In an op-ed to the WaPo, Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute, warns Americans to take seriously China’s increasing military clout:
The Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on China’s military power, released this week, reveals that Beijing’s buildup has advanced well beyond what most analysts considered likely just 10 years ago. Some highlights: The new arsenal of the People’s Liberation Army includes more than 700 missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, a fleet of sophisticated diesel electric submarines, a growing nuclear submarine capability and advanced destroyers armed with lethal anti-ship cruise missiles. By making the potential cost of any U.S. intervention in the Taiwan Strait extraordinarily high, Beijing has accomplished its decade-long goal of establishing a credible military threat to Taiwan — as well as a deterrent to the United States. The question is, what next?
The report points to some answers. With a growing dependence on oil imported from the Middle East and Africa, Chinese strategists are talking about creating a blue-water navy to secure Beijing’s energy supply lines. The military may be reconsidering its nuclear “no-first-use policy” and examining ways to secure China’s territorial claims in the South China and East China seas. Simply stated, as China’s military power has grown, so too, it appears, have the strategic tasks that it may be assigned. This shouldn’t be surprising. Our own history teaches that as a nation’s power grows so do its ambitions.
Blumenthal then points out some very valid points of concern (not withstanding the fact that he omits to note that while China could make U.S. intervention on behalf of Taiwan extraordinarily high, the United States has the capabilities of making Chinese action against Taiwan extraordinarily high as well): a possible naval competition in the Indian Ocean, a Sino-Japanese flare up over off-shore energy resources, China’s opaque decision-making, etc. But then he proposes a policy course I can’t in all honesty back:
China has already changed Asia’s balance of power. It is past time for America to get serious about deterring the potentially worst sorts of Chinese behavior and to provide allies in the region with reason for renewed confidence in the U.S. security umbrella. Unfortunately, we are only just beginning to grapple with this daunting strategic task.
Firstly, has China really changed Asia’s balance of power, at least in any way in which the United States should worry about? Citing a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Yonhap reported yesterday that China had the largest standing military in the world at 2.255 million. The United States was No. 2 at 1,546,372 men in uniform. Fine. But No. 3 on the list was another growing Asian power, India, at 1.325 million, followed by North Korea (1.106 million), Russia (1.027 million) and South Korea (687,700). Even granting that North Korea does little to help “the good guys” in the overall East Asian balance of power, it still doesn’t change the fact that China is surrounded by large, powerful potential competitors, some of whom are nuclear armed or could go nuclear very quickly. Not even mentioned on that list, of course, is Japan, which has not only the largest navy in the Far East, but also far and away its most advanced, purchased at a mere pittance of its GDP. Also not mentioned are other regional powers that could play an important role checking Chinese ambitions if they got out of hand, such as Australia, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia.
Yes, history teaches us that as a nation grows, so do its ambitions. History also teaches us that hegemony is a team sport, albeit one in which the team captain plays a very important role. If a potential hegemon grows in a way that sparks not trust but distrust, it’s likely to encourage other powers to form countervailing alliances. The way I see it, China’s in a very tight position geopolitically, and there’s no real reason—yet—to be alarmist.
One thing that won’t help us in the long run, however, is to “provide allies in the region with reason for renewed confidence in the U.S. security umbrella.” I’m certainly not going to advise cutting and running—we have our own interests to protect in the region, after all. But ultimately, what you want is our allies in the region assuming a larger burden of defending themselves. You also want to wean them away from almost exclusively bilateral defense relations with the United States and encourage more multilateral security planning. You’re unlikely to encourage either, however, if you’re virtually guaranteeing massive American intervention in the event of an emergency. In fact, all you’re likely to get is free-loading and political naivete, neither of which helps us or our allies. What our allies need—and ultimately, what the United States needs—is assurances that while U.S. support will be forthcoming in the event of a conflict, the primary burden of defense rests on them and them alone.
The latest Quadrennial Defense Review states that China “has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States.” The Pentagon seeks to “shape [China's] strategic choices” and to “dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony.” The Bush administration has taken some concrete action toward these ends. An upgraded alliance with Japan will improve our deterrent posture. The opening of a strategic relationship with India reflects in part an American desire to ensure that China does not gain hegemony over South or Central Asia. An increase in the size of the U.S. Navy’s attack submarine fleet in Guam also brings more American capability into the Pacific. A nascent defense relationship with Vietnam may over time provide the American military with what it needs most in Asia — more bases.
OK, this is more a criticism of the Pentagon than Blumenthal, but I’ve yet to understand why the Pentagon is seeking to “shape [China's] strategic choices” when the Japanese, Korean, Indian and Russian ministries of defense are more than capable of shaping China’s strategic choices for it, although I realize in the short term, it could be potentially disastrous to rely on Moscow to check Chinese ambitions in Central Asia. Nor do I understand why anyone is talking about Chinese regional hegemony when its got neighbors like India, Japan and Russia. Not to apologize for Beijing, but if I’m Chinese, and most of my trade and oil get to and from China through routes that are controlled (or potentially controlled) by the Americans, Indians, Japanese and Russians, I’d probably have more immediate concerns than flexing my hegemonic muscles over East Asia. Furthermore, while I see nothing wrong, necessarily, with increasing American naval assets in the western Pacific, I have to wonder whether what the U.S. really needs in Asia is more bases—in Vietnam or elsewhere.
Washington’s largely reactive and tepid response to China’s growing military power is understandable given what is on America’s plate at the moment. And policymakers are still hoping that they can gain China’s cooperation on pressing international security crises. But as the Pentagon report says, China has been less than cooperative on those supposed common interests: denuclearizing North Korea and Iran, for example. A policy seeking to shape China into a responsible global actor works only if you are willing to recognize when it is not working. That time may be fast approaching.
I’m certainly not going to defend China’a cooperation—or lack thereof—with North Korea and Iran. But acting like a dick somewhere in order to obstruct U.S. foreign policy prerogatives is a far cry from challenging for regional hegemony. And at any rate, as I said before on a previous post on China, if Beijing wants to waste its diplomatic and economic capital in places like North Korea and Iran, it’s no skin off my back. They’ll pay the price in the end, and if Washington really wanted, it could be a dick right back, especially in places like Taiwan.
Even if we were to agree that China has not been a responsible global actor, why should it be left to the United States to train it? If anything, I’d think the regional powers that would be most troubled by an ill-behaved China should assume most of the burden of encouraging Beijing to behave responsibly while the United States sat back and played nice. Instead, quite the opposite seems to be happening—regional powers playing nice with Beijing, based on the very wise calculation that it really doesn’t pay to confront China when the United States will ultimately do it for you. Why piss off the Chinese when the Americans seem so eager to do it? That’s how you get things like the “Roh Doctrine” of Korean neutrality in the event of a Sino-American conflict. But ultimately, it’s our own damn fault, because when you’ve spent the last 50 years protecting your allies in the region from the threat of making diplomatic and security policies of their own, who can blame said allies for having warped views of how the world around them works?
Sphere: Related Content
50 Comments
It would be important that Korea’s current recognize the latter part of you argument, Robert, and take action accordingly, rather than trying so much to woo North Korea — a country that for all intense purposes is already a tool of Chinese manufacture.
I dunno, this always irked me:
This summer, Gen. Zhu Chenghu, dean of China’s National Defense University, raised the subject of weapons of mass destruction, which China rarely mentions, in connection with Taiwan. Should US forces aid Taiwan in a war, he told bewildered US visitors, “Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by Chinese” nuclear weapons.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/.....-woap.html
I hear similar stuff coming from North Korea all the time. Doesn’t necessarily make it true. And at any rate, talk is cheap—I’d like to see similar rhetoric in a crisis when a goodly portion of the American nuclear arsenal is trained on Chinese cities.
Good post. There’s a fine line between helping to protect American allies in a way that is in both the allies’ interest and the US’s and between protecting them so much that they straight out mooch off of the US.
Amyhow, Something that I’ve been curious about, but everyone seems to know already is and so I feel stupid for asking: What is the exact financial arrangement of US troops based in Korea and Japan? Does the US pay all, some, none? And the land is rent free I assume.
Just wanted to get back to basics.
I’d like to see similar rhetoric in a crisis when a goodly portion of the American nuclear arsenal is trained on Chinese cities.
Definitely - I could have sworn I’ve seen the exact same thing before, from the U.S. to China, during one of the countless times China has threatened Taiwan…but I don’t recall where I read it. This was still some time during the Clinton administration.
Of course general Zhu was also demoted for the statement for speaking above his paygrade. Then again, no one ever bothers remembering such details. When discussing China, there is always and if or but, yet most people seem to home in on one idea they seize upon and ignore everything else.
“Even if we were to agree that China has not been a responsible global actor, why should it be left to the United States to train it?”
Because Pentagon needs a reason to justify its massive existence.
“Because Pentagon needs a reason to justify its massive existence.”
Speaking of being a dick…
The chances are China will be able to reach the level of economic wellbeing of Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan at some point, and will replace America as the world’s number one economic and possibly military superpower in a few decades. How early that time comes depends on how the developed world handles China in the mean time. I’m not sure if many World leaders acknowledge such a prospect.
Apparently China’s “lips and teeth” ally N. Korea doesn’t trust the Chinese all that much:
China and North Korea have cancelled reciprocal visa waivers for travel between the two countries, ending a system that has been in effect since the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1949.
A source here said that North Korea moved first, requiring that Chinese citizens visiting the North for six months or less now obtain visas. The source said North Korean authorities were concerned at the number of Chinese visitors to North Korea’s major cities and wanted to put a curb on “China’s aggressive expansion in the North.”
http://joongangdaily.joins.com.....09041.html
China primarily remains a threat to itself at this point since it could implode economically, politically or both–the more its people prosper, the less they will accept Beijing’s idea of status quo. If the people don’t or can’t force the CCP out of existence it will not replace the U.S. as a superpower because it will face global mistrust.
“China primarily remains a threat to itself at this point since it could implode economically, politically or both–the more its people prosper, the less they will accept Beijing’s idea of status quo.”
Not necessarily. If you look at Singapore, even with much economic development in the lat few decades, there hasn’t been much development in the freedom of speech and not much political opposition either. Hong Kong and Taiwan perhaps do a little better than Singapore in that regard, but not very much, and none of them really imploded.
“If the people don’t or can’t force the CCP out of existence it will not replace the U.S. as a superpower because it will face global mistrust.”
With or without global mistrust, China has been able to make rapid economic development since the 90’s. So why and how would it stop?
Hong Kong has been an international city for decades, Taiwan is a democracy, and Singapore…I’m not sure, maybe it has modernized gradually enough to keep social disruptions to a minimum. I don’t know a lot about that nation.
China is at risk because huge sectors of the population are being left behind economically, and the central government has been trying to suppress ever-increasing regional protests over inept local administration, like this for example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01323.html
If the Party can keep the discontented from organizing a cooridinated resistance it might be able to weather out the protests, but in the long run its form of governance is deeply at odds with a modernizing, capitalist society, and I think that just as S. Koreans balked at the dictatorships in their country, the Chinese will inevitably get fed up with theirs.
On General Zhu’s “let’s drop the big one on the big noses” remarks, the Pentagon report notes that they were disavowed but said the fact they came out at all, delibvered by Zhu so matter-of-factly, suggests there are more PLA brass debating this than anyone previous imagined.
“just as S. Koreans balked at the dictatorships in their country, the Chinese will inevitably get fed up with theirs.”
Just because it happened in one country doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll happen in another country. It may or may not happen in China. Whether it will or not is probably not that important, and the Chinese economic development will continue for quite some time to come unless the developed world does something to control that. It has little to do with whether China will practice democracy or not.
gaemee, I beg to differ–while Chinese economic development will continue, it will inevitably lead to a confrontation with the leadership. You have a country trying to have both a quasi-command economy, manipulating its currency, ordering people to move from the provinces to cities for a cheap workforce, and so on, and at the same time allowing entrepeneurship and foreign investment. This is like a two-headed monster, and it will come to an impasse at some point. Something will have to give way, and my bet is it will be the dictatorship. You can’t have a society that tells people to live free in one area and blindly obey in every other.
michael,
unfornately, China is the still the world’s largest democracy with anyone above the age of 18 able to seek office and vote. This makes violent confrontation unlikely.
Mayhem_Fan,
U come up with the most ridiculous stuff. When has everyone in China over 18 been able to vote? Not legally able but given the opportunity. The difference is everything. When has there ever been an issue or an election or a referendum that was put to the general public? Democracy implies that choices can be made by the public. It implies that there are opposing views which can be considered at the polls. The public isn’t deciding anything in China. The party decides everything and with roughly 60 million members that is hardly representative of the 1.3 billion people living in China. More people in the US are registered to vote than are allowed to vote in China, assuming they would ever even be given a choice of more than one option to vote for.
Party members in China constitute an upper class, in clear contradiction of both Maoist and Marxist philosophy, and they have set privileged areas such as Shanghai and Beijing on the road to economic development at the expense of the rural communities which have no say whatsoever in the direction of government. Some democracy.
In the US, the republicans will lose control of the House of Representative in the coming elections in the US and Bush has virtually ensured a Democrat in the White House come 2008. While not set in stone, US people are speaking up and can effect change at the polls. That is something Chinese citizens have never been able to do. Their only resource for change is revolt and that’s a comin my friend…that is a comin!!
I was asked:
“When has everyone in China over 18 been able to vote? Not legally able but given the opportunity. ”
People in China voted for their representative in 2003:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/e.....288018.htm
Last year, a corrupted official prompted villagers of TaiShi to launch a referendum to recall thier elected representative and elected a new one through a well defined legal democratic voting process:
http://zonaeuropa.com/20050919_1.htm
And the next scheduled election according to the CIA world factbook is in 2008. Election is held every five years.
See under title heading Legislative Branch at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publica.....os/ch.html
However, democracy is not about voting. It is about who the government belongs to. Article 2 of the constitution says it belongs to the people of China:
Article 2. All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people.
http://english.people.com.cn/c.....ution.html
” That is something Chinese citizens have never been able to do. ”
Actually, the Chinese citizens have spoken up. They love the Communist Party. Haven’t your read the survey in Hong KOng? Chinese communist party came up tops amongst the Hong Kong people. I can only imagine that they are even more popular in mainland if they can already score so high in Hong Kong:
http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/r.....se361.html
In China, if the Communist party isn’t popular they can lose control of the legislature body as well.
Thank you.
“Washington’s largely reactive and tepid response to China’s growing military power is understandable given what is on America’s plate at the moment. And policymakers are still hoping that they can gain China’s cooperation on pressing international security crises. But as the Pentagon report says, China has been less than cooperative on those supposed common interests: denuclearizing North Korea and Iran, for example. A policy seeking to shape China into a responsible global actor works only if you are willing to recognize when it is not working. That time may be fast approaching.”
So, China wants to play political games…
A boycott of China’s products and a cessation of all foreign investment by the U.S. and all of its allies would absolutely cripple China’s economy overnight. These actions would definitely get China to be much more cooperative with their involvement in international security matters. A less severe measure of just removing China’s Most Favored Nation status would probably have the same result by sending a very clear message that their cooperation is expected, not simply voluntary.
Let’s call their bluff and find out if China thinks North Korea and Iran are worth destroying their economy and having to deal with the inevitable chaos from the ensuing riots — this may well spark a revolution in China that could easily oust the communists from power permanently.
–Remort
China will always have problems. 1. Muslim problems. 2. Not a market economy. 3. Govenment will lead to an economic revolt.
I posted a response to Mr Chips but it didn’t appear. Have I been censored? If i am going to be censored please just shoot me an email and I won’t waste my time posting. I’ll put it up again assuming its a technical hiccup.
To Mr. Chips,
“When has everyone in China over 18 been able to vote? Not legally able but given the opportunity. The difference is everything. When has there ever been an issue or an election or a referendum that was put to the general public?”
People in China voted for their representaive in 2003. They will vote again in 2009, according to CIA world fact book on China.
See: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/e.....288018.htm
Last year, they also voted. In fact, in Tai Shi the people figured out that their representaive was corrupt The people successfully organized a referendum to recall their elected representative. They then held a new election to elect a new representative. See: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050919_2.htm
“In the US, the republicans will lose control of the House of Representative in the coming elections in the US and Bush has virtually ensured a Democrat in the White House come 2008. While not set in stone, US people are speaking up and can effect change at the polls.”
In China, more and more people are supporting the communist party. In fact, in a recent survey in HK, more HK people are supporting them. see: http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/r.....se361.html
I know your mind must be boggling right now. It takes time for it to digest to help erase decades of propaganda fed beliefts. It is like the movie Da Vinci, you never thought that person looked like a woman next to Jesus until someone pointed it out to you.
Thank you.
Naive? You really think polls make a differnce in China?
“Naive? You really think polls make a differnce in China?”
Apprently, the people in TaiShi do. Ifyou go to the link, you will see photographs of people who camped outside their homes demanding fresh elections. Some even suffered injury in order to protect and uphold the great constittuion of the people’s republic of china. TRUE PATRIOTS! In the end, they got what they wanted and elected a new mayor in accordance with statutes of the law. So tell me that there is no democracy in China and I’ll tell you to pose that question to the Tai Shi people.
Yeah right, tell that to the villagers of the three gourges area.
M-F, again you see what you want to see. If China is a democracy, why would Wen Jiabao say: “China will press ahead with its development of democratic politics, that is reconstruction, in an unswerving way, including direct elections,” Wen told a news conference ahead of an EU-China summit. “If the Chinese people can manage a village, I believe in several years they can manage a township. That would be an evolving system.”
The Taishi village election was actually a recall effort to get rid of a corrupt CCP official. China introduced village-level direct elections LAST YEAR.
Read this: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050919_1.htm
Hardly the workings of a true democracy.
Michael,
Wen Jia Bao gives news conference only once a year. I don’t know where you quote the Wen Jia Bao news conference but it is obviously a fake. It is claimed that the news conference was held in the EU-China summit. According to USA Today, the Premier of China DOES NOT GIVE news conference, except once a year after the NPC meeting:
And I quote:
“George W. Bush does it about once every month and a half. Tony Blair, sometimes once a week. But Wen Jiabao, prime minister to one-fifth of humanity, does it just once a year. Today, Wen holds his annual news conference, going before reporters at the close of China’s carefully choreographed yearly session of parliament.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....ment_x.htm
If the news conference you quoted really did happen, then it is clear that USA Today has made a grave error in accusing the Premier of only giving news conference once a year. Why would they do this?
But I will tell you this, if he did give that conference he could be refering to the indirect way legislators are elected into the legislature or the election of the Presidency which is elected by members of the legistlature.
China introduced elections since 1988. Do more research and you will discover this fact.
Wrong again, my San Diegan Malaysian.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8133.asp
I guess this is where you say you don’t trust transcripts of press conferences from the UK government.
And you still didn’t address where the Taishi village election was actually a recall effort, and the villagers were protesting corrupt officials imposed on them.
Owned and owned again, M-F, thanks for playing.
M-F, you are seriously diluted.
He’s “diluted” so much he’s see-through. If I didn’t have to be at work today
I wouldn’t bother.
Remort,
I have been advocating the same things for last two years. NK’s nuke problem is nothing but China’s f***ing USA. Just kick Chinese ass and NK nuke will go away in NewYork minute.
Kick Chinese fat (bureaucratic) ass! USA should have done that fifty years ago - during Korean War - as Gen. McArthur suggested.
michael,
damn. you obviously can’t read my sarcasm. USAToday(a western news source) says Premier Wen gives news conference once a year only. You quoted another Premier Wen news conference at EU-China summit. What does this prove? Someone must be lying! Western media is smearing China. Get it?
Your posistion must now be that you cannot trust what is printed in USAToday about China because you believe the EU-China summit news conference did happen. Now, you cannot believe USAToday, that means you need to start questioning articles written about China in your western press from this day on.
I already clarified what Premier Wen said. See my sentence that begins “But I will tell you this, if he did give that conference…..”
The Taishi incident IS A RECALL effort. They are recalling an ELECTED official that they elected in 2003 general elections.
M-F, You can’t be for real!
Mahatir_fan: If you seriously believe any of the surreal stuff you write, you need to take a year or two off and read up on all these subjects (pretty much everything) that you get so badly wrong.
If you are not serious, then you are a troll and should be banned. You might make a better San Diego surfer dude than you do a scholar. No shame in that.
Mayhem_Fan,
At least bother to read the info on the links you post before putting out for the world to see…
“People in China voted for their representaive in 2003. They will vote again in 2009, according to CIA world fact book on China.”
I have a bit of experience utilizing CIAFB, FBIS, DIS, and other overt intel sources and no where have I ever come across a source that talked about the kind of elections you are talking about. In fact, in the post you linked to there was no indication of CIA fact book reference nor any implication that a general election was at all an issue. You screwed the pooch dude!! Here’s what your post said:
“A total of 7.9 million registered voters will elect 4,403 deputies to the local people’s congresses of the capital’s 18 districts and counties before the end of this year.”
What has that got to do with the CIA Fact book and how is the China Daily (your link source) a viable source?? The China Daily is as representative of Chinese politics as Fox News is of American thoughts…
What the fuck chuck?!! 7.9 million out of 1.3 billion…thats not even representative of the communist party in china let alone the nation.
I don’t care if the communist party runs China or not if the people comply with tacit approval and go along with their government’s dictates, so be it… but don’t call that democracy… again I say democracy must include the right of a minority group to voice its opinion with opportunity for recourse and security. that doesn’t exist in China!!!
and oh yes my mind is BOGGLING now! dear me… but its how much yer payin per gram thats boggling me. Who’s yer dealer dude??
MR Chips,
Why do I have to spoon feed information? Aren’t you smart enough to look it up yourself?
“I have a bit of experience utilizing CIAFB, FBIS, DIS, and other overt intel sources and no where have I ever come across a source that talked about the kind of elections you are talking about. In fact, in the post you linked to there was no indication of CIA fact book reference nor any implication that a general election was at all an issue.”
OK. If I have to spoonfeed you, here goes. Folow these steps to get to the CIA world factbook:
1) Goto http://www.cia.gov/cia/publica.....os/ch.html
2) Here’s the tricky part. You need to scroll down to the line that says “Legislative branch”. You can go to your browser hit Edit->search or something.
3) You will find the following lines:
“unicameral National People’s Congress or Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui (2,985 seats; members elected by municipal, regional, and provincial people’s congresses to serve five-year terms)
elections: last held December 2002-February 2003 (next to be held late 2007-February 2008) ”
Read the last line again.
============================================
“What the fuck chuck?!! 7.9 million out of 1.3 billion…”
You need to brush up on your English comprehension.7.9 million refers to the number of people who will be voting for the capital’s local people congress. Not the total number of voters in all of China but only the capital. Please read it again and admit that you were reading what you wanted to believe.
“A total of 7.9 million registered voters will elect 4,403 deputiesTO THE LOCAL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS of the capital’s 18 districts and counties…”
===============================================
“again I say democracy must include the right of a minority group to voice its opinion with opportunity for recourse and security. that doesn’t exist in China!!!”
Wrong.
Article 4. All nationalities in the People’s Republic of China are equal. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops the relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China’s nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; any acts that undermine the unity of the nationalities or instigate their secession are prohibited. The state helps the areas inhabited by minority nationalities speed up their economic and cultural development in accordance with the peculiarities and needs of the different minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practised in areas where people of minority nationalities live in compact communities; in these areas organs of self- government are established for the exercise of the right of autonomy. All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People’s Republic of China. The people of all nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages, and to preserve or reform their own ways and customs.
Article 41. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.
The people in China who have been arrested in China so far are those who clearly have attempted to overthrow the government using illegal means. A democratic process is available if they wish to be elected as leaders, the next one in 2008.
============================================================
And if you are going to quote the Tiananmen incident as an example, then I strongly suggest that you watch the video of those footages and rebut me. See my rebutals of eye witness accounts: http://rconversation.blogs.com.....l#comments
I used to think that there must be some form of unprovoked killing at Tiananmen. But after watching the PBS online video about the incident(you can watch it free) I am beginning to be convinced that no such massaccre happened. The eyewitness accounts are completely distorted. Video footages back up my observation.
Guys, don’t waste your time with Mahatir Fan.
He’s banned or ignored everywhere for his pathetic and idiotic nonsenses.
He’s trying to derail every serious debate with absurdities like these ones.
He’s a troll, he’s shameless, he’s a bad joke.
Ignore him, otherwise he’ll continue.
I’m beginning to think that “Mahatir Fan” should be banned since he is clearly biased in his postings — biased in a way that defies good judgement and impartiality — as well as being disruptive to this blog.
Though I think M_kay is biased and an idiot, I don’t think he should be banned for it. Just ignored. Unless, of course, he continues to use every post to talk about a) China’s democracy or b) the U.S.’ dictatorship (of Korea).
No I don’t think M_Fan should be banned either, yet… but perhaps it is better to just respond to his inaneness with quality movie quotes like the one from Billy Madison.
“Mr. Mahathir, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!”
As I’ve said before, don’t feed the troll.
Banned for what? For saying that China is a democracy and quoting facts to support that statement??
Note that it is the people who say China isn’t a democracy that has yet to muster up a single unrebutal point to say it isn’t a democracy.
Some people say itisn’t a democracy because there are no elections. I have shown that not just there are elections held every 5 years, but there are oppositions that run against government candidates. Some say it must protect the right of minorities. I have shown that the constitution provide for this right, and one needs to look no further than Tibet to witness how the Tibetans are allowed to use their own language in official proceedings. Some say it is not a democracy because it is not a government by the people. I have provided facts to show that the people in Taishi has successfully recalled their elected representative and replaced him with a new elected candidate through the democratic process. This proves that the government belongs to the people because the people can at any moment in time recall their representative.
There is nothing else that is missing as far as facts are concern about China’s democracy. What is missing, if you are a impartial observer, is TRUST. Do you trust that if the Communist party goverment loses majority seats at the general election that they will willingly hand over party to non-Communist party members? If you don’t TRUST them, then just state that as your reason for not considering it as a democracy. That’s a subjective opinion and there is nothing that I can or will do to change your mind until that day if it comes then we’ll know. However, there is no reason for you to cook up lies like accusing China of not having elections or the right to vote or stand for election. Then there are those who cannot be convinced because they are anti-China in nature. They cannot have China classified as a democracy because then they could not villianize it.
As I’ve said before, don’t feed the troll.
The Korea Liberator found a solution that is short of an outright ban, but has the same effect: Moderate moron_fuckwit’s comments and allow only legit ones to be posted.
As can be expected, zero get through — kind of like vetted non-Communist candidates in China’s glorious elections.
M-Fan. “Because Pentagon needs a reason [Chinese military buildups] to justify its massive existence.”
Perhaps the Pentagon and the CPC have a symbiotic relationshop in this regards.
Given the choice between a US foreign policy led world and a Chinese version I’d take the former, horrible as it is these days. Regarding military power, events unforeseen, even a modern Chinese military will be no match for NATO in my lifetime. Factor in a probable NATO-Oceana-Russia-Japan alliance in wartime and it seems China would get it’s head handed on a platter. Still, I’m totally against an EU lifting of the arms embargo to China. Why feed their sense of power projection when even their own citizens have so few human rights?
The problem will be trying to stop the Chinese military buildup as western companies directly or indirectly supply them with the means to modernize their forces and space program, and western trade and investment and technology transfer there favor a foreign currency balance which gives them the means to buy influence and advanced weapons industries of their own. Republicans - warning about the rise of the dragon while feeding it American jobs and industries - go figger.
Don’t feed the troll, please.
arrrr, http://www.sangroaventino.it/i.....ollbig.jpg
slim,
You think that I would still go to their website after they insist on moderating my comments? There are so many websites on the internet and my postings, like it or not generate more dicussions which could have meant more hits for them.
I’m like the guy who goes to church and instead of listening and obeying the pastor, I insist on examining the original maniscripts written in Hebrew to verify the bible translation authencity. As a result, the discussion never getto the point about how Jesus died on the cross etc. etc.. because every couple of lines, I will question the translation and the pastor got fed up and I get banned. The pastor wants the discussion to be centered around the love of Christ and assume that the Bible is authentic or have the faith to believe it is or ask one or two questions but that is it. Not someone who insist on the original maniscripts, does his own translsation of the bible, and then compare his translation with those of the “experts” and then launch an attack on misleading translations by the “experts” after every few lines. This was basically why I got banned because as they said they assumed their readers have some “basic knowledge” assumption. Meaning, if they post a posting about famine in North Korea, they expect the discussion to be centered on bashing Kim Jong Il. Not someone to question them if they had doctored up photographs on their website making original coloured photographs of North Korean children into black and white for more dramatic effect, etc. etc..
My comment was directed to the Marmot, in the interest of effective troll control. You should direct all communications to a qualified therapist.
By “qualified”, you certainly mean, at a university level, where they can perform very intensive and experimental therapy on mahathir_fan.
Seriously, if you have nothing to add to the dialogue here, why do you keep making asinine comments? Just to troll people and get a reaction from them? Having been banned from other sites already, one would think you’d have caught on by now… So, let me put this another way to you mahathir_fan, why not spend your time more constructively?
Don’t feed the troll.