Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I never thought in my lifetime that China would be a major player in automobiles. With the EV revolution, it seems China is guaranteed to have atleast one player in the top 3 in Western markets.

Looks like the Chinese are getting the Japanese treatment from 1980's when Japanese cars were taking over the globe. I'd predict it will end with localized manufacturing to avoid the tariffs.
 

Africablack

Junior Member
Registered Member
I agree the UN model is outdated. But a position on the security council needs to be earnt not given.

What makes India different from China and Russia? Both countries have endured maybe even centuries worth of pain and suffering to get where they are. They have even paid it in blood of millions lives lost to fight off their enemies. The price is so high, they realize what they have now is basically priceless. Therefore they know nothing is taken for granted and will work for it.

Not to say India hasn't suffered under the Brits but their path to independence and having their own sovereignty is basically child's play compared to China who had to pretty much fight off the world. A person in China having their current lifestyle today is like a dream to those living in the last century who was living in hell. That's why you see a lot of entitlement in Indian attitude because they simply did not truly fight as hard or pay the price in blood like China or even Vietnam. Such attitudes like that can already be seen in office politics rot in many western corporates. You definitely do not want to see it in the UN council where their abuse of it will probably make US look level headed.

Unfortunately the way the positions will be earnt is through war. And the price of maybe billions this time will be paid for it. But India has so many people right?
China earned its way to the second largest economy without war and brutal subjugation, and it goes through great lengths to stress this. The era of using war as a license to have special privileges should be coming to an end, we're not in the 20th century anymore. The same line if thinking is no different to some of these western countries who justify their imperialist conquest. The idea of the P5 made sense at a time but as time goes on and the world changes it has to be confined to history. Five countries shouldn't hold ultimate license to do and undo.
 

gpt

Junior Member
Registered Member
lol i was reading Harvard business review today and came across these articles, dated 2014, 2021 and 2023

1708700773023.png

the latest one is pretty interesting
newer more innovative chinese companies are moving beyond the hierarchical top down management style towards one that delegates more control to program managers and teams and companies like DJI and Bytedance (not explicitly mentioned) have teams that aggressively A/B tests and compete with each other internally
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
China earned its way to the second largest economy without war and brutal subjugation, and it goes through great lengths to stress this. The era of using war as a license to have special privileges should be coming to an end, we're not in the 20th century anymore. The same line if thinking is no different to some of these western countries who justify their imperialist conquest. The idea of the P5 made sense at a time but as time goes on and the world changes it has to be confined to history. Five countries shouldn't hold ultimate license to do and undo.
I mean, just the other day Blinken was saying you're either at the table or on the menu, there's a country on the menu being cooked as we speak for challenging one of the P5.

I suspect under the veneer the world is not so different from the 20th century, and China wouldn't be where she is today without say the Korean War where she successfully took on three of the P5 simultaneously.

Another way to look at it is veto power for the P5 is a more civilized way for them to influence world geopolitics. If this process does not exist at the UN the P5 can still exercise this power - they will just convince you with bombs and missiles instead of a vote. Veto right isn't a power granted to them, it's a more civilized way for them to exercise the hard power that they already hold.

It's not a coincidence that I once saw a video of PRC 2019 national parade and when the PLARF formation marched through with "March of the Sweeping East Wind" playing by the band someone wittily commented: that song should be named "March of the Chinese Veto".
 
Last edited:

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
At the end of the day, it is all geopolitics. India hasn’t done themselves any good by being antagonistic or mildly neutral to everyone else except the Russians. They are openly hostile to China while skirting on the unresolved ROC problem alongside the border issues. Giving them a UNSC seat will only embolden them in trying to undermine or push China redline.

The West has little trust or confidence that the Indians are not going stray off the western world order and vote against them. They might even try pushing an Indian led world order against them. To add on the flagrant violations of sovereignty by the use of assassinations on western soil that will make powerful neocons angry over the disrespect.

Closest chance for India in receiving a seat in the UNSC is in a post-unification era.
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
What in the world are you talking about? I'm not saying India should be let in because they demand it but you sound no different than those western countries who want special privileges because they feel they are better than everybody. The UN as presently constituted is getting past its sell by date anyway and we can't live off WWII accomplishments forever, just because you helped defeat the Nazis doesn't mean you should have permanent privileges over everybody else. That's colonial talk.
You've got an interesting argument. But you're still not gonna gaslight me. I'm not speaking colonial talk. You use that term cheaply. I'm speaking about realism. I know that you don't like the UN, but it's there whether you like it or not. Historically, the only way that we know of so far to create a new UN is to have another world war, and we don't wanna go there don't we.

It is true that the position of the UNSC permanent five have actually become a tool for imperialism. Especially by the US. Yet I still don't want to see the Big 5 expanded, because most nations are only self interested. I don't want any more countries to join because that position enables abuse. If you put Nigeria in there, would all of Africa trust Tinubu with that veto power? What about the other African states? Won't South Africa also want a seat? If you put Indonesia in there, Singapore might also want a seat. If they all can get in, then these new members would be vetoing left and right and there comes a point where nothing could get passed in the UN.

I especially don't want India to get a permanent seat in the UNSC. Because I know it wants that seat for the veto power to veto away any UN action that it doesn't like. It wants free reign to do what it likes. Like abusing the Kashmiris and Muslims, and trying to realize Akhand Bharat. Don't be fooled by India, it has an imperialist mindset. It's elites have imperial ambitions.

If it were up to me, I want that big 5 position abolished, so that nobody can have any veto power. But we don't live in a perfect world. As of today, the Big 5 is there and those countries are in it because they were the major victors of WW2. I would argue that the only nations who truly fought and paid the proper price in WW2 were the US, Russia, and China. France was a passenger, and Britain was only riding on American power to stay alive. China and Russia have not gotten their permanent seats in the UNSC for nothing. They've lost around 45 million people in WW2, so don't belittle their victories. Have some respect okay.

The Big 5 positions were created because it was understood at the end of WW2, that the victors knew how horrible a world war is, and hence could be trusted with special powers to prevent another world war. We all know today, that the US have abused this mechanism in the UNSC. While the UK and France are just poodles of the US. The only balancing powers in the UNSC are Russia and China. That is why Russia and China cannot drop out of the Big 5, no matter how contradictory it is to global justice and fairness. As long as the Big 5 is still there, someone inside it needs to keep it in check.

If you want to come up with ideas to improve the UN. Abolishing the UNSC permanent seats is the best move. Making it rotational is less ideal, because nations will still abuse it. But the US will not allow any of that to happen without a world war. So it has to stay like this for now. It is selfish, narrow minded, and perhaps nefarious to argue that the Big 5 should be expanded just because your favourite country is not in it.

Most Chinese people couldn't care less if China is not in the Big 5, but since it is, then China might as well make use of that position. They have paid a horrible price for that seat afterall. So they would understand to respect and cherish this special position.

People who feel that they are entitled to have an additional place in the Big 5 are mostly the ones who never knew the true horrors of WWII. An entitled mindset actually puts people on a path towards fascism. Just because you've been wronged, that doesn't mean you're entitled to special rights or positions. The Israelis and Indians are the worse examples of this.
 
Last edited:

Randomuser

Junior Member
Registered Member
China earned its way to the second largest economy without war and brutal subjugation, and it goes through great lengths to stress this. The era of using war as a license to have special privileges should be coming to an end, we're not in the 20th century anymore. The same line if thinking is no different to some of these western countries who justify their imperialist conquest. The idea of the P5 made sense at a time but as time goes on and the world changes it has to be confined to history. Five countries shouldn't hold ultimate license to do and undo.
While China hasn't engaged in mass imperialism like say anglos, we cannot say they could get where they are today without war.

I think Mao should have learnt to let others take the lead when it came to peacetime stuff. But when it came to war, he was damn good at it which is why he made the west seethe so much. When the KMT was in it's so callled prime, they lost like 10 enciclements battles to the weaker CPC. Only when he was away were the KMT victorious and even then couldn't finish the job. When Japan had taken then middle to northern parts of China, the CPC engaged in peoples war to make Japan unable to properly benefit from occupation which is important since Japan isn't resource rich. When civil war returned, the KMT were a huge betting favourite now with many warlords destroyed and the US backing. Even Stalin told Mao to step down but Mao was like "Nah, I'd win" and he did with like 1/3 the number of trained troops. China now was united but even so that didn't mean crap because the Qing supposedly was and foreigners kept taking land like it was nothing. Under Mao, China borders were now hands off from anyone no matter how strong. Korea, Tibet and Xinjiang. US, India and even Russia had to learn they had to respect China's borders. Mao also supported Vietnam to make sure France or the west couldn't come back. That's what Mao brought.

Deng is no fighter like Mao. But even he knew force had to be applied. People say China lost to Vietnam in 1979 but ignore the fact the fighting continued in the 80s and every major engagement was won by China. In the end Vietnam had to leave Cambodia and you have noticed when it comes to land borders, they don't dare argue with China. Nuff said. Also Deng humiliated Thatcher by saying hands off HK, it's no longer yours.

Point is, China is where it is today because even though it doesn't like fighting as a first option, it knows this world will expect you to have force to back it up no matter how noble you want to be. It sucks China couldn't always follow the path of no violence but this is reality. Does anyone thing China could get to it's current position if it just rolled over everytime someone else raised their fist?

Btw don't believe that BS that India wants no violence. How else did they get Goa or Sikkim? They just don't want to fight tougher enemies openly but will happily punch down on ones much weaker. They claim China is bad to it's Neighbours? Wait till you see what India is like to it's own and they aren't even guys like imperial Japan or crazed Russia.
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
TBH I don't mind replacing UK's spot with India. India doesn't deserve the spot as UN P5, but the state of UK military these days is downright embarrassing. Modi can negotiate with Sunak, or they can just fight a war to duke it out. I don't see any other practical way otherwise for India to be a permanent member of the UNSC.
India 5D chess move: kicking UK out of the UN and taking their seat like China did to Taiwan by claiming legitimate successorship as the British Empire.
 

Santamaria

Junior Member
Registered Member
What in the world are you talking about? I'm not saying India should be let in because they demand it but you sound no different than those western countries who want special privileges because they feel they are better than everybody. The UN as presently constituted is getting past its sell by date anyway and we can't live off WWII accomplishments forever, just because you helped defeat the Nazis doesn't mean you should have permanent privileges over everybody else. That's colonial talk.

The security council just represents the material fact that there are countries more powerful than others, and specially there are countries so powerful than other countries cannot impose resolutions on them.

The day you delete the veto power the UN is death. The U.S., China and Russia will not bind themselves to the will of other countries and this is simply a fact of international relations.

Deleting the veto power would be the world much more dangerous.

The reform in the U.S. should be to kick out
France and UK since they are at best regional powers nowadays (although they still command impressive soft power and technology).
India, with all its population does not have yet the technology, intelligence network and so on of the UK.

A Forum for democracy and inclusive development is BRICS. The UN was a mean to avoid world wars.

And again, neither US, neither China neither Russia will bind themselves to the will of other countries, irrespective if they are majority or not.

Delete the veto power and what then. Will Russia stop destroying Nazis and let the Nazis kill Russians in Donbas just because majority of countries thousands of km away decide so?

Will China renounce to Taiwan just because dozens of Europeans microstate vote so?

Simply not
 

coolgod

Major
Registered Member
It's not a coincidence that I once saw a video of PRC 2019 national parade and when the PLARF formation marched through with "March of the Sweeping East Wind" playing by the band someone wittily commented: that song should be named "March of the Chinese Veto".
BTW do people think China will have a 75th anniversary parade this year? It would definitely be a boost for Comrade Trump.
 
Top