Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS

Brumby said:

If China is looking for an excuse not to participate then there are plenty of reasons that can be offered. After all it is a coalition of the willing and able. It boils down to what role China wants to play on the world stage when issues align with its own interest and how it would be perceived by others - either as a free loader or a country stepping up and shouldering a share of the problem in line with its status.

We don't need another anti China or media conspiracy default defence every time a discussion comes up. Don't you get tired of using the same lines?

Click to expand...

Funny how the same can be said the other way around. China isn't demanding other people do their dirty work. If it were the coalition of the willing, then why is China expected while those who feel they're the victims of beheading are the ones barking out the demands?

I'm surprised that this thread has so many responses. China is not being asked to join any coalition and China won't join any coalition. If the US and her allies wants to attack the Islamic State its their choice. I think it will be China's choice to stay out of this conflict. And in my view it would be a wise one. I will be the first to say here that this current war will be another disaster just like Afghanistan, Libya or the Iraq War of 2003. They are head long rushing in to a conflict where they do not understand their enemies nor do they understand their allies just like the wars I mentioned before. And the result will be the same.

"It boils down to what role China wants to play on the world stage when issues align with its own interest and how it would be perceived by others - either as a free loader or a country stepping up and shouldering a share of the problem in line with its status."

I find this reasoning peculiar. Who are radicals mostly targeting?

These terrorists don't exist in a vacuum. Their war-torn environment gave rise to them. Who created that war-torn environment?

I fail to see China free-loading.

There is terrible war being waged next door that threatens to spill past its borders and cause instability.

If my classmate picks a fight and the victim bloodies his nose, am I obliged to help my classmate?

Journalists in the media are demanding China send soldiers. Obama sent Susan Rice to China to get the Chinese to participate. Unclear the exact details. What else could it be? It's not sanctions. It's not cutting off relations. Maybe it's money but Obama has made no such indications in any context to anyone about the costs. What's at stake for China? Losing their oil investment? If push came to shove I'd bet accepting the loss is what's going to happen. That doesn't harm or put in danger the West or its interests. So what are they so angry at China about? Why does China have to participate when the critics would love to see China hit economically? Because it has nothing to do with money. Meaning it's about sending soldiers so they don't have to waste their lives. Ironically the "coalition of the willing" has no one stepping forward to send ground troops. They advertised how most of the air strikes are from Arab countries. Is that because it's not about the US or the West? Or is it to make it look not like that? If China is willing to accept the loss, which is the mostly likely path, why is China obligated to participate in the coalition of the willing? Chinese workers were killed by rebels in Sudan. Did we see China clamoring for the world to go to war with them? Did we see these same critics that are trying to manipulate China into fighting ISIS give the okay for China to strike militarily against Sudanese rebels who were fighting against the government the West wanted gone? In any other context China attacking another country to protect its economic interests would be seen as an evil act. Yet they pitch that here. Is it because it serves their interests this time? Now who's the one that's evil? Let's not forget that the media is at the forefront of demanding China send troops. Why? Because their journalists were beheaded and they want revenge. And let's not forget the White House uses its media allies to put things out there to which then it can be hidden from being official.

counterprime said:

I fail to see China free-loading.

Click to expand...

I suggest you then put on a broader lens.

China has significant vested interest in the region. Iraq is China's 5th largest overseas oil supplier. China National Petroleum (CNPC) is the single biggest foreign investor in Iraq. If the region goes belly up, China has a lot to loose.

Xinjiang's terrorist problem is well known. ISIL's ideology is so radical that even for Al Qaeda and its recent acts of barbarism is extensively reported. It is not a western problem as any one in the way is a target. If ISIL is unchecked, Xinjiang province will not only be subject to knife attacks but with new found bomb making skills fresh from the region.

ISIL is a world wide problem once you remove the pettiness and narrow mindedness lens that are ever present.

AssassinsMace said:

Journalists in the media are demanding China send soldiers.

Click to expand...

I note the word "demand" is being used often to try to portray something which is obviously not. Constant usage doesn't make it so. Demand would suggest that there is some kind of authoritative basis which clearly the media does not have on China. If such authority exist, we should see a lot more compliant China given the amount of media conspiracy that is being suggested. So let's call a spade a spade. There is certainly suggestions by the media questioning why China is not participating given its strong vested interest in the region and potentially the flow on effect to the region of Xinjiang.

I have my view on the reasoning on why China is hesitant. China has embedded within its policies and mentality even within its highest decision making body of "non interference" This is not something that can be changed easily given that there are far reaching implications once a particular path is taken. It takes a strong man within the CCP body to make it happen as it carries significant political risk. There are 2 prime contrasting examples in China's recent history. There is Deng Xaioping push for "Capitalism with Chinese characteristics" which propelled China's economy forward. In contrast we have Zhao Ziyang's more accommodative stance on political reform which ended his career.

That's not "free-loading" as you've described. If China has a lot to lose and they lose it, no one else is paying for it. Is China demanding the US or anyone else to do something about ISIS for them? No! US oil companies had their chance but saw the risks too high. How is it free-loading that Chinese took the risks to help stabilize Iraq which Americans weren't going to spend the money? If ISIS takes over, it's China's money to lose not anyone else's. So where's the free-loading again? Free loading is trying to use terms like, "You broke, you fix it!" to say one has a duty to self-responsibility but then demand everyone else fix it for you. I don't remember Beijing coming out with such use of terminology.

Brumby said:

I note the word "demand" is being used often to try to portray something which is obviously not. Constant usage doesn't make it so. Demand would suggest that there is some kind of authoritative basis which clearly the media does not have on China. If such authority exist, we should see a lot more compliant China given the amount of media conspiracy that is being suggested. So let's call a spade a spade. There is certainly suggestions by the media questioning why China is not participating given its strong vested interest in the region and potentially the flow on effect to the region of Xinjiang.

I have my view on the reasoning on why China is hesitant. China has embedded within its policies and mentality even within its highest decision making body of "non interference" This is not something that can be changed easily given that there are far reaching implications once a particular path is taken. It takes a strong man within the CCP body to make it happen as it carries significant political risk. There are 2 prime contrasting examples in China's recent history. There is Deng Xaioping push for "Capitalism with Chinese characteristics" which propelled China's economy forward. In contrast we have Zhao Ziyang's more accommodative stance on political reform which ended his career.

Click to expand...

You're a perfect example of how you're assigning China some responsibility for something they didn't cause in the first place and you want China to do something. You're angry that China doesn't step forward. You wouldn't be angry at China if you weren't expecting (aka demanding) something. People like you are demanding and that's the point of such articles by the media. Why would Obama call China a "free-rider" if he weren't expecting something that he demanded and is not getting from China?

Let me add something that hasn't been mentioned.

US is essentially doing more of the same -- the same strategy that has not worked before. So why should China contribute to something that is not likely to work?

If China wants to contribute, will China get to contribute the strategy? What happens if China demands that US cease to remove Assad and instead *help* Assad in stabilizing Syria? What happens if China demands that Iran's interest to be considered? I very much doubt either is going to happen, but those are the most expedient ways of suppressing ISIS.

Unless US give up on the neocon fantasy of regime change and partition of Iraq, I really doubt anyone with independent foreign policy and interest will help US on the mess of its own making.

AssassinsMace said:

You're a perfect example of how you're assigning China some responsibility for something they didn't cause in the first place and you want China to do something. You're angry that China doesn't step forward. You wouldn't be angry at China if you weren't expecting (aka demanding) something. People like you are demanding and that's the point of such articles by the media. Why would Obama call China a "free-rider" if he weren't expecting something that he demanded and is not getting from China?

Click to expand...

China has vested interest in the region and any potential fallout that is likely to involve Xinjiang. There is no assignment of responsibility to be had, it is reality whether you choose to admit it or not. Strangely. you are rather emotional over this issue because of the number of emotional words that are being used. For goodness sake, chill out.

Words have meaning even if you choose to be liberal in your usage and its meaning. As I said no one is demanding, it is simply your own choice of words.

Ummm... didn't read the whole thread so not sure if it's been mentioned. But joining the attack on ISIS would be really good for training.

It's a relatively safe theater to operate in. Real combat missions are a different beast to training missions. This would really test China's force projection capability. Hell, send the carrier. Give the navy aviators a real learning curve to play with. If that's too soon, send a few missile frigates. Let them do a couple of land attack missions.

Get in on the turkey shoot.