China has tended to be non expansive militarily but still take actions to secure and defend China. China has been building trade alliances. China has been accused of being infiltrative in other nations. China has I think mentioned it being time for Taiwan to come home. My question is this- Is China's intention still non expansive and aimed at self sustaining in the face of threats etc from the US? Does China want to lead the world or secure China? Would China lead the world if forced to to maintain security and integrity of China? Or of the world wanted it to?
The question of China's intentions
- Thread starter ele
- Start date
At the heart of it all is a certain manner of internationalism. A revolutionary China would seek to rule the world through a revolutionary workers' international. China would lead the world because it believes it must. The idea of a non-expansive China is a result of circumstance; the Revolution did not go so well as the revolutionaries hoped, and what history tells is that such revolutions tend to run into certain trouble. Most of China's non-expansive period since the Great Leap has been one of internal recovery.
These days, what limits them is like the Wizard of Oz, don't look behind the curtain. While this is true for other imperial interests, as well, the Chinese version of economic trickery is one or two valences more superficial than, say, the mess Americans have made. That, too, is symptomatic of such revolutions.
The recent concentration on building up the military has very little to do with defending China, which in any case has not been threatened militarily by any other nation.
Correct. Some call it "soft power". Not always a bad thing.
China has taken a threatening stance towards Tiawan. Many signs are there, in terms of China's military buildup, that it is planning for a possible military invasion of Tiawan.
The Tiawanese people, for the most part, consider themselves to be an independent nation, and they want things to stay that way. The Chinese authoritarian regime has other ideas.
In the short term, I think it is most likely that China's expansionist intentions are concentrated locally. Taiwan would be its first target. After that, who knows?
With the United States taking its eye off the ball, it might come down to a question of what China thinks it can get away with. Compare, for instance, the ongoing situation with Russia and the Ukraine. The US has mostly taken its eyes off that ball and the Ukrainian people are experiencing the bulk of the suffering as a result, although the EU and other nations have stepped in to some extent to fill the vacuum left by the Americans. The Russian people haven't gone unscathed, either. It is mostly the poor Russian conscripts who have borne the brunt of Putin's war of aggression, on the Russian side, but the Russian regime has never cared very much about the general Russian populace. It is a typical authoritarian kleptocracy.
Chine is already leading the world, in many respects. Technologically, it is gaining on the US and is level or surpassing it in some areas. In terms of trade, China is an economic powerhouse. In terms of taking serious steps to address climate change, it is way ahead of the US, whose government has, for the time being, kept itself in the dark ages with its promotion of fossil fuels. The US's own goal that has resulted from Trump's tariffs has helped to ensure that China's economy will overtake the US's.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Want to gauge China. Look at Tibet and Hong Kong.
Australia has a formal alliance with the United States, for mutual self-defence. It is called the ANZUS Treaty.
Didn't you know?
Functionally, it is similar to the NATO treaty.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I know. You rely on us. Is that fair dinkum?
Regarding international law. Do the Aboriginals consider that you broke the law when you took their land? Was that "fair"?
Yes, and you rely on us. That's what mutual cooperation means. That's what a defence pact is.
What do you mean by "you"? I wasn't around in 1788. I suppose you mean something like "European settlers"?
In that case, yes, the First Nations peoples of Australia do consider that the modern nation of Australia was founded on a lie - specifically that the land was terra nullius (uninhabited) at the time of European colonisation.
The relationship of First Nations Australians to the land is not one that includes the concept of "ownership", so the idea of somebody "taking land" that was previously "owned" by First Nations people is really a Euro-centric idea that isn't applicable in First Nations cultures. Nevertheless, you might say that, in modern terms, they consider that a "law" was broken.
Was it fair? No, I don't think it was.
Do you think it was fair when European invaders killed off large numbers of native Americans and took their land?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Usually it means that "we" do most of the work.
Something like that.
By "you" I guess you mean me? I don't think "fair" had much to do with it. Do you think it was "fair" that Madura took over Venezuela?
Like what?
Who did you think I meant when I asked "Do you think it was fair when Europeans..." etc.? Are you confused?
So you think that "fair" had something to do with Australia's indigenous people, but not America's. Why?
You mean Maduro, I assume. That's a strange question to ask. Actually, isn't the topic of this thread about China? You seem to have gone off on a bit of a wild jaunt into a mental wilderness. Maybe try coming back to the topic.
Why are you concerned about the fairness of the Maduro government? Fairness doesn't seem to matter to you, generally, as far as I can gather. So why your sudden concern for the Venezuelans?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Like you, I guess I'm just a people person. "Fairness" doesn't matter to me, when it has no applicable meaning in a particular situation. I do like to see the Venezuelans, Cubans, anyone, not have to live under the rule of an illegitimate leader though. Why don't you?
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Blame it mostly on Woodrow Wilson, with a small bit on the Spanish-American war..
Why do you regard trade agreements as something to defend against?
Do you think Australia can actually rely on the current version of the USA, in the event of war or do you think the current version of the USA is more interested in controlling what Australia does in the region and damaging current trading patterns in order to benefit US companies?
Americans often look at Australians as annoying imitators; you're useful because you occupy land where we need military facilities in order to pursue hegemony. If you stop being useful, well, hope Americans have recovered enough to not arrest your leaders. But I'm also of the opinion that when you're ready to welcome your new Chinese overlords, just let us know.
Imagine: "If I was president", sure, I would be willing to try to respect Australian will to get rid of our bases, if that's what it came to, and entirely with that Chinese overlords attitude, because, really, the Crown isn't strong enough to protect you. But trying to remove our bases, &c., would require Congress, and they're not immediately likely to give up a quarter of the Southern Hemisphere so easily. Thus, try to imagine a midterm election in which Americans replace enough members of Congress to make that happen, and, remember, only a third of the Senate ever stands in any given election.
The best we can do is probably survive Trump long enough to try to fix some of the damage, later.
But why would you? Why is it less valid to have trade agreements with China than with the US or anywhere else? Why is it less valid for China to have a diplomatic meeting with say South Korea or India than anyone else to do so? https://www.dw.com/en/south-korean-president-begins-china-state-visit/a-75382207
From what I've seen of you, you're more of a curmudgeonly kind of guy. You seem to have trouble getting on with people.
I gathered as much. And it is rarely applicable in most situations according to you. I get where you're coming from.
Why? Not fair?
Excuse me? Where are you getting this stuff? It's quite rude to just make shit up, you know. You ought not to tell lies.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Please do not troll.
There you go, getting on with people again...