|
Hambilderberglar posted:See what I did there? I see that you're making the wrong argument, yes. You seem to think that I'm playing the apologist for how China treats its minorities. I am not. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to draw the conclusion that they will become a major world conqueror anytime soon purely from the way they treat their minorities. I mean, seriously, did you not read more than one or two sentences in my post? Of course it's not the oppression Olympics; I specifically said that it's not. We are talking about the way that China interacts with other states in the international community, not whether or not their current regime is evil.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I see that you're making the wrong argument, yes. You seem to think that I'm playing the apologist for how China treats its minorities. I am not. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to draw the conclusion that they will become a major world conqueror anytime soon purely from the way they treat their minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Do you believe the US is a major world conqueror? To a degree. I think it's managed to do so by other means than most other hegemons in history, but it has also done its share of conquering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Good Imperialism to  Bad Imperialism  to  There's a difference!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To a degree. I think it's managed to do so by other means than most other hegemons in history, but it has also done its share of conquering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I see that you're making the wrong argument, yes. You seem to think that I'm playing the apologist for how China treats its minorities. quote:What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to draw the conclusion that they will become a major world conqueror anytime soon purely from the way they treat their minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Wow you guys, Majorian's right. You've been going on for over a page but haven't said poo poo about anything. Forget I even brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Good Imperialism I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying one is "good" and one is "bad" only that if presented with a choice for me about how I'd like my hypothetical people to be dominated the former is vastly preferable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying one is "good" and one is "bad" only that if presented with a choice for me about how I'd like my hypothetical people to be dominated the former is vastly preferable. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:No, I'm taking issue with you painting the situation as cut and dry as "Sinicization" as if Sinicization isn't imperialism in and of itself. I didn't say it wasn't. It obviously is. But this is a thread about geopolitics and international relations, so the topic is about external imperialism. Internal imperialism only means something in this thread if it can indicate a state's behavior on the world stage. A Buttery Pastry posted:It has, but not in its current phase of post-WW2 imperialism. I'm thinking Chinese imperialism might look very similar, with military might and economic clout being incentives for other states to voluntarily and slightly less voluntarily cooperate with them, which wouldn't really make the Chinese major world conquerors. It's possible, but still, regardless of what one may or may not think about national characters, collective mentalities, cultural influences on foreign policy, etc, there's no two ways around the fact that China's foreign policy has far been a conservative one. I'm sure part of the reason for that is that they're a relatively new world power, but there are also without a doubt contextual factors as well: the fact that they've historically been a resource-rich country, the fact that they historically have only had a few major invasions, the fact that they don't have as close ties to Europe or other war-prone regions as we did in the 1940's, etc. It's important to remember that the US only became the hegemon of the Western world after all the other major powers tore each other apart. That's not to say that the same thing can't happen to China's benefit, but at least at the rate things are going with international politics, it looks to me like it's going to be a much more subtle, gradual rise above the multipolar system (if there ever is an era of Chinese unipolarity).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's possible, but still, regardless of what one may or may not think about national characters, collective mentalities, cultural influences on foreign policy, etc, there's no two ways around the fact that China's foreign policy has far been a conservative one. I'm sure part of the reason for that is that they're a relatively new world power, but there are also without a doubt contextual factors as well: the fact that they've historically been a resource-rich country, the fact that they historically have only had a few major invasions, the fact that they don't have as close ties to Europe or other war-prone regions as we did in the 1940's, etc. It's important to remember that the US only became the hegemon of the Western world after all the other major powers tore each other apart. That's not to say that the same thing can't happen to China's benefit, but at least at the rate things are going with international politics, it looks to me like it's going to be a much more subtle, gradual rise above the multipolar system (if there ever is an era of Chinese unipolarity). I would say it is somewhere inbetween, China has been arming quickly and its claim over the entirety of the South China Sea has to be at some level be considered a major case of expansionism. However, China at the same time is countered by geographical factors that limit their options. Russia/India/Japan/South Korea (and a less extent Vietnam/Taiwan) are powers that can defend themselves and their frontier including at sea and territorial expansion is going to be very costly against them especially if they get additional support from outside. Japan/Taiwan/South Korea and the Philippines can all be considered under the defensive umbrella of the US as well. The Chinese/Russian border doesn't offer much opportunity for expansion since there isn't anything to gain, and while there is the possibility of conflict in Central Asia that seems to be dimming for now. Then there is India. China's rise has to be peaceful to a large extent because it is mostly "contained" already by geography, and it is going to take overwhelming naval power to break out of it. That said, it is very possible there simply might be a naval equilibrium that develops the more their economic growth "normalizes." China has had some success in economic investment in Laos and Cambodia btw but if anything it shows how limited much of their influence is outside their borders compared to the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Why is that? Isn't obvious? Western domination comes after the establishment of the Westphalian system, where it became the norm that all states regardless of size or power have some nominal right to sovereignty and non-interference of their internal affairs. To justify circumnavigating this the West, in which Britain was no exception had to rationalize a world view where the states created by non-whites were somehow inherently inferior and not worthy of those statuses and protections; the people were inferior, their religion and customs were "dangerous" because it prevented them from going to heaven and so they must be converted at gunpoint and so on. I as an average joe was never at this sort of risk of being personally targeted for "help" under the Mandate of Heaven, only the dumb gently caress King who I had no say in choosing anyway and likely didn't like anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying one is "good" and one is "bad" only that if presented with a choice for me about how I'd like my hypothetical people to be dominated the former is vastly preferable. I'm sure It would have made a large difference. (oh, also I probably could add the Taiping rebellion in there to some extent since the movement was attractive to marginalized ethnicities like the Hakka or Zhuang and the whole thing ended up with loving world war 2 levels of devastation and death) khwarezm fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Isn't obvious? Western domination comes after the establishment of the Westphalian system, where it became the norm that all states regardless of size or power have some nominal right to sovereignty and non-interference of their internal affairs. To justify circumnavigating this the West, in which Britain was no exception had to rationalize a world view where the states created by non-whites were somehow inherently inferior and not worthy of those statuses and protections; the people were inferior, their religion and customs were "dangerous" because it prevented them from going to heaven and so they must be converted at gunpoint and so on. Yes, I know that whenever I try to think of groups of people that would never display dangerous levels of cultural chauvinism, the Han Chinese spring immediately to mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Isn't obvious? Western domination comes after the establishment of the Westphalian system, where it became the norm that all states regardless of size or power have some nominal right to sovereignty and non-interference of their internal affairs. To justify circumnavigating this the West, in which Britain was no exception had to rationalize a world view where the states created by non-whites were somehow inherently inferior and not worthy of those statuses and protections; the people were inferior, their religion and customs were "dangerous" because it prevented them from going to heaven and so they must be converted at gunpoint and so on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yet Britain's approach to imperialism meant it didn't have a solid long-term hold on most of the people(s) it had subjugated, while China's approach left them as largely politically irrelevant minorities with no hope of breaking away. That's what getting to have an extra 1000 years of imperialism gets you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's what getting to have an extra 1000 years of imperialism gets you. The regions in question that actually -want- to break away was mostly acquired in the 18th-19th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Typo posted:The regions in question that actually -want- to break away was mostly acquired in the 18th-19th century. For the last time, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yet Britain's approach to imperialism meant it didn't have a solid long-term hold on most of the people(s) it had subjugated, while China's approach left them as largely politically irrelevant minorities with no hope of breaking away. I'm not even sure if people know what they're trying to argue anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
LGD posted:Yes, I know that whenever I try to think of groups of people that would never display dangerous levels of cultural chauvinism, the Han Chinese spring immediately to mind. But again, we're not talking about cultural chauvinism, and we're not talking about imperialism within borders that have been commonly understood for generations at this point - we're talking about future imperialism outside of those borders. If we want to continue this discussion, those that think that China's history of ethnic cleansing will lead it to behave as a revisionist state in the future are going to have to connect the dots a bit more, because I, for one, am not seeing it. (and bear in mind, "revisionist" in this sense doesn't just mean states that want their place in the world "hierarchy" to change - it refers to states that are or will actively do something about it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Are you really saying that China acquiring over a thousand years its hinterland of whats Han China today is comparable to the British colonialization of India? Yes. I'd go farther and say the Chinese were better at it because they still have those territories under their control while the British got thrown out of India.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't recall the time where China conquered an entire continent an ocean away just for its resources while actively destroying the culture of indigenous peoples do you? This is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't recall the time where China conquered an entire continent an ocean away just for its resources while actively destroying the culture of indigenous peoples do you? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
All right, folks, take it to the China thread unless it ties into international security.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All right, folks, take it to the China thread unless it ties into international security.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
site posted:Sorry :/ Don't be, it was a good question that was on topic, and I wouldn't mind continuing to discuss it, as long as it focuses on the international security angle of things. For example, I did really mean it when I said that I'd like to know, if people see China becoming a genuinely revisionist state in the medium-term future, why they think that, because it would be an interesting discussion. I'd love to broaden the subject matter of this thread beyond just the Russia vs. NATO stuff; I just want it to actually focus on the foreign policy/geopolitics side of things, as opposed to countries' internal, domestic policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
fishmech had this to say in the EE thread, when I said that a new Cold War with Russia would be bad for the U.S.:Nintendo Kid posted:It absolutely would not, unless you were under the mistaken belief that the military was going to be shrunk drastically for no reason in 2016. I obviously don't agree. A new Cold War would be a bad thing, because Russia still has a lot of capacity to mess up our foreign policy objectives. They can easily undermine us in places like Syria, Iran, and North Korea, and they will retain their veto power on the Security Council for the foreseeable future. Moreover, a new arms race and the subsequent threat of more nuclear proliferation serves no one but terrorist groups. Nintendo Kid posted:You have shown nothing of the sort. The US verifiably did not cause the Orange revolution, for example. No, but it did adopt a pretty crazy neoconservative foreign policy that made the Kremlin think that we were conquest-happy nutballs. I can't say I blame them for attributing more craziness to us than is actually accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:fishmech had this to say in the EE thread, when I said that a new Cold War with Russia would be bad for the U.S.: You are wrong. North Korea can't do jackshit. They can't do jackshit with Syria or Iran either. You are talking up American conservative fallacies about the Axis Of Evil. Also there's no "new arms race" because America's been having one on its own quite happily since 1990. What the gently caress do you think the F35 and related projects are? What do you think the plans to get us like 25 aircraft carriers are? Nothing's been on the horizon to stop it. Ps: terrorists can't and won't use nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:North Korea can't do jackshit. North Korea can continue to be an open sore on the face of the Earth and scare our close allies in Japan and South Korea. As long as someone is there to prop them up, they are a problem for U.S. foreign policy. quote:They can't do jackshit with Syria or Iran either. We needed Russia's help to negotiate the OPCW settlement a couple years ago, and we will need their help again if we wish to destroy ISIS. Russia has been of critical importance to the development of Iran's nuclear energy program, and they play a vital role in the nuclear deal currently being negotiated. quote:Also there's no "new arms race" because America's been having one on its own quite happily since 1990. What the gently caress do you think the F35 and related projects are? I'm actually talking about the WMD arms race. quote:Ps: terrorists can't and won't use nukes. I've shown you that there's enough of a chance they may that it warrants continuing programs like CTR and bilateral arms reduction agreements with Russia. You can feel free to accept these facts or reject them, but they are the facts. Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, it's a real shame that you want 40 million Ukranians to suffer Russian domination because to do otherwise might hurt Russia's feelings. I don't want that to happen. I do, however, think that the US' ability to prevent that from happening is a lot lower than you seem to think it is. Given the choice between a new Yanukovych-like government on the one hand, and a new Cold War or hot war with Russia, I would gladly choose the former. So would most people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:North Korea can continue to be an open sore on the face of the Earth and scare our close allies in Japan and South Korea. As long as someone is there to prop them up, they are a problem for U.S. foreign policy. China is who props North Korea up, kid. Russia's help caused ISIS. Let Russia try to out nuke us, they couldn't cut it when they were way wealthier, they can't do it now. Not like America was going to cut military budgets to begin with. You have shown no such thing. If Russia wants concessions they know how to leave all Ukrainian territory. That's the only sensible starting point. Here you go again claiming Ukrainians do not deserve their own elected government because if we don't let Russia take control there might be a cold war. Boo loving hoo, Ukraine is NOT ours to give, and it's only Russian idiotic acts causing any sort of war to exist in the region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:North Korea can continue to be an open sore on the face of the Earth and scare our close allies in Japan and South Korea. As long as someone is there to prop them up, they are a problem for U.S. foreign policy. North Korea is a problem for South Korea, Japan and China. It only matters to the US in the sense that they do don't want conflicts that destabilize regions they trade with - but this motive is shared by the entire developed world. It's seen as a problem particular to the US only because the US is expected to police it. Russia wouldn't be working against the interests of the US in particular as much as they would be working against the interests of everybody in general. Including China and Russia itself. They would also make the Japan/SK alliance with the US all the more relevant. Similarly for Iran. Russia could help them get the bomb or give them hardware that could protect facilities related to it, assuming of course they are working on it. But again the motives are not unique to the US just because the US has a leading role in policing and negotiating the issue. Russia itself shares these interests with the US. Afterall, a nuclear arms race in the middle east presents a much more direct threat to Russia than to the US Attempting to harm the US by harming everybody an equal amount, while simultaniously harming your own interests in particular, is not sound foreign policy. If a country wanted to be irrationally self-destructive out of spite it's difficult to imagine they would also respond to rational incentives. That said there are other areas where cooperation with Russia would be useful, they just can't obstruct much on those two issues specifically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:China is who props North Korea up, kid. My point is, Russia could, and probably would, do it if we were to enter into a new Cold War with them. The rest of your post is flailing nonsense, as usual. e: Also lots of strawmanning. Can't forget that. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:North Korea is a problem for South Korea, Japan and China. It only matters to the US in the sense that they do don't want conflicts that destabilize regions they trade with - but this motive is shared by the entire developed world. It's seen as a problem particular to the US only because the US is expected to police it. That's not entirely true, though - North Korea is also an issue for the U.S. because it is a proliferation risk. Fissile material and nuclear weapons technology made its way into North Korea, and it can make its way out again. quote:Similarly for Iran. Russia could help them get the bomb or give them hardware that could protect facilities related to it, assuming of course they are working on it. But again the motives are not unique to the US just because the US has a leading role in policing and negotiating the issue. Russia itself shares these interests with the US. Afterall, a nuclear arms race in the middle east presents a much more direct threat to Russia than to the US Eh, but keep in mind, at this point it seems likely that Iran's major objective with regard to its nuclear program is becoming a nuclear threshold state - able to build weapons if it needs to, but only if it needs to. I imagine that's a big part of Russia's understanding with Tehran on the issue. The CRS has a great summary of the issue, by the way: quote:The United States had previously urged Moscow to end the project, citing concerns that it could
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not entirely true, though - North Korea is also an issue for the U.S. because it is a proliferation risk. Fissile material and nuclear weapons technology made its way into North Korea, and it can make its way out again. Yes but that's a concern shared by everybody. Moreover, by virtue of geography, nuclear proliferation in Eurasia is of greater concern to countries in Eurasia, including Russia and China, than countries in the Americas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Yes but that's a concern shared by everybody. It is (well, everybody except for fishmech, of course), but you know how these things go. World leaders oftentimes think and plan in the short-term, and do things that may seem immediately expedient but come around to bite them in the rear end. Russia is as susceptible to short-sightedness as any country. In a new Cold War setting, it wouldn't be out of character for them to help prop up an anti-U.S. regime if it hurt us in the short-term - even if it could hurt Russia in the long-term. quote:Moreover, by virtue of geography, nuclear proliferation in Eurasia is of greater concern to countries in Eurasia, including Russia and China, than countries in the Americas. I'm not so sure of that, actually. Smuggling a nuclear weapon into an American port and then detonating it might be a little bit tougher than doing it in Mumbai, but still - it would be doable. More importantly, though, remember, the immediate destruction wrought by a nuclear weapon is only the tip of the iceberg for what terrorists would hope to achieve with one. The real damage would be caused by the panic and overreaction that we'd see from the rest of the world when they realize that terrorists have nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My point is, Russia could, and probably would, do it if we were to enter into a new Cold War with them. Russia does not possess the ability to prop up North Korea if China isn't willing to prop them up anymore. That is most assuredly China's thing to decide. Also sorry, the flailing nonsense is your suggestions that we have to treat Russia nice or else they're literally make the bush axis of evil real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Russia does not possess the ability to prop up North Korea if China isn't willing to prop them up anymore. That's ridiculous; North Korea shares a (small) border with Russia, and it wouldn't be too difficult for them to supply them with energy and money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's ridiculous; North Korea shares a (small) border with Russia, and it wouldn't be too difficult for them to supply them with energy and money. Yes a tiny tiny border (literally just 11 miles long) with one rail line and minimal infrastructure. If China doesn't agree with it, Russia can't do poo poo. China's shown itself willing to put troops into North Korea in the past when things happened there they really didn't agree with, kiddo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes a tiny tiny border (literally just 11 miles long) with one rail line and minimal infrastructure. If China doesn't agree with it, Russia can't do poo poo. China's shown itself willing to put troops into North Korea in the past when things happened there they really didn't agree with, kiddo. what's with the 'kiddo' stuff
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes a tiny tiny border (literally just 11 miles long) with one rail line and minimal infrastructure. If China doesn't agree with it, Russia can't do poo poo. China's shown itself willing to put troops into North Korea in the past when things happened there they really didn't agree with, kiddo. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that China would invade Russian territory and thus risk nuclear war to keep Russia from propping up North Korea. You're going to have to show your work. V. Illych L. posted:what's with the 'kiddo' stuff He does it to try to assert superiority and demean the people he's arguing with. He does it a lot in this thread in particular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:32
|
|