|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 23 2015 21:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 21:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote:
china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure. You are begging the question in a pretty glaring manner with this statement.
I don't see how; Chinese Civilisation is descended from a confluence of Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist social and ethical norms mixed with more general emotional impulses of a traditional peasant civilisation. Until the past century or so, her internal development has largely proceeded isolated from Western tendencies. Why should it be so strange that she has today but a vague attachment to foreign ethical norms?
this is simply obtuse. the domestic authoritarian status of the CCP, which is stronger than ever, is obviously relevant to the status of human rights, including political rights within china.
The question is not relevance, but whether that connection is accidental or essential.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2015 21:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:That's because Japan is involved in one and the primary focus of the domestic article and not in the other. Trust me, the rhetoric towards Japan has softened (well, up until very recently with Abe increasing Japanese military spending).
i suppose you are taking issue with my 'open war' wording. by that i mean chinese official statements (in chinese) would often have words like "pincer attack on japan", "Philippine conspiracy," etc etc. such language is simply warlike, like iran's death to america but at a higher reading level.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/jrch/426.htm
(i have no idea if the cartoons in this one are official, but probably)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2014-12/31/c_127348948.htm
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2015 22:00 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 21:48 farvacola wrote:On March 23 2015 21:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote:
china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure. You are begging the question in a pretty glaring manner with this statement. I don't see how; Chinese Civilisation is descended from a confluence of Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist social and ethical norms mixed with more general emotional impulses of a traditional peasant civilisation. Until the past century or so, her internal development has largely proceeded isolated from Western tendencies. Why should it be so strange that she has today but a vague attachment to foreign ethical norms? Show nested quote +this is simply obtuse. the domestic authoritarian status of the CCP, which is stronger than ever, is obviously relevant to the status of human rights, including political rights within china. The question is not relevance, but whether that connection is accidental or essential.
if you are talking about the inevitable authoritarianism of chinese culture, that's probably somewhat true based on how hk, singapore and taiwan 'democratic' politics is going, but that is still a world away from how the PRC conducts itself.
|
On March 23 2015 22:00 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 21:48 farvacola wrote:On March 23 2015 21:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote:
china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure. You are begging the question in a pretty glaring manner with this statement. I don't see how; Chinese Civilisation is descended from a confluence of Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist social and ethical norms mixed with more general emotional impulses of a traditional peasant civilisation. Until the past century or so, her internal development has largely proceeded isolated from Western tendencies. Why should it be so strange that she has today but a vague attachment to foreign ethical norms? Show nested quote +this is simply obtuse. the domestic authoritarian status of the CCP, which is stronger than ever, is obviously relevant to the status of human rights, including political rights within china. The question is not relevance, but whether that connection is accidental or essential.
Your casual description of China's socio-political history simply does not match up with an argument positing that China's indifference to civil rights and adversarial party politics have very little to do with her political structure, unless you're making a comment on exactly what counts as "political" as opposed to "societal" or "religious," in which case the obfuscation speaks for itself.
|
I don't see anything I haven't seen before. Both in reg, to Japan and the South China Sea.
China has ardently opposed the internationalization of the island disputes, given it would weaken their position in comparison to bilateral resolution. Of course, ASEAN+the Philippines can't coordinate on the issue because they're too busy fighting amongst themselves in order to bring China to the table, but eh. Standard line. Vehemently opposing US intervention on the issue.
Chinese media is pretty damned jingoistic, but I'm not seeing anything overtly threatening. There's nothing that indicates any form of escalation to me. Pretty much the standard line.
Comparisons to Iran are quite apt, actually. The divorce between propaganda and actual policy is quite clear.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im not saying the jingoism is indication of actual escalation or any plan of doing so, but it is indication of a certain deficiency in concern with respect to the interests and sovereignty of non CCP entities.
|
On March 23 2015 21:57 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 21:52 Silvanel wrote:On March 23 2015 21:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:That's because Japan is involved in one and the primary focus of the domestic article and not in the former. Trust me, the rhetoric towards Japan has softened (well, up until very recently with Abe increasing Japanese military spending). On March 23 2015 21:37 Silvanel wrote:
Poland IS spending 2% (as of this year i think but still). Incorrect; it's been spending 1.8% of GDP for years. The recent round of spending increases that's been proposed will bring it up to, iirc, ~1.95%, by 2016. Nonetheless, it's appreciated, at a time when the UK is cutting the budget below 2%. Actualy it has been 1,95% for quite few years now. Its 2,27% this year. http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,9,40,7914,inne,wydarzenia,budzet-mon-w-2015-roku (In polish, very detailed analysis). Interesting discrepancy; I've been getting my figures elsewhere, from the World Bank and from NATO. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20140224_140224-PR2014-028-Defence-exp.pdfThey had it pegged at ~1.7-1.8 GDP.
I honestly dont know where the difference comes from. Another source (less precise) but in english.
http://news.yahoo.com/poland-kicks-off-unprecedented-military-spending-spree-005930875.html
|
On March 23 2015 22:13 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 21:57 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 23 2015 21:52 Silvanel wrote:On March 23 2015 21:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:That's because Japan is involved in one and the primary focus of the domestic article and not in the former. Trust me, the rhetoric towards Japan has softened (well, up until very recently with Abe increasing Japanese military spending). On March 23 2015 21:37 Silvanel wrote:
Poland IS spending 2% (as of this year i think but still). Incorrect; it's been spending 1.8% of GDP for years. The recent round of spending increases that's been proposed will bring it up to, iirc, ~1.95%, by 2016. Nonetheless, it's appreciated, at a time when the UK is cutting the budget below 2%. Actualy it has been 1,95% for quite few years now. Its 2,27% this year. http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,9,40,7914,inne,wydarzenia,budzet-mon-w-2015-roku (In polish, very detailed analysis). Interesting discrepancy; I've been getting my figures elsewhere, from the World Bank and from NATO. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20140224_140224-PR2014-028-Defence-exp.pdfThey had it pegged at ~1.7-1.8 GDP. I honestly dont know where the difference comes from. Another source (less precise) but in english. http://news.yahoo.com/poland-kicks-off-unprecedented-military-spending-spree-005930875.html
Spending should be ~1.95-2.0% GDP by the end of the year/start of 2016, yeah (aka this budget). The long-term projected should be higher.
Poland has previous to this spending increase been spending ~1.8% GDP. I think that should clear this up.
On March 23 2015 22:13 oneofthem wrote:
im not saying the jingoism is indication of actual escalation or any plan of doing so, but it is indication of a certain deficiency in concern with respect to the interests and sovereignty of non CCP entities.
Eh, I don't really buy that. Propaganda in authoritarian states doesn't necessarily correlate with policy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2015 22:16 Lord Tolkien wrote: Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 22:13 oneofthem wrote:
im not saying the jingoism is indication of actual escalation or any plan of doing so, but it is indication of a certain deficiency in concern with respect to the interests and sovereignty of non CCP entities. Eh, I don't really buy that. Propaganda in authoritarian states doesn't necessarily correlate with policy.
well in this particular situation, the jingoism i think does indicate an active adversarial stance and also a complete willingness to portray the opponent in as ugly a light as possible.
generally, propaganda is not sincere, and you can't trust anything from a propaganda organ. authoritarian states are not above using authoritarian methods externally.
|
On March 23 2015 22:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 22:00 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 23 2015 21:48 farvacola wrote:On March 23 2015 21:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote:
china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure. You are begging the question in a pretty glaring manner with this statement. I don't see how; Chinese Civilisation is descended from a confluence of Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist social and ethical norms mixed with more general emotional impulses of a traditional peasant civilisation. Until the past century or so, her internal development has largely proceeded isolated from Western tendencies. Why should it be so strange that she has today but a vague attachment to foreign ethical norms? this is simply obtuse. the domestic authoritarian status of the CCP, which is stronger than ever, is obviously relevant to the status of human rights, including political rights within china. The question is not relevance, but whether that connection is accidental or essential. Your casual description of China's socio-political history simply does not match up with an argument positing that China's indifference to civil rights and adversarial party politics have very little to do with her political structure, unless you're making a comment on exactly what counts as "political" as opposed to "societal" or "religious," in which case the obfuscation speaks for itself.
On the contrary, my words have a very precise denotation which is not mirrored in your response. I did not "describe" China's history, I defined one of its essences. Neither did I touch on China's "political" history; which is rather the point: Chinese political history is chaotic, Chinese "values" are relatively static. I also did not say that China's basic attitudes toward politics had minimal effect its practical realisation, but the reverse. If there is obfuscation here, I rather detect it in the translation than the original.
if you are talking about the inevitable authoritarianism of chinese culture, that's probably somewhat true based on how hk, singapore and taiwan 'democratic' politics is going, but that is still a world away from how the PRC conducts itself.
No, I am saying that your critique of authoritarianism is itself disconnected from the world of "values" that you wish us to focus on. Authoritarianism vs pluralism, democracy vs oligarchy, etc. are all essentially arguments about the distribution of power on a domestic level, and as such only secondary "values" in themselves. At the same time that you want us to shift our focus away from realpolitik/balance of power analysis internationally, you are obsessing about that very thing domestically.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a simple misreading of my post. realpolitiks is value neutral, but my criticism of china's conduct is obviously at a values level. the domestic situation extends to the foreign policy.
lots of other ridiculous things you've said but pursuing them is not worth.
|
On March 23 2015 22:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 22:16 Lord Tolkien wrote: On March 23 2015 22:13 oneofthem wrote:
im not saying the jingoism is indication of actual escalation or any plan of doing so, but it is indication of a certain deficiency in concern with respect to the interests and sovereignty of non CCP entities. Eh, I don't really buy that. Propaganda in authoritarian states doesn't necessarily correlate with policy. well in this particular situation, the jingoism i think does indicate an active adversarial stance and also a complete willingness to portray the opponent in as ugly a light as possible.
And we do the same with Iran and North Korea. Not getting the point here. Are we to listen to Fox News to determine what US policymakers or analysts actually have to say about Iran or NK? Or do we turn to, say, thinktank events.
generally, propaganda is not sincere, and you can't trust anything from a propaganda organ. authoritarian states are not above using authoritarian methods externally.
I agree, but still not seeing the point...
This reminds me.
+ Show Spoiler +
Wasn't able to attend this event due to the snowwwww~, but it should give a more nuanced outlook of the Chinese economy. I really wish I could've attended 
would recommend if you have a hardon for economic numbers/stats
I do highly recommend CSIS events/talks; most are streamed/put on Youtube for everyone who can't attend in person, or occasionally put on CSPAN.
|
that's a simple misreading of my post. realpolitiks is value neutral, but my criticism of china's conduct is obviously at a values level. the domestic situation extends to the foreign policy.
In which case your argument would have been: "We should be happy that the 7th Fleet is blocking the Taiwan Straits because China represents an absence of (absence of, rather than hostility to, since I don't think that you think that China is self-consciously evil) Western values essential for the moral development of mankind."
That argument has its own comical and absurd aspects, but that was not what you chose to argue.
The truth is China today does not quite have a messianic complex. She used to have one in the form of Sinocentric claims to be the universal civilisation. That belief is dead, and no cosmopolitan ideology has come to replace it. That is not to say that she will not come into one in the future, but presently the expansion of her temporal power has absolutely no spiritual significance in the world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well thanks, except i meant a bit more by not sincere than that. the willingness to employ propaganda and jingoism is itself a breach of bilateralism and also destroys trust. a propaganda piece talking about death to america isnt sincere about the death to america part, but it still is a stance that recalls hostile norms vs democratic norms.
obviously china is well aware of the costs of its actual acts of aggression and their assigned value on these islands is not high enough to risk actual conflict. (nor should escalation be the response to chinese rhetoric) but that is not the totality of the situation.
as for moltke ill make this easier for you because i did not clearly quote the posts i was commenting on. there were two main views i was criticizing or reframing.
per nyxisto there is the view that china should be looked at as another power, and under this value neutral view the "fear" of china is simply due to power rivalry. i in turn claim this sort of view looks at the situation as a nationalist pissing contest, and the morally clearminded observer should cheer on the powers equally. this view is itself mired in the inertia of a nationalistic worldview and obscure real claims of value on the side of intervention.
per LT, the claim is china is only regionally and pragmaticly ambitious, thus there is no need for the u.s. to fear china. true, but there are still important areas of concern even when a misbehaving power is limited to a region. the u.s. is acting interventionist in this case despite defensive rhetoric but it is also defending or minding worthwhile objectives
|
In a more direct problem, the US has completely withdrawn from Yemen. It's a huge loss in the fight against Al Qaeda (AQAP) and further limits American options against ISIS.
The evacuation of 125 United States Special Operations advisers from Yemen in the past two days is the latest blow to the Obama administration’s counterterrorism campaign, which is already struggling with significant setbacks in Syria, Libya and elsewhere in the volatile region, American officials said Sunday.
The loss of Yemen as a base for American counterterrorism training, advising and intelligence-gathering carries major implications not just there, but throughout a region that officials say poses the most grievous threat to United States global interests and to the country itself...
Even after the withdrawal of American troops, the Central Intelligence Agency will still maintain some covert Yemeni agents in the country. Armed drones will carry out some airstrikes from bases in nearby Saudi Arabia or Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, as was done most recently on Feb. 20. Spy satellites will still lurk overhead and eavesdropping planes will try to suck up electronic communications.
But the loss of American personnel on the ground makes any counterterrorism mission far more difficult.
“We will have no intelligence footprint,” Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Good intelligence stops plots against the homeland. Without intelligence, we cannot effectively stop it.”
The article lists out America's problems in the War on Terror, of which there are many. The plate of countries the US needs to monitor and operate in is quite large.
|
2% GDP? That makes me feel like members of NATO should have to pay into a fund to help pay for the US military.
|
On March 23 2015 23:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
2% GDP? That makes me feel like members of NATO should have to pay into a fund to help pay for the US military.
NATO membership, since it's founding, has always consisted of the US paying and subsiziding European security. The 2% is symbolic, mostly, with no actual ramification, merely a small only 4 countries in Europe actually met that target in 2014. In comparison, the US spends ~4.5% of GDP on defense, and prior to the recession somewhere over 5%. The capabilities gap has always existed in NATO, and will probably always exist, but the ability of Europe to foot the bill, in comparison to its immediate post-war state, however, has increased.
Paying into a fund is a silly idea: it's question of how much you're willing to invest into a national military, and your contributions to NATO (as NATO interoperability, equipment standardization, etc. is quite fluid; which is one of the reasons why the idea of a EU Army is laughable). When you examine GDP per capita of defense budget, Europe's spending has steadily declined.
On March 23 2015 23:19 coverpunch wrote:In a more direct problem, the US has completely withdrawn from Yemen. It's a huge loss in the fight against Al Qaeda (AQAP) and further limits American options against ISIS. Show nested quote +The evacuation of 125 United States Special Operations advisers from Yemen in the past two days is the latest blow to the Obama administration’s counterterrorism campaign, which is already struggling with significant setbacks in Syria, Libya and elsewhere in the volatile region, American officials said Sunday.
The loss of Yemen as a base for American counterterrorism training, advising and intelligence-gathering carries major implications not just there, but throughout a region that officials say poses the most grievous threat to United States global interests and to the country itself...
Even after the withdrawal of American troops, the Central Intelligence Agency will still maintain some covert Yemeni agents in the country. Armed drones will carry out some airstrikes from bases in nearby Saudi Arabia or Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, as was done most recently on Feb. 20. Spy satellites will still lurk overhead and eavesdropping planes will try to suck up electronic communications.
But the loss of American personnel on the ground makes any counterterrorism mission far more difficult.
“We will have no intelligence footprint,” Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Good intelligence stops plots against the homeland. Without intelligence, we cannot effectively stop it.” The article lists out America's problems in the War on Terror, of which there are many. The plate of countries the US needs to monitor and operate in is quite large.
Very concerning indeed.
Now I wish I didn't miss that event on defense procurement/acquisitions reform.
ehh, I'll watch it on Youtube later.
|
On March 23 2015 23:03 oneofthem wrote:
well thanks, except i meant a bit more by not sincere than that. the willingness to employ propaganda and jingoism is itself a breach of bilateralism and also destroys trust. a propaganda piece talking about death to america isnt sincere about the death to america part, but it still is a stance that recalls hostile norms vs democratic norms.
obviously china is well aware of the costs of its actual acts of aggression and their assigned value on these islands is not high enough to risk actual conflict. (nor should escalation be the response to chinese rhetoric) but that is not the totality of the situation.
I thought you wished to differentiate Chinese "values" from American ones. I do not see "willingness to employ propaganda and jingoism" being more remarkably descriptive of the Chinese than of the Americans or a host of other nations, unless you are willing to explain yourself beyond mere assertions. The Chinese concept of themselves as a nation, race and people being different from ours, it is necessary to think a little more about the character of that jingoism.
Since you care so much about "values," I want to ask you: which ethical impulses do you think underlie modern Chinese "jingoism"? On what basis do they take pride in their claims to superiority? What are the arguments made by Chinese "propaganda" to justify its own beliefs? Finally, why are these values either inferior to, or necessarily in conflict with yours?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
already gave some concrete examples of jingoism/propaganda from official chinese sources. the u.s. has propaganda as well, but the difference is meaningful and substantial.
anyway the cost of the war on terror is not only high but also not contained. i'd blame the lack of functional governments in the middle east, but what effective intervention exists to combat islamism at the social and local politics level.
|
Norway28894 Posts
On March 23 2015 23:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
2% GDP? That makes me feel like members of NATO should have to pay into a fund to help pay for the US military.
I don't think the defense of Europe (and with the exception of France and UK, no European state has really been voluntarily involved outside Europe for many decades) makes up a majority of US military spending.. Personally I have no desire for Norway to be more involved in imperialist conquests or world policing (although I'm largely positive towards peacekeeping missions!). The US should cut her military budget in half, not expect the rest of the world to double theirs. France and UK both have nukes anyway, so it's not like american military bases in Europe have had any deterring function for a long period of time - certainly not since the end of the cold war.
Fact is, globally, Europe is still a major player in terms of standing armies. Not compared to the US, but the US has had a ridiculously bloated budget for decades (what's the point with spending equal to the next ten countries combined? especially when in an alliance with half the next ten?), and not compared to Russia during the cold war (and they bankrupted themselves), and compared to China it's largely comparable when looking at GDP, but for all the peace we claim to love and cherish, I think military expenditures are too high if anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
