How will the PLA/PRC get involved in iraq?

duskylim said:

The People's Republic has a clear and definite policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.

The current Iraqi situation in particular is an outstanding example of the wisdom of this policy.

I see no valid or good reason for China to use its armed forces to intervene in this conflict.

Staying neutral also avoids the dilemma of having to choose sides, possibly alienating one or the other.

The USA should shoulder it's responsibility for the current situation in Iraq and fix what it broke.

Great Britain and France also bear much responsibility for inventing what is the current state of Iraq out of the pieces they carved from the Ottoman empire after the First World War.

This unhappy situation has no winners and too many losers.

Click to expand...

Oh you mean like China's "non-interference" in Laos over river pirates? Make no mistake about it, China's so-called "non-interference" into other countries' domestic governance is changing before our eyes, and affirms Thucydides's wisdom of "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Soon enough, we'll hear China making claims on how its interventions in other countries' domestic affairs are somehow acts of faiths and beneficial to the natives.

Blackstone said:

Oh you mean like China's "non-interference" in Laos over river pirates? Make no mistake about it, China's so-called "non-interference" into other countries' domestic governance is changing before our eyes, and affirms Thucydides's wisdom of "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Soon enough, we'll hear China making claims on how its interventions in other countries' domestic affairs are somehow acts of faiths and beneficial to the natives.

Click to expand...

China's non-interference policy:

You think they mean this:




When they really mean this:

solarz said:

China's non-interference policy:

You think they mean this:

When they really mean this:

Click to expand...

None of the above. What I mean is China's continued canard about its so-called non-interference policy runs afoul of evidence, and is easy fodder for Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live.

Blackstone said:

None of the above. What I mean is China's continued canard about its so-called non-interference policy runs afoul of evidence, and is easy fodder for Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live.

Click to expand...

That's only because you don't understand what they mean by non-interference.

solarz said:

That's only because you don't understand what they mean by non-interference.

Click to expand...

Words must have common meaning to enjoy widespread understanding. If everyone gets to define commonly used words in their own image, then you have Japan saying there's no "dispute" in Diaoyu, and Vietnam saying it "didn't" provoke China in the South China Sea. Both of them are full of shit, and so is China's claim of non-interference.

Blackstone said:

Words must have common meaning to enjoy widespread understanding. If everyone gets to define commonly used words in their own image, then you have Japan saying there's no "dispute" in Diaoyu, and Vietnam saying it "didn't" provoke China in the South China Sea. Both of them are full of shit, and so is China's claim of non-interference.

Click to expand...

Words also must have a context in order to have meaning. By the colloquial definition, foreign aid can be interpreted as "interference". That is of course nonsense.

If you want to criticize China's foreign policy, you need to go by what they actually say, rather than what you *think* they're saying.

原则

一、维护和平、反对武力。二、相互尊重、主权平等。三、自主选择、求同存异。 四、互利合作、共同发展。

Click to expand...

"Non-interference" here refers to the principles of peaceful conflict resolution and respecting other nations' sovereignty.

These kinds of dangers for Chinese business are a result of China's policies. Chinese business better accept this is the way things are going to be or don't be in it at all. With this situation in Iraq, it really doesn't look like China can do anything anyway. If China doesn't want to be wholly affected by just where the wind blows, then it has to take a side. A "no interference policy" is susceptible to these kinds of chaotic changes. A no interference policy is also why China is vulnerable to a gang-up. No interference looks good when you're dealing with countries at the same level of power. But smaller countries look at it as that country can't be relied on.

If Chinese citizens/nationals were threatened and needed help getting out of Iraq to safety...I can see the Chinese military conducting an operation to get them out.

Other than that, I do nt expect the Chinese military to be involved at all in the fighting between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq. It's a no win game for the PRC.

The only way the US could have prevented this would have been to stay in Iraq with a 2011 footprint for another ten years and give the peace that was won a LOT longer to solidify, institutions and infrastructure to be set up to maintain it, and the people to get comfortable in a multi-secular society...if they ever could.

But that did not happen and the US citizenship elected someone to get the US out...and he did. I did not personally agree with that direction...but that is what happened and the current circumstances are what is rushing in to fill the vacuum.

It is very possible now that you will see the Kurds get a lot more independent...perhaps even their own borders. You will most likely see the Sunnis and Shia split too...probably into autonomous regions at the least...with the Shia portion dominated by Iran, and the Sunni portion endlessly bickering and divided between differing interests with Saudi on one side and some form of very fundamental/militant Sunni leanings on the other.

Will that stay stable? Hard to say...but I believe that such a trilibrium would have a better chance than what they have now.

But that's just my opinion.

To be fair the events in Laos and those drug dealers are not really purely "intervention in other nations' domestic affairs". As many as 13 Chinese nationals were cruelly massacred and it got all over the news, if the government doesn't do something, given the current level of nationalistic feelings, the CCP's legitimacy would be greatly hurt, I believe that's one very important reason why our government reacted quickly.

Regarding the situation in Iraq, I would say this is how I feel:

1, We shouldn't interfere if our people are not hurt and our business goes as usual. After all, guys, China has the largest chunk of Iraqi oil exports if I didn't remember wrongly.

2, Even if these foreign Islamic extremists are related to domestic terrorists, we should just focus all our energy in ensuring internal security first. Once you go out there's no turning back. In fact it may very well end up backfiring at us.

3, We really should just care about business...maybe we can send some forces disguising as hired security guards, just to protect our business and our people there from possible attacks, meanwhile send out the signal that we'll remain neutral as long as we can do our business, get our oil--does it matter who we pay the money to? As long as we get what we pay for and there's nobody hurt, that's good enough.

Re: 2014 ISIS attack in Iraq: News, Views, Photos, Videos

Will the PLA get involved in the evacuation or in the protection of their facilities?



This can't be true.

Chinese security guards are a lot more vulnerable than their Western and Iraqi counterparts, as they are only armed with nunchuks and other defensive weapons as Chinese security guards are not given conventional weapons due to political considerations.

Click to expand...