Here's one: http://www.cnbc.com/id/35358293 China to Obama: 'Immediately' Scrap Dalai Lama Meeting But the reality is that China *isn't* a peer. It may be that eventually, but right now, China is about 1/6th or 1/7th the size of the US. I do agree that China doesn't meddle as much with US policy, except where it concerns them. But that's the nature of the of what the US is - it's supposed to be a beacon for democracy and freedom. It pushes human rights everywhere (with varying amounts of success). China doesn't care about that stuff, so they don't push it on anyone. The main things brought out in this article, though, are: 1. Taiwan - China objects to the US selling weapons to Taiwan; the US objects to China selling weapons to Iran/etc. 2. Google/etc - the US looks out for it's own economic interests in trade, just as China looks out for its own with its tariffs and protectionism, etc. Of course the US is going to bring up things involving its companies - all countries do that. Nothing the US has done has been out of bounds or particularly harmful to US-China relations.
I think that's where you and I basically disagree. Because my statement is in context with the article. If what you say is correct, then the OP's article is worthless in the first place. But if the article is correct, then what you suggest - China should back off of us before we do them - doesn't exactly work. Funny how the US was never much of a beacon for democracy and freedom until we became a superpower post-WWII. I'm personally not into that stuff. But I do get that it's good for politics and feeling superior to other people. That said, you need money and power to butt into other people's business. What many people basically are saying is that we no longer have the power to push China around like we used to do. I mean, seriously, we're a ******* wreck right now. Is this REALLY the time to be pushing our peace and freedom onto the rest of the world? On a side note, what kind of success have we obtained by pushing our social agenda? It seems the only thing we've really succeeded is creating democracies in name only. Where the poor remain in poverty while the rich get richer through their connections with us. Sorry for the rant. But I just tend to be cynical with these things. Huh? US treats China like an insecure little brother? How does that work?
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin. President John F. Kennedy - June 26, 1963
No need to be so PC, the whitehouse chief of staff calls his own party members ****ing r****ds. Do you honestly believe this? Maybe it was in the past (I don't know, I'm too young), but how about the last 20 years? At best I'm VERY skeptical about this altruistic freedom police thing the US likes to claim, especially when its "freedom" campaigns are so selective. Looks like good old fashioned bullying to me.
I don't see your point. I'm not debating moral values, because it's an opinion. I was just wondering about feasibility. I don't care whether communism is good or bad. I don't even care if the Communist Party is worse than Hitler and Bin Laden combined. I'm just wondering how capable is the US at this time at pushing our values onto a country like China. It's a matter of might, not right. Because When you're mighty, what you say is always right.
Sorry - to clarify, I'm not saying China should back off of us before we do them. I'm saying it's the nature of countries to push their own interests on others, and there's nothing wrong with that unless it escalates to a real problem. I don't think either side needs to back off on what they want. But the US, because of it's size, is always going to be looked at the more pushy one. Large countries always will do that with smaller countries. And FWIW, I do think the original article is worthless. I think it's a bunch of worry over nothing. Maybe so - but since WW2, it started pushing that angle, especially with the rise of communism. We're still about 6 or 7 times the size of China and we did lead the world into a meltdown, so to say we don't have influence isn't really accurate. We don't have as much as in the past, mainly because of China's incredible growth rate, but we still are the big dog on the block for now. And while it seems like we don't have an impact, I would suggest we actually have a lot more influence and "win" more of these arguments behind the scenes than it appears. Maybe so, but I'd argue that Eastern Europe as a whole has been a success. Russia has been a bit rockier, of course. There's no doubt it's not perfect by any means. Latin America has also seen a lot of economic improvement over the past decades. But overall, democracies don't happen over night - the US certainly had its share of growing pains too.
China != East Germany. There is a lot of economic and social interaction between China and Taiwan. East Germany build a wall. The US should get their panties in a bunch over small stuff (like the article says) - but China shouldn't get their panties in a bunch either. The 2 countries will always have differences but the ties that bind are far too important.
Once again Major has beaten me to my responses but to throw my two cents in. Frankly yes the article is largely worthless. Actually the US has pushed the idea of democracy globally long before WWII. There is a reason why many people called GW Bush's rhetoric "Wilsonian." I think the problem is that you are looking at this as much as an adverserial relationship as many in the US do. The truth is that both countries need each other but at the same time both countries have their own interests and also play to domestic audiences. The US has global interests and responsbilities. I personally don't agree with a lot of them but that doesn't change the fact that we are in that position. As it happens the PRC as a burgeoning superpower also has global interests that conflict with the US. It is only natural that there are frictions.
US animosity with Iran and North Korea go back to before the War on Terror and given that both countries have at times both rhetorically and physically threatened key US allies and interest PRC arms sales are of direct concern to the US. And again the PRC is selling weapons to countries we consider rogue states who directly threatening our allies and economic interests. For a major trading partner to continually devalue their currency is a direct threat to our economic interests. It is basically an act of economic warfare and one that the PRC wouldn't stand for if the US did it.
You questioned pushing peace and democracy and the success of our agenda. How quickly people forget what's gone on in the world. If anything, our agenda is as important as its ever been because democracies don't tend to go to war with each other. It's tyrants, royalty, and authoritarian regimes that bring war to the world. WWII and 9/11 for that matter has taught us that what happens in Europe and in Asia affects us in the US no matter how powerful we are or how much we don't want to get involved. China's economic success is due in significant measure to US pressure to adopt a market economy. That's the irony of this new found Chinese arrogance. They tout their system but all they've done is to adopt what's already proven to be successful in the West. It's a copycat economy so good for them but you're welcome. The US should continue to push democracy in China so that we don't have to deal with a Chinese leader one day that will tap into that nationalism and settle some scores with Japan for example or helps North Korea settle a score with South Korea. A stable, democratic China is good for everyone including the Chinese.
Nice post and no kidding. We fought a war with North Korea (and China, although we didn't seek or desire it), with a treaty still unsigned, and our conflict with Iran goes back to the fall of the Shah, when our embassy was taken over with the consent (hell, active participation) of the Iranian "government," in violation of international law. That we didn't go to war with Iran over that is still a mystery to me, but that's another topic. So yeah, selling arms to those two states is not the act of a nation friendly to the United States.
I would hardly attribute China's economic success the US pressure. US markets? Yeah sure. Even then - that is only partial at best. Chinese liberalization of their command economy started long ago. Mao was the roadblock. Does China have problems? Yes. But to compare them to East Germany and credit the United States for their economic growth is incorrect.
I agree. Chinese citizens have infinitely more freedoms than East Germans. It was always the plan of the leadership to first liberalize their economy and then tackle the issues of human rights, etc. They wanted to learn form Gorbachev's mistakes. The leaders place more emphasis on order than individual liberty. I am not saying that is right but past historic events - notably the Tai Ping rebeliion - make them wary of chaos. They are prickly about issues of sovereignty and this hails back to the Opium War days.
Is that why the US supported Saddam and Osama? Is peace and democracy why it supports the Saudi monarchy?
True, but of course the US has been selling arms to Taiwan for a long time. It's not like there was any real friendship to violate in the first place. Just 2 countries with some common interests and some conflicting interests.
Spoken like someone who has no clue about how this process started. It was not US pressure but Deng's vision about how China should work. His famous words "black cat, white cat, as long as it catches mice, it is a good cat" is what started the whole thing. Deng was a great leader who had a vision about how China could prosper and he carried out his vision, the rest is history.
The alternative to Saddam was a fanatic Iran and the alternative to the Mujahideen was the Soviets. Who would you support? Stop with the stupid questions. This is the catch 22 about American foreign policy. If the US is toppling regimes around the world at the end of a gun barrell in the name of democracy then they're imperialist Yankees and if they ally with royals and tyrants for purposes of stability and regional strategic interests while using soft pressure to bring change then they're a sell out to their ideals. At the adult table we understand those are decisions that have to be made in the real world when dealing with complex questions about culture, religion, and history.
I'm not questioning if it benefited the US, I'm questioning whether these actions are really about democracy/freedom.
