A militarily expanding China in the Pacific region? Gee I don’t know. Besides it’s US Law to protect Taiwan if China attempts any military aggression… Last time they tried to scare us the US parked a Carrier strike group outside Taiwan.
I remember this story as it played out in China on the news and in the newspapers. Japan The Terrible, China The Innocent. Fishing cpatain The Hero.
I will be so glad to be out of Commie country next year. Away from the brainwashing, away from the brainwashed - the sheeple.
Back to a country, be it my own, or a valid democratic one, where I can voice my opinions wwithout fear of assualt or attack. Away from the hyper nationalsim, the rising xenophobia, the immature swaggering and arrogance and denial of the truth.
Where is ABC based, here in Sheepleland too? He seems to buy into the propoganda…
For one, China is a big country, with a long border and a lot of territory to defend. Two, it’s because China has put off modernization for too long. Don’t just look at the recent advances. China’s military still has a sizable number of old, '60s and '70s era armaments that comprise the bulk of the inventory in some regions. Takes a lot of money to bring all those out-dated arms up to date.
And oh yeah, the fact that other countries are also upgrading their military might having something to do with it. Didn’t India just sign a huge military deal with the USA? Why dont I hear anyone bitching about that? I WANT TO KNOW INDIA’S INTENTIONS! WHO ARE THEY TARGETING?
China has been in a few border wars to defend its territory, you can call Aksai Chin or the Spratleys “disputed terriotry” if you want. For China, it’s just defending what belongs to them in the first place. There are some wars fought for political reasons, like in Jinmen, but that’s same anywhere in the world. Say what you want about the CCP, but one thing they will do(and rightly so) is that they absolutely will defend China’s border and territories against anyone, whether it’s against the USA or the Soviet Union. What if China didn’t put down the uprising in Tibet? We would be allowing Tibet to break away, or worse, allowing India and the CIA to set up shop there. The implications to China’s sovereignty is grave, if you know anything about China’s modern history.
As for China invading Taiwan. It’s not going to happen. It’s all about soft power now. Much more efficient to get other countries(and even Taiwan itself) to crack down on TI. Besides, look how close Taiwan and China is now, they’re already on the way to unification.
None of us really know what China’s intentions are are or will be.
That being said, if China defines its borders in a certain way, i.e. claiming Taiwan or the entire South China Sea, it still will seem like aggression to other nations however China rationalizes it.
China used aggressive military action to subdue Tibet. This was not to stop the CIA, this was to dominate territory. Again, if you just redefine this as defending its borders then of course you are justifying war. So, basically, you and I agree on things, you just prefer to call attacking other places “defense”, while I prefer to call it “aggression”.
And saying essentially that “China gets into the odd political war, who doesn’t?” is just a throw away line. The issue is still very real for people in the region. There is a lot of asshole nationalism in China that could theoretically be unleashed, and hopefully won’t.
I love China but I think there is a lot of head up the ass “we will never look at things the way other people do because we are China” thinking about history.
Another thing that pisses me off is this ridiculous double standard that’s applies to China for defending its interest. Like China is the only countries in the world willing to defend its borders, or to stake a claim in what they believe is rightfully their. South China sea for example(which is all about the Spratley islands), are claimed by 10 or 11 countries in the region. And China is the only one that gets blamed for “aggression” or “unknown intentions”. To hell with that. I want my government to do what is best for my country, not someone else’s.
And you know Tibet is part of China, right? Tibet’s status isn’t even disputed, it’s like China’s other provinces. So how can China attack it’s own land. Sorry, it doesn’t make sense. If there’s an uprising in the country, you put it down. This is how all other countries would have done.
On the case about Tibet it’s more about the control of fresh water. Himilayas supply something like 80% of china’s fresh water flow.
Tibet is now a part of PRC more or less by military conquest. If there is an uprising against the racist Han majority in China yes you put it down if you are a racist Han autrocrat. And no we are not picking on China, this is a thread about China.
Canada had its own issues with Quebec, but we found a political solution. Russia let its conquered territories go peacefully. England, France also decolonized. Obviously the US still controls Hawaii, but now the population of non-indigenous Hawaii residents is greater than that of indigenous ones. That is the way things are going in Tibet.
The point is relevant because it illustrates that China will use military force to enforce its claimed borders even when others dispute these with a certain historical basis, such as Taiwan, disputed islets etc. Again, you are using semantics instead of facts.
Didn’t North Americans do that already? In addition to “buying” land for some glass beads and a few blankets, not to mention several wars of “pacification”.
I think they were just a bunch of fun-loving guys who were misunderstood, personally. Next time, it will be no more Mr Nice Guy.
All major powers did the exact same thing during the 1800s.
Times are a changing.
One hopes.
Heh, first off, why the hell was my post deleted? America’s relationship with its native peoples is comparable to the China/Tibet situation, and China’s internal actions ARE relevant when judging its international affairs.
Second, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. The US is still bound by numerous treaties with Native American peoples. Go look at a map of Arizona. The entire northeastern quadrant belongs to the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribes. Native Americans also have significant reservations in the Midwest and West. We can’t simply march in and start developing those areas without the permission of the tribes.
China’s failure to follow its own constitution and internal treaties indicates little respect for fair play and the rule of law.
Actually China’s relations with Tibet are nothing like America’s with its native population. Chinese governments have for the past 1000 years ruled Tibet, when they did, largely as a tributary state and not conquered territory. Chinese did not allow or encourage immigration and did not occupy Tibet militarily (though they did have advisers and tiny numbers of troops to protect these advisers). While some areas of the greater Tibetan cultural area were incorporated into the Qing empire, political Tibet (basically the TAR now) was more or less self-ruled and culturally autonomous.
Only in modern times have the Chinese attempted to colonize Tibet and destroy its culture and ironically only after signing legal documents that they would do no such thing. This contrasts completely with western nations that first colonized and conquered native groups, and either decimated them with disease or forced them to live on small but legally defined territory. Also in contrast with Tibet, native groups in America and especially Canada have been able in modern times to reclaim territory and force governments to honor treaties.
So while in north America our governments originally conquered and colonized and now are atoning, China left Tibet alone for most of its history and now is attempting to conquer and colonize. It’s a weird dynamic.
Why is that you now approach every discussion as a free-for-all shitfest? I’m well aware of the historical differences. And I said the cases are comparable, not identical. To claim they are nothing alike is asinine.
The point is that neither Beijing nor Washington DC can walk over the Tibetans or Native Americans, respectively, without violating their own laws and proving themselves militaristic bullies.
Seriously now, that much has been obvious for decades, and it is the main reason that the rest of the world treats China with derision and with trepidation. The bully in the China. Stop.
Gao, you need a whole lot of pre-conceived prejudice against me to consider anything I wrote above to be an attack or a battle cry before the free-for-all-shitfest. You’ve been awfully prickly toward me lately and I am not sure why. It disappoints me as you have been and remain one of my favorite posters and someone whose thoughts and writings I am always interested to hear and read.
You weren’t the only one making the comparison so my words were not directed solely at you. In any case, they were furthering your argument (with qualifications) rather than countering it. What I think is important to recognize is that modern China’s approach to its ethnic territories is not a continuation of earlier imperial practices but is in fact something very new. While western powers did tend to enter new territory with the purpose of conquest and assimilation China historically did not (at least for large regions like Tibet). Therefore its modern actions are neither justifiable in the light of the 20th century experience in recognizing the existence of basic human rights nor with respect to its own history (or modern constitution as you have pointed out).
This makes modern China’s occupation of Tibet doubly abhorrent. It can’t be excused, as STV2 would do, with the pat expression that western powers did this to their native groups. Because again, while we are advancing China is regressing.
There’s nothing in China’s agreement with Tibet that says China can’t develope Tibet or that non-Tibetan people can’t live there. This is not how it works in China. The people of different ethnicities are supposed to live in harmony together, not build up walls and live in exclusion of others.
But personally, I actually have no problem if Tibetans are given their own limited reservations that they can fully control. A while back I proposed this very solution http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=77340&hilit=stone+age&start=70. The Tibetans can live in caves Inside the confines of their reservations if they want while the rest of Tibet is developed and brought into the modern world.
So, would those enclaves include all of the real estate that makes up the autonomous region of Tibet?
What use is autonomy if you get economically and culturally wiped out by an influx of Han that you can’t stop. Makes a mockery of the constitution.
And you have the temerity to criticise America for having done exactly that one or two centuries ago (at a time before people knew better, and before the concepts of human rights and indigenous rights had evolved to the point they are today), while you propose and do the same to your own subjugated minorities today, when those concepts are well-known and are often pointed out to China. Wait, I forget, there ARE no minorities in China.
You have to admire the evil perfection of the CCP in dealing with these issues. Yossarian would approve,
- Create just sounding laws
- Use power to do what you want
- Define what you do as being beneficial
- Use power to harass and persecute anyone who complains’
- Deny to the world that what you are doing is bad because of 1) and 3)
- If criticized persistently, then that is proof that THEY ARE OUT TO GET US AND CAN’T BE BELIEVED, THE LIARS, JUST LIKE 1842!!
What do you think? Do you think I meant giving reservations to Tibetans means to just designate the entire Tibet as their reservation? Of course not. Such reservations have to be limited in size so that the people who want to live in caves can live in caves, while the people that want to live in the modern world can live in the modern world.
Like I said in the other thread, I reject out of hand the notion that the mere presence of Han is somehow detrimental to Tibetan culture. Unlike in some countries, in China we don’t tell people that they can’t live in a certain part of their country because they’re not the right race.