Chinese Geopolitics

The latest China-threat article from Joseph Bosco makes me wonder if it was actually meant for Jon Stewart's Daily Show, because the opening line’s a Doozie.

Clean, transparent government is a basic tenet of Western political liberalism, so we are naturally inclined to support government reform efforts elsewhere.

Click to expand...

O’RLY? Clean, transparent, Western political liberalism government like the Obama administration? The President that ignores the Constitution and coerces America with dictatorial edicts? That government? The irony was too much and I had a hard time continuing on. But I did, and the rest it could be summed up in two words: regime change.

Until the world is presented with a strong and democratic China, it is better to face a militarily weaker authoritarian China. It is in regional and Western security interests for Xi to fail in his narrow reform goals designed to prepare China for coercion and conflict and instead to pursue a larger, more benign China dream.

Click to expand...

Not counting “Red Nobles” and their cohorts, most of us want to see a free, strong, and prosperous China, with universal suffrage and some form of democratic governance (I favor a republic system), so the goal is not in dispute. But, timing is everything and getting China wrong could be catastrophic for the entire world. Therefore, regime change must be taken off the table, and the US should make it unequivocally clear that the semi-Communist government is legit and acceptable until the Chinese people themselves force democracy on the CCP, not with violent revolutions, but through changes in social norms like Communist Party’s .

Blackstone said:

The latest China-threat article from Joseph Bosco makes me wonder if it was actually meant for Jon Stewart's Daily Show, because the opening line’s a Doozie.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

O’RLY? Clean, transparent, Western political liberalism government like the Obama administration? The President that ignores the Constitution and coerces America with dictatorial edicts? That government? The irony was too much and I had a hard time continuing on. But I did, and the rest it could be summed up in two words: regime change.

Not counting “Red Nobles” and their cohorts, most of us want to see a free, strong, and prosperous China, with universal suffrage and some form of democratic governance (I favor a republic system), so the goal is not in dispute. But, timing is everything and getting China wrong could be catastrophic for the entire world. Therefore, regime change must be taken off the table, and the US should make it unequivocally clear that the semi-Communist government is legit and acceptable until the Chinese people themselves force democracy on the CCP, not with violent revolutions, but through changes in social norms like Communist Party’s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

The mistake of Western political dogmatism is believing that democracy is a goal in and of itself. This mistaken belief is what led to the Iraq fiasco.

Democracy is a method of governance. The goal of government is to provide safety and prosperity to its people. Democracy is not always the answer.

The most important goal for China right now is to implement real, effective, rule of law. Almost all the problems that China faces today stem from a lack of effective rule of law. Factories pollute with impunity not because there are no laws against pollution but because nobody enforces those laws. People face food health scares not because of social moral decay or capitalist greed, but because food safety laws are not being adequately enforced. Villagers do not organize protests and riots because they want to elect their leaders, but because they do not have the adequate channels to address their grievances.

The only thing the west should worry about Xi's anti-corruption campaign is the negative impact on real estate bubbles in London, New York City, LA, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto and Sydney.

solarz said:

The mistake of Western political dogmatism is believing that democracy is a goal in and of itself. This mistaken belief is what led to the Iraq fiasco.

Democracy is a method of governance. The goal of government is to provide safety and prosperity to its people. Democracy is not always the answer.

The most important goal for China right now is to implement real, effective, rule of law. Almost all the problems that China faces today stem from a lack of effective rule of law. Factories pollute with impunity not because there are no laws against pollution but because nobody enforces those laws. People face food health scares not because of social moral decay or capitalist greed, but because food safety laws are not being adequately enforced. Villagers do not organize protests and riots because they want to elect their leaders, but because they do not have the adequate channels to address their grievances.

Click to expand...

Very insightful post, Solarz, especially on rule of law and channels for people to petition honest governments (relatively speaking) and address grievances. Although I believe democracy is the best way to govern, India and post-Soviet Russia show what happens when it's adopted too early, so China is better off completing her socioeconomic development before political development. Points on democratic governance are also worth consideration and further discussion. Outstanding!

mr.bean said:

yes the AIIB is a very extraordinary deveiopment because for the very first time asia will have another policy bank available to them that is free from US/japan veto. and it would be very interesting to see who will be the shareholders. xi jinping just visited south korea and invited president park guen hye to participate and play a major role in the AIIB but the united states is putting pressure on korea to pass on AIIB. so far korea said it will study the issue and have not made any decision yet. the ADB is headquartered in manila so where would the AIIB be? my favorite place would be Taipei, right in the tapei 101 building (if Taiwan joins and they definitely should)

Click to expand...

AIIB, or the BRICS Bank and IMF-alike fund, will be destined to failure IMO, because it violents numerous business laws.

I dunno what China's real intention is by setting it up, except a political gesture of breaking away from $-controlled system.

Reasons:


1. as Jim Rogers just argued today "Russia, China and Brazil could EASILY set up a bank, or even a common currency, to counter USD, but with India in it, forget about it. BRICS should dump India which has pretty grimmy economic outlooks and HUGE national debt." I have to agree with him. India is not a part of solution, but a big liability with even bigger appetite for trouble-making.

To get India into BRIC, and SA for that matter as well, is purely and 100% friendly geopolitical gesture. Let's be clear about it. It would be insane for anyone to carry 1.2 billion Indians with him as a permanent luggage dragging down his own development plan. Spare me with all the Shining Indian Future Superpower brag here. It never was in the history and never will be.


2. then we have a comical "Equal initial investment, with euqal voice" - this is outright Communist, not about business, because in any business the more "equal voice"business partners one has, the less likely it will succeed.

e.g. you don't want to sep up a business, say a Cafe, together with some "equal voice" morons with all the "equal ideas" (aka self-interests, egos, and disputes being their own bosses) on a daily basis. You are bound to loss money.

On top of that, they're not quite intellectually equal no matter how much we wish they are - this is very imporant point for any joint-"equal voice"-business, some with quite different geopolitical and economic agendas and mindsets from others (e.g. India's ridiculous jealousy of China with any step it takes). e.g. will india allowa a loan to pakistan for its border infrastructure? will China be stupid enough to allow a loan to India who will use it to better its infructrucutres in South Tibet or use to buy weapons from US or Japan to go against China? etc etc.

This is even before mentioning that the intrinsic unfairness inbedded in that "equal initial investment setup" - China will NEVER to get a loan there for its infrustructure (because of no need) whereas India and SA will get most loans as they possiblely could get and "use and forget" if their corporate junk-bond rating is sth to go by.


3. 100 Billion IMF-alike fund is just another joke. Yes, there're speculating int'l hot money in and out a BRIC country and it's dangerous for its currency. Yet the principle reason for a weakened currency ( such as Indian Rupee collapse of 2013) is that investors realising sth very wrong with the economic fundamentals hence are scared out of the country. Devaluation of such a currency is just a natual process reflecting the true state of the underlying ineffcient economy at a time. To artificially defend such a weak currency, as BRICS fund aims to do, is a fundamentally flawed idea and practically contra-laws of economics hence can not last and end up well without consecuences. I believe India and SA (and Brazil to a lesser extent) will need this fund to "defend" their weak currency every year! It's no that different from China subsdising billions free hangouts directly to India and SA as a super lux charity fund for their gold-tilted ego for every year since now... why would anyone with a sane mind want to do that? It is not business, it is not even good politics. It is a joke.


4. China will be a pure loser in this BRICS Bank. Just think like China's investment is gone as a sort of charity in exchange for some (geo)political gesture

... even for this token bronnie point return on charity, China has been objected furiously by "euqal voice" India ( and SA)who for the last 2 years insisting New Delhi, instead of obvious Shanghai, being the HQ of the bank and an Indian being the president of the bank for the 1st 5 years.

5 looooong years!? in New Dehli?! - the "the Rape Capital of the world" (sorry J'burg, you've been surpassed)?, where every attractive would-be Brazilian female employee of the bank shall hire an army of bodyguardes on her way to work everyday to avoid being gangraped? Yeah right, the last one who holds the rotational Presidency of the bank would be waiting for a quarter of century when the bank would have probably been long-desolved... yeah, very low IQ and cunning plan as usual, India. Like India, SA too, still mystically insists J'burg being the HQ instead of obvious Shanghai even purely from business point of view... even these 2 can not agree on this straightforward simple logical fair answer of where to locate the HQ of the business, Shanghai or Delhi or Johannesburg - even need an argument here? , imagine the rest slightly more intellectually-challenged questions. Previously one would get a dirt in World bank and IMF, now one would be logically be satisfied to get more here than World bank and IMF, but pure greed and stupidity lead them wanting to hit a Billionaire Jackpot in one go on charity-giver's expanses!

If China really wants to challenge USD, ideally China should do the job alone in order to fully control the steps without interferences of "equal voices", or with a few but powerful self-suffcient partners such as Russia or even plus Brazil. It would be a lot easier than dragging billions of counter-productive and jealous-like-hell Indians and Africans along with her as she's doing with BRICS bank.

Therefore, relax, I believe it's a general geopolitical move rather than an economical one.

solarz said:

The mistake of Western political dogmatism is believing that democracy is a goal in and of itself. This mistaken belief is what led to the Iraq fiasco.

Democracy is a method of governance. The goal of government is to provide safety and prosperity to its people. Democracy is not always the answer.

The most important goal for China right now is to implement real, effective, rule of law. Almost all the problems that China faces today stem from a lack of effective rule of law. Factories pollute with impunity not because there are no laws against pollution but because nobody enforces those laws. People face food health scares not because of social moral decay or capitalist greed, but because food safety laws are not being adequately enforced. Villagers do not organize protests and riots because they want to elect their leaders, but because they do not have the adequate channels to address their grievances.

Click to expand...

I still say it doesn't matter what type of form of government platform one has but of the unity of its leadership conduct and enforce laws that are flexible to the changing of the times and consistent of providing services to the people. If you have good leadership in politics than almost any form of government can work.

Assuming it's not just a PR ploy, Prime Minister Abe wants a summit with President Xi at the APEC meeting this November. Both sides want to reduce tensions, but Xi wouldn't budge unless Japan admits there's a dispute over Diaoyu and Abe says there's no dispute over Senkaku. It's the classic irresistible force against immovable object standoff.

I confess I have no equitable solution acceptable by both China and Japan, anyone else got some bright ideas? The US should at least try to come up with something since it's in her best interests to do so. I say that because Obama promised Japan we'll back them in a fight, but the American people and Asia at large want no part of war.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Monday he wanted to hold a summit with China at the APEC leaders meeting in Beijing in November to improve relations strained by territorial and security issues, but drew a cool response from China.

Abe has been in office since late 2012 and has yet to meet Chinese leaders, despite worsening ties over disputed islands in the East China Sea, China's declaration of an air defense identification zone in the area and Abe's visits to a Tokyo shrine seen as a symbol of Japan's past militarism.

"It is a great pity that we have not been able to have a leaders' summit," Abe told a parliamentary committee.

"We need to return to the basics of a strategic relationship of mutual respect. I would like to have a summit in Beijing this November at the time of the APEC meeting," he said, referring to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum annual summit.

China's Foreign Ministry said it had expressed its view on the issue many times already, though stopped short of outright rejecting the request.

"The Japanese side should take real steps and work hard to banish the political obstacles which affect the development of bilateral ties," it said in a statement faxed to Reuters.

Abe also touched on the strong economic ties between the two nations and said that their relationship was unbreakable.

"While recognizing that even if our ties are strained, they cannot be broken, there will be problems between neighbors. For this very reason we need to maintain a relationship that keeps things under control," he said, repeating that the door for dialogue with China was always open.

Japan has been locked in a territorial dispute with China over a group of East China Sea islets, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China. Ships from both countries frequently shadow each other around the islands, raising fears of a clash.

Tensions escalated after China declared its air defense zone in the area in November, a move that also sparked concern from the United States and South Korea.

Abe's visit a month later to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, seen as a symbol of militarism because war criminals convicted by an Allied tribunal are honored there along with war dead, infuriated China and even drew criticism from the United States.

In an interview with the Mainichi Shimbun daily published on Monday, Abe refused to rule out another visit to the shrine.

"In the future, I hope to maintain my feeling of respect to honor those who have given their lives for the nation, but I would rather not say whether or not I will visit Yasukuni," he was quoted as saying.

Abe also brushed off reports that Masahiko Komura, a top ruling party official and former foreign minister, had told China he would not go to the shrine again.

"That was Mr Komura's thought. I don't know about it," he added.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

I still say it doesn't matter what type of form of government platform one has but of the unity of its leadership conduct and enforce laws that are flexible to the changing of the times and consistent of providing services to the people. If you have good leadership in politics than almost any form of government can work.

Click to expand...

And who gets to make the call on what's good leadership? Saddam Hussein routinely received 100% of the votes and extremely high poll numbers, but most reasonable people would say he wasn't a good leader. Winston Churchill said it best with democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms of governments that have been tried from time to time. The bottom line is not many types of government could survive under the rule of law, and democracy in its various forms has stood the test of time.

Blackstone said:

And who gets to make the call on what's good leadership? Saddam Hussein routinely received 100% of the votes and extremely high poll numbers, but most reasonable people would say he wasn't a good leader. Winston Churchill said it best with democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms of governments that have been tried from time to time. The bottom line is not many types of government could survive under the rule of law, and democracy in its various forms has stood the test of time.

Click to expand...

Easy by looking at the GDP and the government consistent effort to move people out of poverty. There's no greater measurement of leadership than to provide the basic necessity first before anything else for the people. Saddam Hussein isn't exactly a good leader, but he sure does beats Molaki and the rest as far as stabilizing Iraq and economic development. Democracy is like "four wolves and a sheep sitting at a table deciding what's for dinner".

Blackstone said:

And who gets to make the call on what's good leadership? Saddam Hussein routinely received 100% of the votes and extremely high poll numbers, but most reasonable people would say he wasn't a good leader. Winston Churchill said it best with democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms of governments that have been tried from time to time. The bottom line is not many types of government could survive under the rule of law, and democracy in its various forms has stood the test of time.

Click to expand...

It is factually wrong to say that democracy has survived the test of time. In ancient Athens, democracy was a short lived experiment that collapsed within a few generations. Ancient Greek democracy of course is not democracy as we know it today. A majority of the population was slaves. Women of course can't vote. Only a small part of the population of male property owners were considered citizens.
Modern democracy movement started with the American revolution. But if we consider universal suffrage as an inherent and necessary part of definition of democracy, the American republic was not a democracy for much its history. A large percent of the population was again slaves. Women, non-property owners, Indians were not part of the franchise. The American republic arguable didn't not become a democracy until the 1960's. Half a century is not what I would consider test of time.