Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

The fewer people in a position to bully me the better.

And the fewer people you are in a position to bully the better?

Yes or no?

The better for them, certainly.

For me, it depends on why I can't bully them. It's certainly not good for me if the reason I can't bully them is they're stronger than me.

If you say no, then what's the point of listening to you. You are just being a selfish whiner.

If you disagree one should first look after one's own interests, I do not suppose you'll find my views worth listening to.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon
I guess I was right then. Shame on you LC.

This in reply to what?

[Pekka]

it's commie nonsense. Pay no attention. He'll stop drooling soon.

[Agathon]

For me, it depends on why I can't bully them. It's certainly not good for me if the reason I can't bully them is they're stronger than me.

But that doesn't matter if there is no reason for them to bully you. There are a lot of people in Canada who could bully me if they wanted to, but there's no reason for them to do so, so I don't worry.

If you disagree one should first look after one's own interests, I do not suppose you'll find my views worth listening to.

I think it is immoral to assign one's own interests more weight than everyone else's. The golden rule, which is the foundation of the moral point of view, explicitly prohibits doing so (it doesn't stop you looking out for yourself though, so it's not as counterintuitive as it sounds).

Do you not adhere to the golden rule?

[Flubber]

Nation-states look out for their own interests.


The US believe it to be in its interest that China not be more powerful than the US or so close in power that the US loses influence.

The same may or may not be true of the EU as a whole or of its member states. Some may see benefits if China emerges as a second superpower while others may perceive dangers.

I see some dangers if China were to be as high handed and unilateralist as the US in its approach on some issues

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

There's no conceivable reason China should want to attack any western country in the mid-term future.

There's no conceivable model by which China would want to attack any country in the mid-term future.

The only possible exception is Taiwan, and that would create an international incident that the Chinese would wish to avoid. Hence they restrict themselves to making idle threats.

Well, we're discussing China's not unlikely rise to superpower status. It's not inconceivable they reach such a level of power that no-one would dare confront them over Taiwan.

Then, there's no conceivable reason the US should attack any EU country within the foreseeable either; am I therefore to conclude you think I should be happy with US bullying?

No. Has China attacked anyone in the last 15 years?

Has China has any opportunity to attack someone in the last 15 years?

Well, people who start wars are not known for their rationality. But I'm not arguing they're gonna attack us; you're basically using strawmen.

Because you have a problem articulating your position.

You complain that China may bully us (whatever that is supposed to mean) and that this is a reason for keeping them down. But you've provided no evidence that they will in any sense that is not the normal run of international politics, which most nations engage in (whining about trade deals, and strong arming tariff reductions, etc.)

The US on the other hand actually does bully other nations on substantial matters, and has military installations which cover the earth.

Why am I supposed to be scared of China becoming like the US. They have shown little sign of becoming so. At most in the foreseeable future they will become a regional power, but their whole development model is predicated on trade with Europe and the US. Of course, they'll try to pull crap, so do we. But where is the evidence that this will go beyond the small beer norm of international politics.

You are the one suggesting that China is a danger. I'm merely asking you to clarify that position.

I'm assuming that the US is a bully not because they're exceptionally evil, but because they can get away with it. Given the historical record of hegemonic powers, America throwing its weight around does not seem exceptional. Why should one not fear China following in the same footsteps if they rise to similar status?

That the PRC isn't acting like the US yet is hardly surprising; they can't.

I don't really get the trade argument. The US is heavily dependent on foreign trade too; if their trade ties to Europe and China were severed, the results wouldn't be pretty at all. Somehow that doesn't seem to stop them.

[Agathon]

I'm assuming that the US is a bully not because they're exceptionally evil, but because they can get away with it. Given the historical record of hegemonic powers, America throwing its weight around does not seem exceptional. Why should one not fear China following in the same footsteps if they rise to similar status?

I thought I made it clear that I didn't see China becoming another US. They will be a regional power at most.

That the PRC isn't acting like the US yet is hardly surprising; they can't.

Perhaps. But will they ever? I don't think they will get that powerful. At most, they will be able to prevent countries like the US getting their way all the time. I think that's a good thing. Having one country with complete military dominance means that there are no or few checks on its ambitions.

I don't really get the trade argument. The US is heavily dependent on foreign trade too; if their trade ties to Europe and China were severed, the results wouldn't be pretty at all. Somehow that doesn't seem to stop them.

It would if it came to the crunch. Neither China or Europe were prepared to go that far over Iraq, even though they didn't like the idea.

The US can saber rattle against China all it likes, but they can't really do that much against China either. This is one of the benefits of transnational capitalism, it makes wars much more expensive. It also means that elites who depend on transnational capitalism are going to take a much dimmer view of petty international disputes.

The age of great power politics is pretty much over IMHO. People no longer have the appetite for war that they once did, and capital has more say than parochial concerns. We and the Chinese share the common aim of making ourselves richer by trading with each other. That should take precedence over petty power politics.

I know this sounds funny coming from a commie like me, but that's my view.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

For me, it depends on why I can't bully them. It's certainly not good for me if the reason I can't bully them is they're stronger than me.

But that doesn't matter if there is no reason for them to bully you. There are a lot of people in Canada who could bully me if they wanted to, but there's no reason for them to do so, so I don't worry.

Most people don't go out of their way to screw you just because they can; they want some benefit beyond sadistic pleasure for their trouble.

Unfortunately, the int'l schoolyard isn't bigger these days than that any big or medium player is highly likely to have conflicting interests with every other at some point or other; ie. they'll have something to gain from forcing the other to accept their view.

If you disagree one should first look after one's own interests, I do not suppose you'll find my views worth listening to.

I think it is immoral to assign one's own interests more weight than everyone else's. The golden rule, which is the foundation of the moral point of view, explicitly prohibits doing so (it doesn't stop you looking out for yourself though, so it's not as counterintuitive as it sounds).

Do you not adhere to the golden rule?

Not to the extent that I would, in a screw me or screw him sitation, chose me to be screwed, no. Neither would I fault him for chosing me to be screwed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I don't really get the trade argument. The US is heavily dependent on foreign trade too; if their trade ties to Europe and China were severed, the results wouldn't be pretty at all. Somehow that doesn't seem to stop them.

this is quite surreal. The US has not used its military force to bully europe at all. In the years from the end of the cold war in 1991 to the ascent of the new Bush admin in 2001, the US "bullying" consisted of retreating from Somalia, overthrowing the Junta in Haiti and installing Aristide, and opposing genocide in the Balkans, with the support of Nato and key Nato allies. From bushs inauguration till 9/11 it consisted of nothing. Since, it has consisted of the invasion of Afghanistan, again supported by Nato allies, and with the approval of the UN, intervention again in Haiti (in cooperation with France) and Iraq.

Without rehashing the Iraq debate, the likelihood of Europe finding itself in the position of Iraq is about on the level of find itself in the position of Taiwan. Iraq was as unique a case, for many reasons, for the US as Taiwan is for China (though obviously they are different).
And the US track record as number one, with all its blemishes, is known. and, given the nature of the US polity, is largely predictable. I dont think the same can be said for China. We have worked together, Americans and Europeans since 1941 when FDR and Churchill met to sign the Atlantic Charter. For the most part that partnership has made the world a better place than it would otherwise have been. Today we cooperate around the world. Wed better keep doing so. If China wishes to cooperate with the West, they are of course welcome to. Moving away from confrontation with Taiwan, and SOME improvement of human rights, are essentials to full cooperation however. And certainly to sales of high tech arms.

[Agathon]

What worries me is the blatant Sinophobia of some people.

When the Chinese launched their first space flight, I thought "Great! Another country goes into space", because I think that space belongs to everyone and I personally support space exploration (which is why I was so sad over the Columbia disaster) and the more who are willing to do it, the better.

But some people (particularly Americans) were pretty mean-spirited about the whole thing, and took pains to slag off the Chinese achievement. The underlying theme seemed to be "screw them".

Why? Science is not a political contest (although some people want it to be) - the international space station should have shown us that. Politicians wanted the space race to be a political contest, most people just wanted to see the boundaries of human endeavour extended.

[Agathon]

Most people don't go out of their way to screw you just because they can; they want some benefit beyond sadistic pleasure for their trouble.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, the int'l schoolyard isn't bigger these days than that any big or medium player is highly likely to have conflicting interests with every other at some point or other; ie. they'll have something to gain from forcing the other to accept their view.

And we have diplomacy to solve these problems. War is, in almost every case, not a feasible option.

Having a balance of powers makes it less feasible. The Americans wrote their constitution on the same principle (although it hasn't been working as well as it might).

Not to the extent that I would, in a screw me or screw him sitation, chose me to be screwed, no. Neither would I fault him for chosing me to be screwed.

What do the Chinese want to screw you for? There's a simple solution to getting things you want, it's called buying them, and it is in almost every case I can think of cheaper than using force (given the terrible consequences of modern warfare).

Can you give me an example of something that the Chinese are likely to do if they become as powerful as recent reports suggest (i.e. they come second to the US) that you think would constitute bullying and which justifies (i.e. does not impose higher costs than) engaging with China.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
Against who?

Alliances are useful in the event of a threatened attack.

Please stop trying to be an ignorant dullard. Just about every page in this thread is filled with possible war causing flash points that could occur between western allies and the PRC not least of which is Taiwan. In just the last ten years the US has had to move multiple carrier battle grounds to guard Taiwan against Chinese threats.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

I'm assuming that the US is a bully not because they're exceptionally evil, but because they can get away with it. Given the historical record of hegemonic powers, America throwing its weight around does not seem exceptional. Why should one not fear China following in the same footsteps if they rise to similar status?

I thought I made it clear that I didn't see China becoming another US. They will be a regional power at most.

I think China does have the potential to become a global power, tho I'll agree that it's unlikely to achieve US-style global hegemony. The likelihood of something happening doesn't figure in telling whether it happening would be bad, however.

What I do think is likely is China becoming a more important global player than the EU bloc, which I don't particularly like.

That the PRC isn't acting like the US yet is hardly surprising; they can't.

Perhaps. But will they ever? I don't think they will get that powerful. At most, they will be able to prevent countries like the US getting their way all the time. I think that's a good thing. Having one country with complete military dominance means that there are no or few checks on its ambitions.

I think I've made clear I'm not too fond of US hegemony.

China being able to keep US out of its neck of the woods would clearly be good for China, and bad for the US (at least as perceived by the current American elite, and it's they who decide how America reacts to developments). For everyone else, it depends on how China decides to redecorate the place.

I don't really get the trade argument. The US is heavily dependent on foreign trade too; if their trade ties to Europe and China were severed, the results wouldn't be pretty at all. Somehow that doesn't seem to stop them.

It would if it came to the crunch. Neither China or Europe were prepared to go that far over Iraq, even though they didn't like the idea.

The US can saber rattle against China all it likes, but they can't really do that much against China either. This is one of the benefits of transnational capitalism, it makes wars much more expensive. It also means that elites who depend on transnational capitalism are going to take a much dimmer view of petty international disputes.

The age of great power politics is pretty much over IMHO. People no longer have the appetite for war that they once did, and capital has more say than parochial concerns. We and the Chinese share the common aim of making ourselves richer by trading with each other. That should take precedence over petty power politics.

I know this sounds funny coming from a commie like me, but that's my view.

I agree that major wars seem to've gone out of fashion. But I do not see any shortage of political bones of contention, and there does not seem to be any reason to believe they won't continue to be decided by cheney comparison rather than arbitration or whatever.

[Agathon]

Please stop trying to be an ignorant dullard. Just about every page in this thread is filled with possible war causing flash points that could occur between western allies and the PRC not least of which is Taiwan. In just the last ten years the US has had to move multiple carrier battle grounds to guard Taiwan against Chinese threats.

That's just paranoia. The Chinese will not invade Taiwan in the near future because it would almost certainly cause a confrontation that would cost them more than they could hope to gain. They'll continue saber rattling and that's about it. Just like the US will continue saber rattling in the Taiwan Straits.

China getting higher tech weapons will not change this situation at all. It will still be a no win situation for each side. That's reality.

India and Pakistan would quite like to go to war with each other, but they won't - the costs are too high.

You can rant on all you like about the danger to Taiwan, but you have provided no reasons to think that invasion is likely, and there is every reason to think that the status quo will continue until Taiwan is peacefully welcomed back into China, as is inevitable.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

so, oerdin, do you think Taiwan belongs in your grand alliance?

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand do belong in based upon shared democratic principles, cultural outlook, and shared history. the ROC was a WW2 ally, a democratic nation, and a good trading partner. Korea & Japan, like Taiwan, should also be included in any alliance/free trade agreement for the reasons stated above. It's in every democratic country's interests since it will protect peace and expand economic activitiy.