3 ms·

Thanks for a thoughtful response. > All major powers will behave along similar lines, and mainly for similar reasons (e.g. see the Monroe Doctrine of the US an

Thanks for a thoughtful response. > All major powers will behave along similar lines, and mainly for similar reasons (e.g. see the Monroe Doctrine of the US and how long it took to normalize relations with Cuba). I disagree. For example, look at the other powers in Asia: None have militarized or coercive conflicts with anyone[1] - except China, who has such a conflict with most of them. For example, looking at the Western Pacific, why is it that S. Korea, Japan, The Philippines, Vietnam, and the U.S. all can get along with each other and resolve their problems with no military involvement at all (10 relationships); yet all of them face military, coercive threats from China? If China wants security, all they need to do is stop threatening everyone and taking territory. Certainly nobody has any intention of attacking China. Look at the powers in Europe. Other than Russia, is there the slightest threat of military action between them? The Monroe Doctrine is from 1823, hardly representative of modern U.S. policy. No U.S. neighbor is under threat of attack, other than by meddlesome U.S. investors and DEA agents. Do Canada and Mexico even waste a moment thinking about arming themselves against U.S. invasion? > Russia is panicking because its own sphere of influence is being breached by NATO. Russia might not be the best model of behavior. Yes, all nations are concerned about what happens on their borders, but in 2016 the great majority follow the rules-based international order rather than the older, barbaric mechanisms of killing people and stealing their land by force. > the Chinese Communists, despite all the horrible things they have done, have managed to bring stability and economic growth to a country that was ruled by warlords for much of the early 20th century. Hmmm ... they may have caused more deaths than any regime in world history, tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution (and ignoring the civil war). If you burn down your house and then build a new one, can you claim credit for building something from nothing? > the ideal way to really reform a country is through diplomacy, and working with existing institutions, and modernizing them, rather than start from scratch I agree with this, but I don't think the current Chinese leadership does. ---- [1] With the exception civil war based conflicts in Korea and India/Pakistan.

pm90 11y ago
> I disagree. For example, look at the other powers in Asia: None have militarized or coercive conflicts with anyone[1] - except China, who has such a conflict with most of them. This is really not true. Bear in mind the Middle-East is considered part of Asia. The Western Pacific consists mostly of countries that were dominated by the US (Japan, SK, Phillipines). Vietnam is an exception. Europe was torn apart by war not so long ago, let us not forget that. Most European countries went through stages of both economic and territorial expansion on a scale not seen ever before. The US did a similar thing on the North American continent. Remember Manifest Destiny? Mexican-American war and the annexation of California etc. etc. Everything must be taken in context. China is in the same stage of development as the US and other European countries were before. All countries tend to go through similar stages of development. Let me say that I don't condone the actions taken by China, what I'm arguing for is that the reasons for them are fundamental different than "Chinese Government is evil". That kind of thinking hinders the process of effective diplomacy between countries. > Russia might not be the best model of behavior. Yes, all nations are concerned about what happens on their borders, but in 2016 the great majority follow the rules-based international order rather than the older, barbaric mechanisms of killing people and stealing their land by force. Who is doing that? China is not invading other countries. They are building artificial islands on uninhabited part of the sea. Posturing is part and parcel of international diplomacy. Don't be fooled by what they say but what they are actually willing to do.

pm90 11y ago

> I disagree. For example, look at the other powers in Asia: None have militarized or coercive conflicts with anyone[1] - except China, who has such a conflict with most of them. This is really not true. Bear in mind the Middle-East is considered part of Asia. The Western Pacific consists mostly of countries that were dominated by the US (Japan, SK, Phillipines). Vietnam is an exception. Europe was torn apart by war not so long ago, let us not forget that. Most European countries went through stages of both economic and territorial expansion on a scale not seen ever before. The US did a similar thing on the North American continent. Remember Manifest Destiny? Mexican-American war and the annexation of California etc. etc. Everything must be taken in context. China is in the same stage of development as the US and other European countries were before. All countries tend to go through similar stages of development. Let me say that I don't condone the actions taken by China, what I'm arguing for is that the reasons for them are fundamental different than "Chinese Government is evil". That kind of thinking hinders the process of effective diplomacy between countries. > Russia might not be the best model of behavior. Yes, all nations are concerned about what happens on their borders, but in 2016 the great majority follow the rules-based international order rather than the older, barbaric mechanisms of killing people and stealing their land by force. Who is doing that? China is not invading other countries. They are building artificial islands on uninhabited part of the sea. Posturing is part and parcel of international diplomacy. Don't be fooled by what they say but what they are actually willing to do.