almas john wrote:...’m siding with the Menopausal Metrosexual, I mean Muzha Man on this one.
China should F@#k *\F!
I appreciate the support even from sheep shaggers.
I'm not a China basher as you know. I've travelled enough of the country (and, no, hardly limited to the outer fringes) to be impressed with the transformaton. I have also met enough people to know that the majority support modernization and progress. I support it too, having little affection for dirt, shit, superstition and backwardness.
I agree the modern leadership are, when it comes to economc development, a pragmatic lot, impressively educated and groomed for their positions. Which is not to say they should be let off the hook for robbing millions of their land, polluting the hell out the environment, and jailing those who are not happy when they are poisoned, polluted, and subsequently persecuted for nothing more than being unahppy about being poisoned and polluted.
But regardless of the success within China, foreign policy has to date been nothing more than securing a steady flow of investment and resources solely to benefit China. There is little sign that China is stepping up to play an important roll in world leadership as befitting the size of their economy and their own aspirations.
Nor are they showing the least bit if pragmatism with respect to security and terrtorial issues. Here its xenophobia, authoritarian paranoia, and refusal to comprimise. I mentioned Tibet but what I should have mentioned was the inability of any modern leadership to deal with the Dalai Lama. Here is a man who has accepted Chinese sovereignty but wants greater autonomy as was promised under the 17 point agreement and all domestic laws. Not dealing with the DL was and remains foolish in the extreme. He's the best Beijing could hope for, and dealing with him would have neutralized any independence sentiments. In short, with a rational Tibet there would be no Tibet problem.
Similarly the leadership's inability to deal with Chen shui-bian was foolish and counterprodcutive. Chen was perfectly willing to deal with China and of course under his goverment we got the three mini-links, and scores of formal and informal agreements, to say nothing of greater economic integration., It was under Chen don't forget that China became Taiwan's major trading partner, replacing the US.
Further issues such as the South China Sea claims only argue that the leadership is in fact willing to bring troubles upon itself, and risk damaging the economy for symbolic assertions of territory. In other words, not rational, not pragmatic, but reflexive, defensive, and belligerant. I believe it was Gates, sec of defense, who recently said that China tossed away a decades worth of good will and trust over the past year. So much for the leadership getting smarter and more rational.
In essence I see no contradiction between the Chinese leadership acting pragmatic and rational in domestic economic affairs, and irrational and self-defeating in matters of national security, culture, territorial integrity and the like. This is human nature. I sure you know lots of people who are excellent economist, scientists, accountants, etc, who have the most messed up personal lives. China is the psycho xiaojie who goes to an Ivy League college, gets a job at a top research firm, and then stabs her boyfriend when he decides to break up with her.