Setting limits on weapons for China

[Guest albert26]

Setting limits on weapons for China

 

International Herald Tribune

Saturday, February 26, 2005

 

Quotes:

 

"Of all the things the Europeans said to President George W. Bush about lifting their arms embargo on China, only one really mattered: They're going to do it whether he likes it or not. Bush's response was equally clear: If you do, you'll be provoking me and the Congress at your peril."

 

"To the Europeans, China merely represents an alluring trade bonanza. For the United States - as well as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan - it remains a potential military threat. Selling China weapons that might be used to shoot down United States aircraft assigned to defend Taiwan seems a terrible idea."

 

"China also remains a serious human rights offender, which was the original motivation for the embargo, imposed over the killings in Tiananmen Square"

 

"But the fact remains that the embargo was initially ordered to demonstrate that what happened in Tiananmen was totally unacceptable. To this day, China has not shown the slightest regret for those bloody events, nor has it given any guarantees that they will not happen again."

 

"On the contrary, Beijing's deliberate downplaying of the death last month of Zhao Ziyang, the deposed party chief who opposed the 1989 crackdown, demonstrated that little has changed. Indeed, one reason Beijing is so anxious for the embargo to end is to forget the reason for it."

 

You can find the full article here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/25/opinion/edchina.html

 

Europeans should make a code of conduct on arms sales so that they won't sell the latest military technology to the People's Republic of China. Personally though I think it's a bad idea to lift the arms embargo on China.

[Ophiolite]

So, if Europe were to forego arms sales to China, can they expect, as a reciprocal gesture, that the US will stop throwing its weight around?

[budullewraagh]

never.

 

sorry man but that article proposes a pointless concept. it just isn't going to happen. ever.

 

remember, they're the ones that invented gunpowder. they're the ones who could, with their army, land people on most countries and take it with numbers. they're the ones who have influence over hong kong, the place where what, 95+% of all commerce goes through? remember, they're the place with the soon-to-be strongest economy. mao tse-dong gets the last laugh.

[Sayonara]

Stop reproducing the work of other media outlets here.

 

We didn't invite it, and the author(s) certainly didn't.

 

[edit] Thread re-opened.

[Guest max2004]

the best we should not sell wepons for China if we dont want to see a world war 3

[coquina]

So, if Europe were to forego arms sales to China, can they expect, as a reciprocal gesture, that the US will stop throwing its weight around?

 

I would really like to understand more about China. Is it a threat to us, or not?

 

I think by and large, the Chinese citizens do not want to rule the world. I'm not so sure about its government (but then, I'm not so sure about ours, either). Ophie - I saw you write something that appeared to be Chinese as it would be written in English, so I suspect you may have more first hand knowledge than I do.

 

I'd be very interesting in reading your thoughts on the matter.

[syntax252]

 

 

remember' date=' they're the ones that invented gunpowder. they're the ones who could, with their army, land people on most countries and take it with numbers. they're the ones who have influence over hong kong, the place where what, 95+% of all commerce goes through? remember, [u']they're the place with the soon-to-be strongest economy.[/u] mao tse-dong gets the last laugh.

 

 

I think they have a ways to go before they become the worlds strongest economy:

 

China:

GDP - per capita:

purchasing power parity - $5,000 (2003 est.)

 

USA:

GDP - per capita:

purchasing power parity - $37,800 (2003 est.)

[Ophiolite]

Coquina,I once attempted to learn Mandarin, when I lived in Taiwan for six months. I also visited Hong Kong before it was 'returned' to China. My knowledge comes primarily from an interest maintained from that time, mainly via the media, but also from colleagues working in China.

China has some characteristics that I believe distinguish it from most, perhaps all, other nations. I suspect any serious scholar of Chinese history would dismiss these as simplistic, but here they are.

1. Continuous, connected history as a nation for millenia. (Nations and individuals take pride in a substantive pedigree.)

2. General, and in the long term, continuous expansion during that period.

3. The inclusion of ethnically diverse peoples within the expanding nation.

4. A common language. (It can be argued, correctly, that the major chinese dialects have the status of separate languages, but the written language is shared.)

5. A track record of inventiveness and technological development, again stretching back millenia.

6. As a consequence of all the above a justifiable sense of pride in their nation and , less justified, a tendency to look down on other nations and peoples.

 

I do not happen to believe that China is communist, or ever was. Mao Tse Tung was effectively an Emperor. The chinese people are comfortable within a patriarchal, dictatorial political environment. Their only resistance to this arises as a reaction to despotic rule.

Some Chinese no doubt feel that the proper world order would see them in control of the planet. They will be quite prepared to wait another thousand years to achieve this. Never underestimate the capabilities of one billion people.

In the meantime they will resist attempts to interfere with their internal government (which in the West we will call improving human rights), but will not be threatening externally. A move against North Korea would be seen as threatening; continued support of an independent Taiwan would be seen as threatening. I am reminded of the apocryphal sign on the cage in a zoo: "This animal is dangerous. If attacked it will defend itself."

Personally, I think they should move out of Tibet, give up any claim on Taiwan and institute some basic human rights policies domestically. But if we want all this to happen then we have to become as cunning and patient as they.

[coquina]

Ophiolite -

 

You wrote...

" Some Chinese no doubt feel that the proper world order would see them in control of the planet. They will be quite prepared to wait another thousand years to achieve this. Never underestimate the capabilities of one billion people."

 

You have about the same take on it that I do.

 

I think one of the biggest problems with the US and many other governments it that we want to insure that other people have the same "human rights" that we enjoy. However - I think it is more complicated than that.

 

For one thing - if we are so damned concerned about "human rights" why aren't we involved in stopping the mass genocide that goes on in some African countries?

 

It would seem that for a country to evolve into a democracy, the citizens of that country must want, and be willing to die for, their own freedom. As you said, China has one billion people - if they chose freedom, it would take more than a few tanks to stop them.

[Cadmus]

Coquina,I once attempted to learn Mandarin, when I lived in Taiwan for six months.

Excellent.

 

I also visited Hong Kong before it was 'returned' to China.

I wonder why you put returned in quotes. Are you ignoring the fact that Hong Kong was stolen so that the British could sell opium to China? You also seem to think that the United States stole Taiwan fari and square from China, and show little concern for the Taiwanese people, who suffered greatly at the hands of the tyrant Chiang Kai-Shek.

 

4. A common language. (It can be argued, correctly, that the major chinese dialects have the status of separate languages, but the written language is shared.)

I would say that the major Chinese languages have the status of dialects. I think that you have it the wrong way around. The written language is shared, but only superficially. There is only one written langauge in China because people learn to write at school and there is only one official language taught at school. When people write their native language, they do not write "it" in the same language as everyone else, they translate their thoughts into the national langauge and write it. For evidence, look at Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, newspapers are not written in Mandarin but in Cantonese, and there are significant parts that Mandarin speakers do not understand.

 

6. As a consequence of all the above a justifiable sense of pride in their nation and , less justified, a tendency to look down on other nations and peoples.

What country does not have a sense of pride in their nation and wht country does not look down on many others?

 

The chinese people are comfortable within a patriarchal, dictatorial political environment.

Just as we are "comfortable" with our government and the propaganda that our government feeds us.

 

In the meantime they will resist attempts to interfere with their internal government (which in the West we will call improving human rights),

People in the U.S. resist attempts to interfere with their internal government, which they call maintaining the best possible in the entire world in all areas of human rights. So what is your point here?

[bloodhound]

Bush's response was equally clear: If you do' date=' you'll be provoking me and the Congress at your peril."

[/quote']

what exactly is this threat.

[Ophiolite]

I wonder why you put returned in quotes. Are you ignoring the fact that Hong Kong was stolen so that the British could sell opium to China?

Not ignoring it at all. The quotes were there for a double purpose:

a) Irony.

b) To provide an opportunity for someone to bring up the opium wars. The impact the events of this period had on how the present leadership view foreigners should not be underestimated.

You also seem to think that the United States stole Taiwan fari and square from China' date=' and show little concern for the Taiwanese people, who suffered greatly at the hands of the tyrant Chiang Kai-Shek.

[/quote']I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this erroneous conclusion. I must have sacrificed comprehension for concision. For the record I am in favour of an independent Taiwan.

I would say that the major Chinese languages have the status of dialects.

You would be taking a different line from many specialists in the field. The only reason the variants of Chinese might not be considered languages, but merely dialects is that they do not have a unique written form. (The minor differences you mention for HK represent an emergence of written 'dialect'.)

What country does not have a sense of pride in their nation and wht country does not look down on many others?

You missed the key adjective: I wrote that the Chinese had a justifiable sense of pride. My contention is that to a greater extent than perhaps any other nation' date=' the Chinese are [u']right[/u] to be proud.

 

Ophiolite:The chinese people are comfortable within a patriarchal, dictatorial political environment.

Cadmus:Just as we are "comfortable" with our government and the propaganda that our government feeds us.

"Am Morgen geht die Sonne auf und am Abend geht die Sonne unter"

Ophiolite:In the meantime they will resist attempts to interfere with their internal government (which in the West we will call improving human rights),

Cadmus:So what is your point here?

 

This thread explores the risks of supplying China with arms. I am suggesting that the Chinese mindset is territorially defensive, not territorially expansive.

[Skye]

This thread explores the risks of supplying China with arms. I am suggesting that the Chinese mindset is territorially defensive, not territorially expansive.

However some of the territory it wishes to defend is also claimed by other countries.

 

But perhaps more importantly, many people of Chinese descent live outside of China, and China has often supported these groups in conflicts.

 

You don't need to be territorially aggressive in order to get into fights.

[Ophiolite]

However some of the territory it wishes to defend is also claimed by other countries.

Agreed. I acknowledged as much with references to Taiwan and Tibet. What other examples were you thinking of?

But perhaps more importantly' date=' many people of Chinese descent live outside of China, and China has often supported these groups in conflicts.

[/quote']But not in any substantive way that I can recall. Examples?

 

My underlying thesis is that China is not and is unlikely to become expansionist in the way Russia was. Consequently it will pose a threat only insofar as it is provoked.

[Aardvark]

For one thing - if we are so damned concerned about "human rights" why aren't we involved in stopping the mass genocide that goes on in some African countries?

 

I'm surprised you used that argument' date=' it is illogical and misleading. The idea that you are not allowed to have an opinion on one matter if you aren't taking some arbitary action on another matter, the kind of logic that states that because you are not perfect you aren't allowed to have any moral judgements.

 

Going by the record of your previous posts that argument is beneath you.

 

 

It would seem that for a country to evolve into a democracy, the citizens of that country must want, and be willing to die for, their own freedom. As you said, China has one billion people - if they chose freedom, it would take more than a few tanks to stop them.

 

Well, a few tanks can be a lot more persuasive than you seem to give credit for.

 

If a people are living under a brutal totalitarian regime then simply standing back and disavowing any interest or moral responsibility on the grounds that if the people want democracy they will be able to eventually get it is morally flaccid and decadent. Whilst seemingly a stance of neutrality, it, infact, makes one a tacit companion in guilt.

 

People need to have the courage to be honest about repression. Not to feel the need to put the words, human rights, in inverted commas. Not to hide in the intellectual and moral surrender of cultural relativism.

[Cadmus]

Not ignoring it at all. The quotes were there for a double purpose:

a) Irony.

b) To provide an opportunity for someone to bring up the opium wars. The impact the events of this period had on how the present leadership view foreigners should not be underestimated.

OK

I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this erroneous conclusion. I must have sacrificed comprehension for concision. For the record I am in favour of an independent Taiwan.

I recognize that. That is the reason for my words. The U.S. stole Taiwan from China in order to support the tyrant Chiang Kai-Shek' date=' who was brutal to the local people. You must think, as I stated, that the U.S. stole Taiwan fair and square, because you seem to be stating that China should have no claim on its former province.

 

You would be taking a different line from many specialists in the field. The only reason the variants of Chinese might not be considered languages, but merely dialects is that they do not have a unique written form.

Again, I suggest that you have it backward. In my mind, there are numerous distinct langauges that are called Chinese. However, the official position in China is that these are not languages, but that they are only dialects. For various reasons that I personally do not accept, a number of specialists conform to this thinking.

 

You missed the key adjective: I wrote that the Chinese had a justifiable sense of pride. My contention is that to a greater extent than perhaps any other nation, the Chinese are right to be proud.

I consider that most everyone has a sense of pride, and in most cases it is justifiable. But ok, I guess that you may feel more proud for the Chinese accomplishments. If this is what you are saying, then I agree.

 

This thread explores the risks of supplying China with arms. I am suggesting that the Chinese mindset is territorially defensive, not territorially expansive.

I agree that this has been the case historically.

[coquina]

I'm surprised you used that argument' date=' it is illogical and misleading. The idea that you are not allowed to have an opinion on one matter if you aren't taking some arbitary action on another matter, the kind of logic that states that because you are not perfect you aren't allowed to have any moral judgements. ...

Going by the record of your previous posts that argument is beneath you.

 

...Well, a few tanks can be a lot more persuasive than you seem to give credit for.

 

If a people are living under a brutal totalitarian regime then simply standing back and disavowing any interest or moral responsibility on the grounds that if the people want democracy they will be able to eventually get it is morally flaccid and decadent. Whilst seemingly a stance of neutrality, it, infact, makes one a tacit companion in guilt.

 

People need to have the courage to be honest about repression. Not to feel the need to put the words, human rights, in inverted commas. Not to hide in the intellectual and moral surrender of cultural relativism.[/quote']

 

I'll grant you the comment on Africa had no place on this thread, however, I think the paragraphs in the original argument that cite reasons for continuing the embargo because of what happened in Tiananmen Square is blowing smoke. We don't want China to have weapons because we think they'll use them to attack Taiwan.

 

If that's what they have in mind, whether the weapons are imported will soon be a moot point. They are gaining manufacturing and technological expertise day by day. They can retool those plants to make weapons, just as we did after the Japanese attacks. They have scientists right now at US facilities (including Jefferson Lab - I know that first hand) studying nuclear physics.

 

I think we'd do well not to underestimate them.

[Ophiolite]

Coquina:

For one thing - if we are so damned concerned about "human rights" why aren't we involved in stopping the mass genocide that goes on in some African countries?

Aardvark:I'm surprised you used that argument, it is illogical and misleading. .......Going by the record of your previous posts that argument is beneath you.

Ophiolite:It's not beneath me!! Selective righteousness is not morally acceptable, at least to me.

[Aardvark]

Coquina:

For one thing - if we are so damned concerned about "human rights" why aren't we involved in stopping the mass genocide that goes on in some African countries?

Aardvark:I'm surprised you used that argument' date=' it is illogical and misleading. .......Going by the record of your previous posts that argument is beneath you.[/i']

Ophiolite:It's not beneath me!! Selective righteousness is not morally acceptable, at least to me.

 

Selective righteousness is a lot better than no righteousness.

[Aardvark]

I'll grant you the comment on Africa had no place on this thread, however, I think the paragraphs in the original argument that cite reasons for continuing the embargo because of what happened in Tiananmen Square is blowing smoke. We don't want China to have weapons because we think they'll use them to attack Taiwan.

 

I fail to see your distinction. The Chinese regime has demonstrated its moral bankruptcy both in its actions at Tiananmen square and in its highly aggressive attitude toward Taiwan. You seem to imply that the possibility of an attack on Taiwan is not something that should particularly concern outsiders?

 

 

If that's what they have in mind, whether the weapons are imported will soon be a moot point. They are gaining manufacturing and technological expertise day by day. They can retool those plants to make weapons, just as we did after the Japanese attacks. They have scientists right now at US facilities (including Jefferson Lab - I know that first hand) studying nuclear physics.

 

I don't think it will be a completely moot point. China is still seriously behind in terms of naval power, it has a large army, but is unable to project it overseas. Yes, China is rapidly gaining manufacturing and technological expertise, but on its own, indigenous development would require years, probably decades for the development of enough power to practically seriously threaten Taiwans security. It is the purchase of whole and partially built aircraft carriers and submarines which is threatening the balance of power.

 

If and when China develops these weapons it will still not be a moot point. Because at that point China will have to be militarily faced down. If China is armed with weapons systems sold by the West, then that job will be much harder. But that job can not be shirked. In the event of China launching an attack on Taiwan that attack immediately drag in the USA and most likely a range of allies in the Pacific region. Stopping China will cost more lives if China is armed with Western weapons.

 

I think we'd do well not to underestimate them.

 

Certainly, but that is no excuse for defeatism. China is ruled by a corrupt, totalitarian regime that deliberately propagates intense nationalistic feelings as a means of maintaining control. That policy can very easily be directed to external military aggression. Selling weapons technology to this very powerful, unstable nation is like adding petrol to a fire.

[Cadmus]

The Chinese regime has demonstrated its moral bankruptcy both in its actions at Tiananmen square and in its highly aggressive attitude toward Taiwan.

So, you are the self-approinted holier-than-thou who determines moral bankruptcy. Your words are harsh, but I get the impression that they are based on feelings that are not bothered by history. It was the United States that stole Taiwan away from China, by supported a ruthless dictator who was despised by the indigineous people of Taiwan. Have you no concern for them at all? What makes you think that the United States should defend Taiwan from the country that the United States stole Taiwan from? Your words moral bankruptcy are very harsh. I think that there is more than one side to any story, and you seem to be closing your eyes to certain behaviors and being quite ruthless in your analysis of other behaviors.

[Cadmus]

Selective righteousness is a lot better than no righteousness.

Selective hyprcrisy is a lot worse than no hypocrisy.

[Pangloss]

Said the kettle to the darkly-colored pot.

[Aardvark]

So, you are the self-approinted holier-than-thou who determines moral bankruptcy.

 

I am not holier than thou, in fact i'm not at all holy. But i can recognise the moral bankruptcy of the present Chinese regime easily enough.

 

Your words are harsh, but I get the impression that they are based on feelings that are not bothered by history. It was the United States that stole Taiwan away from China, by supported a ruthless dictator who was despised by the indigineous people of Taiwan.

 

Your impression is false. Firstly i have a keen interest in Chinese history. Secondly the statement that the USA 'stole' Taiwan is moronic. Taiwan was the refuge of the Nationalist Chinese after they were driven off the mainland of China in 1949 at the end of the chinese civil war. Your comments on Chiang Kai Shek being a ruthless dictator seems to completely ignore the alternative dictatorship of Mao Tse Tung(Zedong). A highly selective distortion of the facts. As for despising the indigenous people of Taiwan, again the Communists record in this area is even worse. Therefore your point is irrelevant.

 

Have you no concern for them at all? What makes you think that the United States should defend Taiwan from the country that the United States stole Taiwan from?

 

Taiwan has not been stolen from anyone. The people there have elections, unlike the people on the mainland. It is a functioning democracy and therefore entitled to defence from external aggression. That is why the USA has an absolute right to defend Taiwan.

 

Your words moral bankruptcy are very harsh. I think that there is more than one side to any story, and you seem to be closing your eyes to certain behaviors and being quite ruthless in your analysis of other behaviors.

 

You accuse me of closing my eyes to certain behaviours. That is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You call Chang Kai Shek a brutal dictator whilst making no mention of Mao Tse Tung. You talk of the indigenous people of Taiwan without mentioning Tibet or Inner Mongolia.

 

The current Chinese administration is a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, totalitarian regime which fosters militaristic nationalism as a means of control. If realising and stating that makes me ruthless then in this instance i am quite pleased to be ruthless.

[Cadmus]

I am not holier than thou, in fact i'm not at all holy. But i can recognise the moral bankruptcy of the present Chinese regime easily enough.

Very easily, but with a clear bias.

 

Secondly the statement that the USA 'stole' Taiwan is moronic.

This statement is quite moronic.

 

Taiwan was the refuge of the Nationalist Chinese after they were driven off the mainland of China in 1949 at the end of the chinese civil war.

You sound as though he was a wonderful hero who was beloved by his people, yet was beaten by the horrible Mao.

 

Your comments on Chiang Kai Shek being a ruthless dictator seems to completely ignore the alternative dictatorship of Mao Tse Tung(Zedong).

No, not at all. No matter what you think of Mao, he was the head of China. Chiang was a ruthless cutthroat. Or, do you think that he was a hero?

 

As for despising the indigenous people of Taiwan, again the Communists record in this area is even worse. Therefore your point is irrelevant.

Cute. You think that your speculation is obvious fact, such that you can come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Please cite evidence that the communist record in Taiwan is worse than that of Chiang. In fact, demonstrate that any communist leader, including Mao, was worse than Chiang. Do not bring up Mao's later years, but his earlier years, when he competed with Chiang.

 

Taiwan has not been stolen from anyone.

I see. You have selective definitons for words like stolen. I wonder what your definiton is. The U.S. supported an evil person in taking Taiwan, when said person had zero chance of holding on to Taiwan without continued support from the U.S. If this is not stealing, then what do you call it, liberation?

 

The people there have elections, unlike the people on the mainland.

Talk about completely irrelevant, this statement surely qualifies. Have you ever talked with people from Taiwan who were there or whose parents were there when Chiang arrived? He was brutal and repressive. He murdered hundreds of thousands of natives. They despised him. He gave them zero power over their own lives or over the government. Zero. Do you refute this? Now you are claiming that because 50 years later those native Taiwanese who survived Chiang's army have the right to vote that all of his ruthlessness and the U.S. support that enabled it are just water under the bridge. I don't mind if you consider this, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

 

It is a functioning democracy and therefore entitled to defence from external aggression. That is why the USA has an absolute right to defend Taiwan.

An odd statement, I think?

 

You accuse me of closing my eyes to certain behaviours. That is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You call Chang Kai Shek a brutal dictator whilst making no mention of Mao Tse Tung.

How cute. The pot calling the kettle black. How quaint of you. Because I spoke of one person and not of another, then I am a horrible person for ignoring Mao. Let me see. You think that Taiwan should be defended because the U.S. stole it fair and square. Isn't that calling the kettle black?

 

You talk of the indigenous people of Taiwan without mentioning Tibet or Inner Mongolia.

How cute. You did not mention the Vietnamese. What is wrong with you? Should I discount all of your points just for that reason?

 

The current Chinese administration is a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, totalitarian regime

Does hyperbole get you somewhere with your friends? What a joke. Your defense is cliches like the pot calling the kettle black and childish attacks such as moronic. Can't you defend your statements without getting so upset and out of control?