Engineer
Major
NK wanted to have unilateral dialogue with the US, but the US doesn't think the NK as an equal enough entity and refused to negotiate with it unilaterally. Now, that's an example of being conceited.
Last edited:
A Growing Chinese Confidence
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
NK wanted to have unilateral dialogue with the US, but the US doesn't think the NK as an equal enough entity and refused to negotiate with it unilaterally. Now, that's an example of being conceited.
Engineer
Major
Economies developing in Tibet as are economies developing in every other part of China. It is what a responsible government is supposed to do, and it is what the Chinese government is doing. For the West to see ulterior motive in something as simple as this really speaks volume about the West's own mentality.
I'm going to keep insisting on this "identity" thing, because I think it's crucial...
Somewhere on SDF, someone posted a link to a video in which Robert Kaplan (Defense Policy Board since 2009) gives a talk at the Naval War College. His talk was about the rise of China and India and the impact of these things on American security and policy.
Robert Kaplan pointed out that China does not have a "missionary" foreign policy like the US does. Explaining this, he contrasted China also with the Soviet Union, which according to him, also had a missionary foreign policy. In other words, the Soviet Union wanted it's "model" to be extended, for everybody to emulate it, and it wanted to be the embryo of a Soviet world. The US wanted, and today still wants, everybody to follow the American "model" as well.
Robert Kaplan did not offer an explanation as to why or how a country adopts a "missionary" foreign policy. My explanation, in the case of the US, is that it has to do with American notions of "identity" (as I hope is clear from my previous post).
For the Soviet Union, this was also true. Russia, after 1917, ceased being "just" Russia, and even took on a different name, to emphasize a new identity based on it's social and political system (Soviet Socialism). It was for this reason that the Soviet Union (at least after the 30's) could not "experiment" with alternatives as China did later, because any departure from its "institutions" and ideology were seen as betrayal. Socialism had become the reason for Soviet Union's very existence.
Britain also sought to spread the British "way of life" through its Imperial enterprise, and after the French Revolution, France worked quite hard to spread its new thing. Robert Kaplan's choice of words ("missionary), reminds us of a similar phenomenon in an earlier era. For example when Spaniards conquered their land back from the Moors, they did it in the name of religion. Catholicism became part of the very definition of the country, and sure enough, Spain became a missionary power in the literal sense. Of course, the Arabic empires of the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries were such as well.
The complaint often voiced in this forum about "Western" criticism of China is that it almost invariably boils down to "China should be more like us", and to be more specific, that it should be more like the US or Britain. This, I think, is the view that Fu Yi expounds quite well in her interview.
Somewhere on SDF, someone posted a link to a video in which Robert Kaplan (Defense Policy Board since 2009) gives a talk at the Naval War College. His talk was about the rise of China and India and the impact of these things on American security and policy.
Robert Kaplan pointed out that China does not have a "missionary" foreign policy like the US does. Explaining this, he contrasted China also with the Soviet Union, which according to him, also had a missionary foreign policy. In other words, the Soviet Union wanted it's "model" to be extended, for everybody to emulate it, and it wanted to be the embryo of a Soviet world. The US wanted, and today still wants, everybody to follow the American "model" as well.
Robert Kaplan did not offer an explanation as to why or how a country adopts a "missionary" foreign policy. My explanation, in the case of the US, is that it has to do with American notions of "identity" (as I hope is clear from my previous post).
For the Soviet Union, this was also true. Russia, after 1917, ceased being "just" Russia, and even took on a different name, to emphasize a new identity based on it's social and political system (Soviet Socialism). It was for this reason that the Soviet Union (at least after the 30's) could not "experiment" with alternatives as China did later, because any departure from its "institutions" and ideology were seen as betrayal. Socialism had become the reason for Soviet Union's very existence.
Britain also sought to spread the British "way of life" through its Imperial enterprise, and after the French Revolution, France worked quite hard to spread its new thing. Robert Kaplan's choice of words ("missionary), reminds us of a similar phenomenon in an earlier era. For example when Spaniards conquered their land back from the Moors, they did it in the name of religion. Catholicism became part of the very definition of the country, and sure enough, Spain became a missionary power in the literal sense. Of course, the Arabic empires of the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries were such as well.
The complaint often voiced in this forum about "Western" criticism of China is that it almost invariably boils down to "China should be more like us", and to be more specific, that it should be more like the US or Britain. This, I think, is the view that Fu Yi expounds quite well in her interview.
Sorry if it was not clear. The Chinese identity is quite strong and resilient. Unlike many other countries, China has no need for a religious identity, or myths about their origin (though they exist and are ancient). In terms of not having a "missionary" foreign policy, the point is that China does NOT NEED to see itself as a model for others, whether it is in religion, politics, or whatever.
When was the last time China was missionary? (Note: I said China, not certain Generals/Admirals)
Well, not many countries got the size they are through peaceful negotiation...
Okay, I think I understand what you mean now.
Last edited:
Curious George
New Member
Just a quick comment; People seem to be using the word unilateral when I think that they mean bilateral. This is because unilateral implies only one side is talking (uni means "one"), while bilateral implies there are two sides in the discussion, trilateral means there are three, etc etc and multilateral means there are many sides talking. When you are saying that China is doing unilateral discussions basically means that China is doing what the US always does, ie "my way or the highway".
Martin Jacques ( author of "When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World" ) calls China a civilization state, in contrast to Western countries, that call themselves nation states ( The BBC insists that the United Kingdom is a nation state despite the presence of Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, with corresponding parliaments ).
In the 18th century the area of China was increased by the Imperial government in response to the penetration of the British in India, the Russians in Siberia. Tibet was reacquired in 1720. Part of that increase was lost in the 19th and early 20th century but nearly all border questions have now been settled. Other countries do not belong to the civilization state and cannot be acquired in the way, an extreme example, the US took two-third of Mexico in the middle of the 19th century.
[video=youtube;7_nH_PYU7rk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nH_PYU7rk&feature=related[/video]
Back on topic, has anyone heard about this academic Martin Jacques who is soon to release a new book on China as a 'civilizational' state as opposed to being a nation-state, this is something i think people on this forum should probably check out.
Back on topic, has anyone heard about this academic Martin Jacques who is soon to release a new book on China as a 'civilizational' state as opposed to being a nation-state, this is something i think people on this forum should probably check out.