Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Certainly, but they never did any of these things for the benefit of the locals, only for their benefit. Its akin to the moronic arguement that blakcs should be glad they were taken slaves cause America is so much nicer than Africa. NO, Europeans invaded people for their own good, and then thought- you are better off under us. The US invades people and tells them- we are doing this for you, not us, you.

That is the difference.

whatever they THOUGHT, there are numerous instances where they SAID its for the locals good, and from the beginning.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
I'll just say this: Take a close look at how Chinese treat their own people. Then ask yourself, how would they treat foreigners, if they held power over them?

The same way they treat their own people : duh.

This, of course, assumes the Chinese have some devious intent on swallowing up the world. The one territorial claim the Chinese have with any population to speak of is Taiwan, which is a left-over of the civil wars of the 1920-40's. Every other territorial dispute of note involves sparesely, if at all populated pieces of territory. A war for any such pieces of dirt and rock are utterly stuypid, on all sides- waste of people and resources to lay claim to what?? Any thing found there will eventually be sold and simply ent5er the world economy, so wasting anything on fighting for rocks is, again, just moronic, and all states that would partatke in such stupidity should be castigated- I failt to see, for example, what, besides 50,000 + dead, Ethiopia and Eritrea got out of their battle for dirt and rocks along their borders.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


whatever they THOUGHT, there are numerous instances where they SAID its for the locals good, and from the beginning.

And the locals had every right to hate them for it, because it was bull****.
Oh,a nd can you give a couple?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not.

Thats correct. The natural allies for a US looking to balance an aggressive China will be Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Viet Nam, India, etc. If China becomes sufficiently aggressive Russia would naturally fall into the camp of those attempting to contain China - this might reinforce the tendency of europeans powers to see China an ally against Russia.

That assumes that Europe focuses on its regional interests, and not on improving global systemic concerns.

[GePap]

That assumes, of course, "an aggresive China". But I guess in some circles, that is a given.

Sad, really.

And why on earth would Europe see a threat in Russia?? Unless Russia itself became "aggresive", but then, how dare the peace loving, wonderful, lovely, never bad people of the grand allience of love ever allow an aggressor into their midsts!!

Man, let the paranoia run wild....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The same way they treat their own people : duh.

This, of course, assumes the Chinese have some devious intent on swallowing up the world. The one territorial claim the Chinese have with any population to speak of is Taiwan, which is a left-over of the civil wars of the 1920-40's. Every other territorial dispute of note involves sparesely, if at all populated pieces of territory. A war for any such pieces of dirt and rock are utterly stuypid, on all sides- waste of people and resources to lay claim to what?? Any thing found there will eventually be sold and simply ent5er the world economy, .

it will be sold, and paid for, and someone will get the revenue from those sales. GePap is confusing the fact that which party owns a resource is not relevant to third parties, with the incorrect notion that ownership is of no value to the owning parties.

As for China being a status quo power once it gets Taiwan - that is precisely what is in dispute. China's navy has reached out to Pakistan for an Indian Ocean presence, and seems to be looking at operational strategies far into the Pacific. It MAY be a conservative power that ONLY wants Taiwan. For the moment the US and Japan will test China by looking at HOW China approaches Taiwan - a China that endangers regional security by attempting to resolve the Taiwan problem by FORCE would be an indication of an irresponsible China.

Im sure there will be some response about the absurdity of looking at the plans of the Chinese military as an indication of Chinese strategic goals. Maybe so, but such folk have no problem with taking US military plans, even statements of out of office US officials, as indicators of alleged plans by the US.

[Patroklos]

Meanwhile, Europe itself - like China in 1972

Yeah, I can see lots of similarities between EU maturation and the Cultural Revolution

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
That assumes, of course, "an aggresive China". But I guess in some circles, that is a given.

Sad, really.

And why on earth would Europe see a threat in Russia?? Unless Russia itself became "aggresive", but then, how dare the peace loving, wonderful, lovely, never bad people of the grand allience of love ever allow an aggressor into their midsts!!

Man, let the paranoia run wild....

1. I was going with the assumption you stated. I dont KNOW that China is NOW aggressive. Nor do i feel confident in predicting what China will be like in 20 years. I do think it wise to be cautious. Neither to provoke China, nor to ignore potential danger.

2. An EU that is no longer interested in global peace, to the point that it could ignore the threat presented by a fascist China, might well have conflicts with Russia of all kinds.

3. In the event of a China that was sufficiently strong and sufficiently aggressive, the alliance to contain China would have no choice but to look for allies where it could find it. That is NOT the current US policy - we're far from that point and may never reach it. The current US policy is to reconcile with Europe based on shared global concerns. The question NOW is whether EU policy toward China is compatible with those shared global concerns.

[Spiffor]

DD:

You might also like that I comment about EU's willingness to deal with an antidemocratic country such as China, hurting the interests of a democratic country such as the US along the way, and destabilising the region.

Well, for one, I don't think any modern weapon (whether Russian, Israeli, European or American) would worsen the everwdaw life of the average Chinese. Even old air forces and old tanks can be very efficient at keeping civilian populations in check. When the average civilian weaponry stopped progressing at light RPGs, the need for a more modern military to oppress them has dwindled as well.

For second, I don't think China will want to bully any of the other big ones in forseeable future. With regional rivals such as India, Russia,and to a smaller extent Pakistan, China certainly won't attack them directly. I also don't see them attacking Japan or South Korea outright, because the US will make it very clear that these countries are under its protection. And China doesn't have much too gain from attacking these countries anyway. After all, it's much more efficient to promote anti-Japanese hatemongering while the Japanese are still around.

This lets the perspective that a modern Chinese military will bully lesser neighbours, first and foremost Taiwan. This is indeed the biggest prospect of unstability in the region, and the eventual confrontation may be hastened if the trade embargo is lifted. This is indeed the one point where the dots can be connected so that the EU's decision can be really criticized, and harshly so: our greed will probably hasten the death of thousands. And this is why there should be a political will from the European humanists to maintain the Chinese embargo.


But I don't think these humanitarian concerns have anything to do with the American position on the matter, and I am quite surprised that it has to do with yours, as I considered wou to be a hardcore realist.

In realistic terms, what I wrote in my previous post stands. The Transatlantic Relationship will show its maturity if both sides are able to compromise on their greedy interests. If both sides stay adamant, it'll show the Transatlantic Relationship won't be able to resume properly until there's a change of leadership, or until a common foe unites us again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it will be sold, and paid for, and someone will get the revenue from those sales. GePap is confusing the fact that which party owns a resource is not relevant to third parties, with the incorrect notion that ownership is of no value to the owning parties.

The possible benefits of any said resources would pale in comparison to the cost of a war- hence, to fight for the right of ownership would be a pure act of stupidity, and only nationalistic chauvinism would stand in the way of coming to a sensible aggreement.

As for China being a status quo power once it gets Taiwan - that is precisely what is in dispute. China's navy has reached out to Pakistan for an Indian Ocean presence, and seems to be looking at operational strategies far into the Pacific. It MAY be a conservative power that ONLY wants Taiwan. For the moment the US and Japan will test China by looking at HOW China approaches Taiwan - a China that endangers regional security by attempting to resolve the Taiwan problem by FORCE would be an indication of an irresponsible China.

And anyone care to say why China would ahve any more of an aggresive bent than , HMMM..., the US? The US currently has the ability to send its fleets anywhere, yet until the neo-cons began their little ideological crusade, most people in the world did not think the US had inherently aggresive intents. For something to be a threat, you need capability AND intent. No one here has shown why China would have an intent.

AS for the Taiwan issue- that as I said previously, is a left over of the civil wars- certainly, it goes to the very roots of the legitimacy of the current regime, and they have been very constant in saying this is their main concern- certainly it would be much better for China to seek to resolve things peacefully, since a military strike, even if succesful, would yield few benefits. Thjat said, I think it is wrong to see Taiwan as indicative of anything else, since China has been more than clear fro over 50 years that Taiwan is an issue on its own. Our own policy towards Taiwan (which the US recognizes as part of China) shows that that conflict is a thing in and of itself.

Im sure there will be some response about the absurdity of looking at the plans of the Chinese military as an indication of Chinese strategic goals. Maybe so, but such folk have no problem with taking US military plans, even statements of out of office US officials, as indicators of alleged plans by the US.

And do you have the plans of the Chinese military laying around? Care to share them, oh wise knower of Chinese military positioning and planning?

Oh, and I love the whole "ohh, they blame the US first.." crap. I don;t think China is nice, nor do I think China is lovable, nor in any way better than the US. The problem LoTM is that you assume the US for some archane reason to be better than China in its international behavior, and hence everyone should love and understand the US, whatever. The double standard is from your end, not mine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DD:


For second, I don't think China will want to bully any of the other big ones in forseeable future. With regional rivals such as India, Russia,and to a smaller extent Pakistan, China certainly won't attack them directly. I also don't see them attacking Japan or South Korea outright, because the US will make it very clear that these countries are under its protection. And China doesn't have much too gain from attacking these countries anyway. After all, it's much more efficient to promote anti-Japanese hatemongering while the Japanese are still around.

1. Paki isnt a rival to China, but a natural ally.
2. Russia may be a natural rival, but is not acting that way now. To the extent the US and EU reconcile, Russia is likely to shift back to China.
3. Protecting Skor and Japan is costly to the US, and will grow more burdensome as China grows relative to the US. At some point the US and Japan will need additional allies. If the EU is unavailable, they will have to find them elsewhere, which may be uncomfortable for the EU. If the EU IS going to someday join in the defense of Japan, the EU would be wise to think if abandoning the prosperous democracy on Taiwan will make the task of defending Japan easier or not.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?

This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one. So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice.

Realizing that China has rational reasons to build up its military capacity doesn't mean one needs to be happy about it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The problem LoTM is that you assume the US for some archane reason to be better than China in its international behavior, and hence everyone should love and understand the US, whatever. The double standard is from your end, not mine.

Im NOT again going to debate US behavior for the last 70 years with you, since I know your opinions. Im speaking to Europeans. Those whose view of the cold war is that the US and the USSR were equally at fault, and that US behavior in alliance with Europe during that period should NOT be accounted as positive, will OF COURSE have no reason to share my view of the US vis a vis China. However that is not the official position of any european govt, and AFAICT is not the majority view on the continent. Similarly those who see the US involvement in Iraq as not simply a mistake(as many view it) but as aggression of the first order, will also share your view.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. I was going with the assumption you stated. I dont KNOW that China is NOW aggressive. Nor do i feel confident in predicting what China will be like in 20 years. I do think it wise to be cautious. Neither to provoke China, nor to ignore potential danger.

I never stated China would be aggresive, so I don;t know where you get this from.

2. An EU that is no longer interested in global peace, to the point that it could ignore the threat presented by a fascist China, might well have conflicts with Russia of all kinds.

Whatever- global peace under whose definition?

3. In the event of a China that was sufficiently strong and sufficiently aggressive, the alliance to contain China would have no choice but to look for allies where it could find it. That is NOT the current US policy - we're far from that point and may never reach it. The current US policy is to reconcile with Europe based on shared global concerns. The question NOW is whether EU policy toward China is compatible with those shared global concerns.

The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.

Its obvcious the Europeans do not share any longer this notion that a unipolar world with the US on top is the desireable world. While some Europeans probably think a unipolar world with them on top would be best, and some might think that a multipolar world balance is more desirable, the general trend of moevement in Europe seems to be moving from a "polar" world , period. MOves to create and integrated EU, support of international actions like Kyoto and the ICJ are the firt baby steps to seemingly trying to end the nation-state as the sovereign unit of the world system and replace it with something else.

Current Us concerns are "terrorism", maintianing its soverignty, and maintaining its military hegemony, and spreading free trade. Neocons would add the spread of democracy throught the use of the US military hegemony, but that is a torny and devise issue even in the US.

Europe's concerns are continuing its EU development, greater internationalism, spread of free trade, and global development.

So currently US and European goals intersect in only a few ways- why then should the Europeans back the US, speuically in ways which meet none of its goals, but back US goals which might be in contradiction to its own? (Maintaining US military hegemony vs. greater internationalism)

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Im NOT again going to debate US behavior for the last 70 years with you, since I know your opinions. Im speaking to Europeans. Those whose view of the cold war is that the US and the USSR were equally at fault, and that US behavior in alliance with Europe during that period should NOT be accounted as positive, will OF COURSE have no reason to share my view of the US vis a vis China. However that is not the official position of any european govt, and AFAICT is not the majority view on the continent. Similarly those who see the US involvement in Iraq as not simply a mistake(as many view it) but as aggression of the first order, will also share your view.

You're not going to debate, but you are goign to make utterly wrong assumptions about other peoples' positions? (but of course, you were not going to argue, so if I point out how wrong you are, well, that would be arguing ) Oh, and let me add- you don;t KNOW my position, you know your impressions of my positions (unless you read minds LoTM< but for some reason I seriously doubt you do). An honest man would know as much and realize only by arguing and listening will they actually know the other guy's position.