"If we use your logic China should be able to snag all those countries eventually and call it "taking back whats ours." How much time must go by before a country loses claim to territory? Can Great Britain take back the US because we have only broken off from them for a mere 230 years?"
Nations can only do what they can do. You need to distinguish between rights and abilities. Does China have rights to these countries? Does it have the ability to occupy them? These aren't the same thing. The only thing stopping Brittain from dominating the U.S. is that it can't. Britain's culture has adapted to this new reality, as has ours adapted to the reality of our increased power. What rights you claim to have are nearly always less important than what power you really do have, and are willing to use.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Having a little superscripted numeral next to some or all of your statements wouldn't change my criticism one iota.
"If we use your logic China should be able to snag all those countries eventually and call it "taking back whats ours." How much time must go by before a country loses claim to territory? Can Great Britain take back the US because we have only broken off from them for a mere 230 years?"
Nations can only do what they can do. You need to distinguish between rights and abilities. Does China have rights to these countries? Does it have the ability to occupy them? These aren't the same thing. The only thing stopping Brittain from dominating the U.S. is that it can't. Britain's culture has adapted to this new reality, as has ours adapted to the reality of our increased power. What rights you claim to have are nearly always less important than what power you really do have, and are willing to use.
I am fully aware of the distinction, I do not think you or Blayne really explained them though, arguing that country can take something because it can, has all sorts of problems.
posted
I don't know it makes sense to me, and it's borne out by history. In the most literal of senses, a country that has the ability to conquer its neighbor, then it can.
The argument that follows is whether or not they have any sort of pre-existing right or claim to the land. But that doesn't negate the fact that they are already there, and it's already conquered. There are countries all over the world that no longer exist, or now exist, simply because someone else was stronger and did whatever the heck they wanted, regardless of "right."
Did America have the right to seceed from Britain? No, probably not. Britain was defended by and paid for by mostly Britain. In a very real sense, it was Britain's to do with as it pleased, as every other colony in the world was at the time. But somehow America had the ability to change the situation and they did, and all British attempts to change the situation afterwards failed, so they settled for being close allies.
The argument has MORAL problems, but quite frankly, I think it's a pretty decent reflection of reality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because a country is able, it then acts on that ability can reflect reality it is true. But we should be striving for something more modern than that. If that was universally TRUE we wouldnt need the UN. (Dont really want to debate the usefulness of the UN )
I still do not think reality works quite that way especially now. Countries actively attempt to keep expansionist regimes in check, i.e. The US blocking China from taking Taiwan. A military response to China's expansion into Tibet was also seriously considered but China steam rolled it so quickly nothing effective could be organized.
Ultimately it is still true that after all is said and done, to the victor go the spoils, but that creates a very complex problem. Do countries have a right/responsibility to interfere in the affairs of other countries?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you can't ignore the reality in favor of your moral positions.
The fact is that countries nearly always do what they can do, and the attitude reflected in culture is very closely tied to that fact. There is a reason why at the height of their power, the British culture felt justified in dominating India and the Americas. They aren't an empire anymore, and not surprisingly their attitudes towards being an empire have changed. They haven't completely changed, but they are different.
Then there is America, where power has steadily increased this century, and our culture has been changing to accomodate a new need to inflict our will outwards. This is reflected in our approaches to tourism, art, media, defense, resources and "nation-building." The American culture in some ways is a reflection of that same colonial-empirial attitude we had when we were still loyal British subjects, but now things are different, and our ability to do all these things in the world will make us at least tempted to try and do them. The worst example of this so far is the Bush administration's blatantly offensive position in the middle east. If you look at the strategies, and the excuses for invasion that we used, they aren't much different from those of the British. Its a combination of defense, cultural superiority, and resources that the government uses to justify invasions. Underlying all that is the assumption that because we are stronger, we must be somehow right for doing these things.
The justification is circular: We have power and resources, therefore our culture is superior and enlightened. We invade you because we are enlightened, and we gain more power and resources to become MORE enlightened and powerful. This is the basis of adventurism, and its a vicious process.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because a country is able, it then acts on that ability can reflect reality it is true. But we should be striving for something more modern than that. If that was universally TRUE we wouldnt need the UN. (Dont really want to debate the usefulness of the UN )
I still do not think reality works quite that way especially now. Countries actively attempt to keep expansionist regimes in check, i.e. The US blocking China from taking Taiwan. A military response to China's expansion into Tibet was also seriously considered but China steam rolled it so quickly nothing effective could be organized.
Ultimately it is still true that after all is said and done, to the victor go the spoils, but that creates a very complex problem. Do countries have a right/responsibility to interfere in the affairs of other countries?
I think the UN exists specifically because it IS a truthful reflection of reality. If everyone felt the same moral inklings that you and I do, then the UN wouldn't be necessary except as a debate society and the WTO would be the world's most important group.
As far as rights and responsibilities go. Yes and no. That's an argument that comes entirely down to self-interest. Is it more beneficial to you, to save a country from being invaded? America supports democracy everywhere, so we arm Taiwan with the Aegis radar system, load them up with shiny new fighter craft and that's that. Of course, we do almost the same thing with Saudi Arabia, which enjoys a steady theocracy and cracked out monarchy.
In both cases it is in our best interests to do these things (or so we tell ourselves). But I'm skeptical of altruistic defenses of other countries. We didn't join WW2 in Europe out of altruism (or rather, not ENTIRELY from altruism). We have the right if we are invited to help. Responsibility is a hard argument to make. You could argue that any powerful nation on earth with the ABILITY to effect change therefore has the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. The "Ben Parker" Directive, if you will. But that rarely works as an argument. None of the world's most powerful nations have really attempted to effect full scale change in Africa for example, which is ironic, because that actually IS in our best interests to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't like the idea that we give China the all clear and say "Your bigger than us go ahead and beat up that kid over there"
But back to the original idea of this thread. The question was should countries like America be concerned with China's growing power.
Well maybe China isn't trying to expand into America but it does represent a threat to other countries that we are friendly with, and do lots of business with. I am also sure that countries like Russia thought "Napoleon will never come way out here." A country with a totalitarian regime such as China is certainly a threat as a super power IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I just don't like the idea that we give China the all clear and say "Your bigger than us go ahead and beat up that kid over there"
No, we are saying that right and ability are two DIFFERENT things. However from the viewpoint of a powerful nation, power feels like right. In that scenario you forget that the U.S. is also strong, and would feel an expansion by China to be an act of agression against it, and the peace of the world.
We don't decide who can do what based on who is more powerful, things decide themselves that way, no matter what we want.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
for thsoe interested I got 25/30 on my paper.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually from what I have figured out the Chinese nethod of elections functions very similar to that of the USA, its a series of elections to their version of the electectorial college and then they elect the next rank up etc etc, utilizing the First By the Post Method of counting votes. The issue of being considered a one party system is incorrect, there are around 8-10 smaller parties that can be voted for instead of the main CCP party including even a left wing faction of the KMT. The thing though is that the populair bases of support for the CCP are so widespread that there is simply not enough support for any of the smaller parties even in a coalition to offer any legislative opposition, however the CCP does frequently appoint officials from the pool provided by the smaller parties and giving as such important positions partly to fufill the image of the Unified Front forged in 1937/38. Though you'ld be surpised to know that there were actually KMT (Taiwan KMT at that) members who ran for positions in the Shanghai local government, though my details get sketchy at that point, I think there was some form of riot but I don't remember.
Also for those that believe only Party members ever get elected my teacher actually surprised me by pointing out to her students that there were a Chinese female politician who was not a member of the Party and got frequently elected and relected for her local government because the policies she instituted worked well.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually from what I have figured out the Chinese nethod of elections functions very similar to that of the USA, its a series of elections to their version of the electectorial college and then they elect the next rank up etc etc, utilizing the First By the Post Method of counting votes. The issue of being considered a one party system is incorrect, there are around 8-10 smaller parties that can be voted for instead of the main CCP party including even a left wing faction of the KMT. The thing though is that the populair bases of support for the CCP are so widespread that there is simply not enough support for any of the smaller parties even in a coalition to offer any legislative opposition, however the CCP does frequently appoint officials from the pool provided by the smaller parties and giving as such important positions partly to fufill the image of the Unified Front forged in 1937/38. Though you'ld be surpised to know that there were actually KMT (Taiwan KMT at that) members who ran for positions in the Shanghai local government, though my details get sketchy at that point, I think there was some form of riot but I don't remember.
Also for those that believe only Party members ever get elected my teacher actually surprised me by pointing out to her students that there were a Chinese female politician who was not a member of the Party and got frequently elected and relected for her local government because the policies she instituted worked well.
I'm sorry but I just completely disagree with your belief that China's Communist party stays in power purely on the merits of its decisions. Regimes that are popularly "elected" don't need to keep political prisoners. They don't send the military to kill thousands of pro democracy demonstrators.
They don't have a special panel that HAS to approve all elected officials, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Hong Kong Government. They don't have premiere's that start out as the prodigy and are eventually appointed. I'd write more authoratively on the subject but its sunday and I just don't have the time. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I dont think either Wen Jiabao or Hu Jintao were "appointed" in the matter you described, things coulda gone in a different Direction if Jiang Zemin didnt step down, he was one of te hard liners me thinks.
IP: Logged |
Do popularly elected regimes make prisoners disappear? Hold them incommunicado from the Red Cross? Engage in systematic torture? Use investigative arms of the government to target political opponents?
As much as I think Blayne's deluded about China, it should be pointed out that governments that are popularly elected aren't automatically pure in their motives or behavior.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: BlackBlade:
Do popularly elected regimes make prisoners disappear? Hold them incommunicado from the Red Cross? Engage in systematic torture? Use investigative arms of the government to target political opponents?
As much as I think Blayne's deluded about China, it should be pointed out that governments that are popularly elected aren't automatically pure in their motives or behavior.
I never said that elected governments are righteous. I was pointing out that a government with real legitimacy does not have to do the things that China does on a daily basis. I only pointed out the things China does to suppress opposition to its ruling regime. If I had wanted to list the dirt that goes on in China, well, that would take a very long time.
Wen Jia Bao and Hu Jin Tao IMO are less hard line then Jiang Zi Min, Lin Biao, and Deng Xiao Ping. But people thought Deng Xiao Ping was a moderate too, until Tianamen Square. People thought Hu Jin Tao was going to be more diplomatic when he allowed flights directly from Taiwan to Mainland China and then Mainland Chinese fingers tightened on their missile launch triggers when Taiwan began talking about formal independance from China.
Perhaps Communism will simply collapse one day like the USSR, perhaps one day the people will rise up and take whats theirs. But I can confidentally say that when push comes to shove, this regime has shown time and time again it is not afraid to do what it takes to retain power.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
