products such as solar cells and wind turbines. China has agreed to reduce the growth of their carbon intensity per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40-45 percent, from business-as-usual levels and is workimg with the rest of the world towards a global agreement.
Others: You could easily find out what China is doing to improve by googling the webs.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
@stuart
“Let’s hope she’s right. But I doubt it, because the CCP is a selfish, self-serving animal; and Africa doesn’t need any more of that.”
MAC: Stuart, I think you are insulting the African leaders about their ability to lead their own countries. Nations cut deals that benefit each other based on negotiations. China does not go to Africa with guns, unlike the earlier western colonisers.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
“China does not go to Africa with guns…”
Really?
Last time I checked Beijing was busy shipping arms to despots who then use them to wipe out or subjugate their political enemies. And Zhongnanhai turns a blind eye as Africa’s natural resources are exported for peanuts.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
@stuart
“Last time I checked Beijing was busy shipping arms to despots who then use them to wipe out or subjugate their political enemies. And Zhongnanhai turns a blind eye as Africa’s natural resources are exported for peanu”
You just tries to hit below the belt. You should know that I meant using military force like the West did to force compliance on the part of African countries to the terms and condition of the west’s colonisations. Again China’s non-interference policy is way better than the west’s interference and colonising for its naked greed for resources.
Again you show complete ignorance or blatant double standards here. The United States is the overall top seller of weapons and uses this to subvert China’s security and stability by supplying weapons to Taiwan(I mean how good a relation can China have with US, a country which constantly plot to harm China and its people?). The United States is also the top supplier of weapons to the developing world, accounting for around 36% of worldwide weapons sales, followed by Russia, United Kingdom, Germany and China.(WIKI)
February 10th, 2010 at 12:38 am
“I meant using military force like the West did …”
A reminder:
By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.
“China’s non-interference policy is…”
… a lie, pure and simple. From Burma to South Africa; from Peru to Sudan; from Zimbabwe to Nepal.
A lie.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:23 am
@stuart
“By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.
MAC: It is downright stupid for a robber to complain about another’s act of robbing. Firstly, if the earlier robber is sincere about stopping the act of robbery, then he should first condemn himself, admit mistake and vow not to do it again before he tries to pursuade others not to do it. He should not insist that others acknowledge and be answerable for the mistake but not himself. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
“… a lie, pure and simple. From Burma to South Africa; from Peru to Sudan; from Zimbabwe to Nepal.
A lie.”
MAC:Can you prove it China uses military force in those countries? While the west’s colonisation with force of African countries were recorded facts in history.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Is that how you debate, stuart? Whenever you are unable to come up with a response/rebuttal you call the other guy “straw”.
“Last time I checked Beijing was busy shipping arms to despots who then use them to wipe out or subjugate their political enemies. And Zhongnanhai turns a blind eye as Africa’s natural resources are exported for peanuts.”
The difference is, the Chinese sell them to anybody who have the dough (isn’t that something you complain about?) so the Chinese don’t get to decide who is to shoot you and they came with cash to buy whatever they want at MARKET VALUES/PRICES whereas the west came with guns pointing at the head of the locals telling them “If you don’t give XXX to me I will blow your head off”.
“a lie, pure and simple. From Burma to South Africa; from Peru to Sudan; from Zimbabwe to Nepal. ”
Hey, what did China do to South Africa, Peru and Nepal? Can you summarize in one short paragraph without writing a novel? Thank you.
“By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did”.”
Why is it a taboo to talk about what you guys did and what you guys are doing today?
stuart, I take that you are still dodging my question as to why you think the west is in any position to lecture China or anyone on moral issues. And again, an ex-con who is not exactly behaving like a saint today is not in any position to lecture anyone. People will think that you are crazy and you are a joke. Get it?
February 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“It is downright stupid for a robber to complain about another’s act of robbing.”
That is straight out of the CCP’s straw-laden logical fallacy handbook. I’ve heard it a thousand times.
“Can you prove it China uses military force in those countries?”
More straw than a haystack. I think you’ll find we were talking about ‘non-interference’.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am
@ Juche
“Is that how you debate, stuart? Whenever you are unable to come up with a response/rebuttal you call the other guy “straw”.”
Straw man responses are not valid debate ‘arguments’.
“whereas the west came…”
And once again:
By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did.
“Hey, what did China do to South Africa, Peru and Nepal? Can you summarize in one short paragraph without writing a novel?”
Sure.
Beijing forced the cancellation of a meeting of Nobel laureates in South Africa after threatening to withdraw investment; they made a deal with Peru that locks down that nation’s copper resources at rock-bottom prices – a deal that will require the forced removal of thousands of inhabitants from their homes (a Chinese export, one might say); Nepal, a long time safe refuge for Tibetans fleeing persecution, has been economically strong-armed into arresting, harrassing, and silencing a peaceful and traditional part of Nepalese culture.
And these examples are nothing compared to the suffering caused by China’s ‘interfering’ elsewhere.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
“By far the most telling indication of this is the attempt to deflect from issues by hiding behind the logical fallacy of ”well, look what you guys did.”
MAC:China has always discussed all issues the west want, after all, there is no way for China to shut all the west’s politicians and MSM. So China is not detracting from issues. But China and the rest of the world want the west to also discuss their transgressions and see how a common global standards can be achieved and enforced on every country so that there is no country can get away from double standards, for the betterment of the whole world. I see no reasons why the west keep deflecting this attempt, unless the west is bent on continuing behaving its old ways?
“Beijing forced the cancellation of a meeting of Nobel laureates in South Africa after threatening to withdraw investment;”
MAC:The Nobel laureates are stooges appointed by the west to uphold the west’s hegemonic schemes on the world. The bottom line is China did not use force and the response is standard diplomatic action to show disapproval and protest at a group’s interference in internal affairs . It is upto somone to decide whether to yield or not when his/her boy/girl friend threaten a break-up. This is still way better than the west behavior: Whenever the US was not happy, they sent their AC fleet pass the Taiwan starits. This is worse than the maoris showing their back to the visiting queen. Good manners indeed. Or worst, the west threatened or just invaded countries not liked by them. Where the west is leading the world to?
“they made a deal with Peru that locks down that nation’s copper resources at rock-bottom prices – a deal that will require the forced removal of thousands of inhabitants from their homes”
MAC:The terms are negotiated in a commercial deal, just like any normal commercial deals today by any one. What is your problem with the price? The west used to just dig for free with their guns. All development comes with cost. It is a price leaders of countries need to decide to take, not for China to decide for Peru.
“Nepal, a long time safe refuge for Tibetans fleeing persecution, has been economically strong-armed into arresting, harrassing, and silencing a peaceful and traditional part of Nepalese culture.”
MAC: The Tibetans outside China were foreigners used by the west to destabilise China. This way if true still better than the US invasion of Afghan for harboring the Talibans.
“And these examples are nothing compared to the suffering caused by China’s ‘interfering’ elsewhere.”
MAC: PLs give examples.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I forgot to add: What is the west doing to the 10 over millions Cubans with though sanctions over the last 40 plus years? Any idea how much hardship that causes? What have the Cubans done to the west?
February 10th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
@ MAC
“MAC: PLs give examples.”
Take a map of Africa, a blindfold, and a dozen pins. Bingo!
February 11th, 2010 at 3:48 am
I’m appalled at this article.
What Chinese leaders are doing now has already been done by US leaders for years. For years the third world has literally bowed to the US; and now a country comes which stands up to the US and refuses to listen to its demands, it is labeled as the bad guy.
I had commented on The Economist article which is linked to here. The permalink for my comment is:
http://www.economist.com/comment/471129#comment-471129
Some excerpts from my comment there:
China certainly hasn’t been “throwing its weight around”, as the author asserts. (That’s the self-proclaimed right of the United States!). While discussing Copenhagen, the author has conveniently forgotten that China was vehemently supported by India, Brazil and South Africa. Maybe those countries too “have a new self-confidence these days about anything they deem sovereign”!! I guess the greenhouse gases that industrialized nations have been emitting since 1900 don’t count at all!
Also, China has not “picked fights” over its disputes with India, Vietnam and Japan. Regarding India, there was only some media hype about unconfirmed reports of Border incursions. But since the LAC is not clearly defined, incursions often take place on both sides; and it was dismissed by the Indian government as inconsequential. In border talks with India, China has offered to keep only 26% of the total disputed land (which is currently controlled by China); and accept Indian sovereignty over the remaining 74% (which India currently controls).
Regarding Vietnam, it transferred the White Dragon Tail Island to Vietnam in 1957 without any strings attached. In the now resolved border dispute with Vietnam – China kept half of the disputed territory. Beijing in 2003 also signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN, signaling its nominal acceptance of ASEAN’s security norm of peaceful settlement of disputes. I guess that’s what The Economist calls “picking fights”!
China has never claimed any leadership role and certainly does not want to take a larger share of “global governance” – in accordance with Deng Xiaoping’s 24 character strategy; and that’s why Wen Jiabao publicly rejected becoming part of a “G-2″, with the US.
The US called upon China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in world affairs without asking whether or not China was ready for it.
It is understandable that the western media is worried about the eventual end of Western dominance. But that does not mean that it should print downright lies and misleading statements.
Maitreya Bhakal
India’s China Blog – http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/
February 11th, 2010 at 7:07 am
“Take a map of Africa, a blindfold, and a dozen pins. Bingo!”
As far as I know, China built hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure in African countries for the business they got. Instead what the west did was creating a alot of civil wars and a lot of African deaths so much so the Africans preferred to deal with China instead. The period of Africa when the west was dominant was a period of Africa in dark ages. If you don’t believe, pls ask the African leaders.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“Instead what the west did …”
Seriously?
February 11th, 2010 at 11:30 am
@ Maitreya Bhakal
“…and now a country comes which stands up to the US and refuses to listen to its demands…”
What demands? The only player storming around and demanding obeisance to the emperor is located in Beijing.
“China has not “picked fights” over its disputes with India, Vietnam and Japan.”
No. She just invaded the first two and routinely sends submarines into Japanese waters to provoke them.
February 13th, 2010 at 5:59 am
@stuart
The “demands” which I am talking about are, for example, climate cuts, interfering in Falun Gong, regarding Taiwan as part of China and still selling weapons to it, funding the World Uyghur Congress.
Regarding India, Vietnam – I have already explained the reasons why China attacked these two countries in my comment. To say that China “invaded” India and Vietnam would be a gross over-exaggeration.
Especially regarding India, China in fact attacked India to get it to negotiate. Not to mention that China declared a unilateral ceasefire and retreated; thus maintaining the same status quo as that prior to the war.
BTW, A US sub entered Chinese waters recently. Yet that was reported as “a skirmish between a Chinese vessel and US submarine”. Also, in 2001, in the so called “Hainan Island incident”, a US spy plane entered Chinese territory and their was a PLA casualty. According to a US government official, the US didn’t actually apologize for it, but just “expressed sorrow or regret”.
Maitreya Bhakal
India’s China Blog – http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/
February 13th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Stuart,
“???????????????????????????????????????????”
It is a pity that your blog doesn’t support Chinese characters. I would highly recommend that you read this one from the Deutsche Welle. I don’t know how you guys (the west) can be more hypocritical. Don’t know how good your Chinese is, just in case you don’t read Chinese:
“….., protecting WESTERN interests and values”
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5241026,00.html
February 13th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
“Instead what the west did …”
Seriously?
MAC: Why are you in denial and not admit and accept the west’s transgressions, past and present? How on earth you could improve this world without confronting the wrongs the west has done when the west is the elephant in the room? Unless your motive is to just disparage China and are totally not interested in trying to play a part in fixing any wrongs in this world done by the west. Perhaps you should state your motives clearly so that other bloggers do not waste their time arguing with you.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Someone wake me up when MAC’s done rewriting the logical fallacy record books.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
February 15th, 2010 at 12:28 am
@stuart
MAC: Please explain in what way is my argument a logical fallacy, if you know what a logical fallacy is? Why can’t you just refutet my argument point by point instead of hiding behind the phrase like “logical fallacy”.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Now you’re reverting to the straw man.
I’m not hiding behind anything: your deflection of the issues relating to China by pointing to the past actions of others is logically fallacious.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:37 pm
@stuart
I am only stressing that if there is a code of conducts for China to follow, the same code of conducts should also be followed by every country, no less no more. This is not logical fallacy. You are trying to dog the west’s questionable conducts each they were raised. This shows you have limited interest, i.e., to dispage China only and not interested in the overall good of this world and its people.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:13 pm
“…and not interested in the overall good of this world and its people.”
In this you are entirely mistaken.
My position is that the CCP are anything but a force for good in this world, and their actions need to be scrutinised and questioned.