China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[thejester]

So let's see, the West ransacked pillaged and colonized China and filled it with opium with the direst consequences for China's development. Japan slaugthered dozens of millions of Chinese, colonized pillaged and raped China so hard it still hurts and never apologized. Now China is no longer the weak pathetic monarchy of the Qin neither a warlord torn-apart territory. If I were a Chinese, I'd say it's high time to say "Fuck you all ruthless cruel hypocrite bastards on the other side of the sea, we can safely ignore you now and safely say "FUCK YOU" loud and clear at any time of the day we want". Just to make sure they understand that they're dealing with an equal now, not with a puppet, not with a Third World shithole with no self-respect, any treaty with which can be used for asswipes.

Yep, because there's nothing like mindless posturing for past wrongs if you want to create a stable, prosperous Asia-Pacific.

TBH on the article itself I thought it interesting it didn't draw a clear connection between this message and the recent wave of scandals within the Party proper. Not that an emphasis over the long term on Chinese revival would have been caused by it, but the uptick in the message could be a clear result.

So when can we expect the West to shut up about China's past wrongs, for the sake of a stable and prosperous Asia-Pacific that is. No double standards there.

That response speaks volumes about your actual interest in this. You don't give a shit about the content, you're just interested in games of one-up. As it stands, China's growth has already prompted an overt refocus from the US on the Asia-Pacific. It continues to cause great alarm in Japan, still the world's third largest economy. It is creating a noticeable tension in the South China Sea (btw I'd be fascinated to know what historical wrongs China is righting there). Having your leadership stand up and scream YOU GOT US HOOKED ON DRUGS SO FUCK YOU is stupid and likely to further escalate tensions in a way that doesn't need to happen, no matter how much it soothes the ego of internet fatties.

[mr friendly guy]

That response speaks volumes about your actual interest in this.You don't give a shit about the content, you're just interested in games of one-up

Oh noes, an appeal to motive fallacy. Haven't seen those before.
You don't give a shit about the content, you just want to be able to bring up past wrongs when its convenient for you, but want the ability to deny other people the ability to do the same. Hence when they do it, its "mindless posturing".

As it stands, China's growth has already prompted an overt refocus from the US on the Asia-Pacific.

Yes how dare countries pick themselves up and bring their population out of poverty. How inconsiderate, forcing the US to focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

It continues to cause great alarm in Japan, still the world's third largest economy.

I got news for you buddy. Every time some country starts developing a large economy it causes alarm elsewhere. Remember the Japanese scare in the 80s, even though Japan was the US ally while the US was Japan's protector? Now what does this fact (ie China becoming larger, causing alarm in Japan) got to do with anyone's ability to seek redress nor pointing out past wrongs. Absolutely nothing. Thanks for playing. Got any more red herrings genius.

It is creating a noticeable tension in the South China Sea (btw I'd be fascinated to know what historical wrongs China is righting there).

Tension in the South China sea is a little bit vague. Are you talking the Diayou/Senkakku disputes or something else? Care to more specific, or is this a catch all call to justify anything.

Having your leadership stand up and scream YOU GOT US HOOKED ON DRUGS SO FUCK YOU is stupid and likely to further escalate tensions in a way that doesn't need to happen, no matter how much it soothes the ego of internet fatties.

You do realise that Stas was referring to Britain with that opium statement, while you are referring to Japan with your South China sea tension right? Right?

Edit - and you still haven't explained away the blatant double standard. Oh wait, its ok for you to use one, but when we point it out, its just one up manship or some shit right?

[stormthebeaches]

I am pretty sure Stas is quite depressed over Russia's current state so he most probably doesn't care. In any event it seems like he was referring to those who still are antagonistic to China, or else why would China need to be strong enough to say "fuck you" to those other nations. Russia seems to be pretty low on the scale in terms of antagonism compared to some European nations to be honest.

Which European nations are antagonistic to China. And I mean properly antagonistic, the odd trade dispute that gets resolved through diplomacy doesn't count. Really, the nations that seem to be more antagonistic to China were ones that did not dominate it through imperialism in the past (Vietnam and the Phillipinnes over the South China sea dispute).

Also, this still doesn't change the fact that it is very hypocritical for a Russian to condemn the West for past crimes against China since Russia treated China just as bad (and no, Japan is not part of the West).

Indeed. Jester has brought up China's actions even as far back as the Korean war. The West routinely brings up Tiananmen even though that was a generation ago. But I guess its only "mindless posturing" when the other side does it. Brilliant double speak there.

Jester brought up the Korea War? Where? I don't see it in this thread? And the only Westerners which bring up Tiananmen square are ones who argue that China is inherently untrustworthy and cite Tiananmen as an example. No "double speak" there seeing as the Westerners who view China as untrustworthy do not favor stable and prosperous relations with China.

So when can we expect the West to shut up about China's past wrongs, for the sake of a stable and prosperous Asia-Pacific that is. No double standards there.

There is no double standard. Stas said that China should indulge in mindless posturings for past crimes. Jester said that would be a bad thing to do because it would harm Asia-Pacific relations. The fact is, neither China or the West bring up each others crimes because it would be bad for business.

You obviously can't comprehend that "West" can refer solely to European colonial powers and ignore the US, right?

No you can't. The term "The West" usually refers to Western Europe, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Furthermore, not to mention, in the case of China, two of the nations that dominated it through imperialism were not part of the west (Japan and Russia). Furthermore, this topic seemed to be started by a rate about American hypocrisy. If you only meant European colonial powers then you should have said so. You need to be more clear.

Its also quite amusing that China (even on this board a few years ago) got criticised when they responded to Japan glorifying war criminals and denying their crimes. Since then we have seen the US walk out of a speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad twice while he was addressing the UN. In 2010 and 2012, when he engaged in 9/11 conspiracy theories and holocaust denial. But when China does something similar, like pull out diplomats, why its sooo wrong. Especially considering more Chinese died from Japanese invasion than Americans and Jews in both those events.

There is a huge difference between pulling diplomats out of a country and having diplomats storm out of UN meeting. Also, there is a huge difference between statements and gestures made domestically and being made on the international stage.

In case of Russia, the assholes who grabbed Chinese land were promtply annihilated by the revolution in 17.

So your saying that past imperialism doesn't count if there is a clear break in continuity in government. In that case Japan should be absolved since modern Japan is nothing like Imperial Japan and there was a clear break in continuity in the form of being occupied by a foreign power for seven years and having said foreign power draft up a new constitution and government.

The US lent money to Britain in 1946 to help them recover from WWII. When did Britain finally pay all of it back? Ten years, twenty years maybe. Try 29 th December 2006. But surely, tax payers in 2005 aren't the same people who took out the loan from America, and are not responsible for taking out the loan which their grandparents did. Why should they pay?

I bet you no one will even apply this logic even twice to government debts, but strangely when it comes to compensation (which is a debt) it suddenly no longer a matter of asking the nation's government to pay (an entity which I might add outlasts people even if they do change administration), its suddenly unfair because we are asking grandchildren. Well you live in the country, you have to help pay its debts via taxes. Don't like it, find another country who will take you in. I might also add Japan does compensate for newly discovered left over WWII land mines in China which injure civilians. If we took the logic to its conclusion, they should not even have to compensate for that, because you know, modern day Japanese tax payers aren't the same ones who put the land mines there. I think Japan is willing to compensate for land mine injuries because they don't deny they left land mines in China. They won't compensate for stuff like the Rape of Nanking because they deny that happened.

Two big differences here. Firstly, Britain is still run by the same government that was around during World War 2, Japan is not. Secondly, Britain repaid its debts because it was financially capable of doing so. Japan is not capable of large scale war reparations thanks to 220% debt, rapidly aging population, and still not having recovered from Fukushima and the earthquake that brought it about.

[thejester]

That response speaks volumes about your actual interest in this.You don't give a shit about the content, you're just interested in games of one-up

Oh noes, an appeal to motive fallacy. Haven't seen those before.

Jesus Christ, it's like the perfect internet debating post. 'Oh my god you used a logical fallacy' followed by a line-by-line 'analysis' that spectacularly misses the wood for the trees. Here's the thing: at no point have I suggested China's rise is 'wrong', or put forward any of the double standards you are obsessing about. My sole point is that internet tough guy rage is a stupid way to go about international relations, and would further inflame tensions in a region already becoming increasingly and unnecessarily inflamed.

[stormthebeaches]

In hindsight this post was kind of dumb and the jester said what I was saying better than I did. Could a mod delete this?

[mr friendly guy]

Which European nations are antagonistic to China. And I mean properly antagonistic, the odd trade dispute that gets resolved through diplomacy doesn't count. Really, the nations that seem to be more antagonistic to China were ones that did not dominate it through imperialism in the past (Vietnam and the Phillipinnes over the South China sea dispute).

I was referring to trade disputes, criticisms of human rights etc. Obviously with your definition of "properly antagonistic" I can't find one that meets such criteria, but then I said those other European nations would have more disputes with China than Russia. That statement still stands.

Also, this still doesn't change the fact that it is very hypocritical for a Russian to condemn the West for past crimes against China since Russia treated China just as bad (and no, Japan is not part of the West).

Correct. However it is not hypocritical for a private Russian citizen to do the same, especially when he at the same time says it was wrong for Russia to treat China badly.

Jester brought up the Korea War? Where? I don't see it in this thread?

Obviously not in this thread? But he has done it in the past, so I am asking why is it ok for people / organisations other than China to do the same.

And the only Westerners which bring up Tiananmen square are ones who argue that China is inherently untrustworthy and cite Tiananmen as an example. No "double speak" there seeing as the Westerners who view China as untrustworthy do not favor stable and prosperous relations with China.

Did you even read what I wrote? I was pointing out they do the same thing as China does by dredging up the past. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I do have a problem when its somehow "mindless posturing" only when the side you don't like does it.

There is no double standard. Stas said that China should indulge in mindless posturings for past crimes. Jester said that would be a bad thing to do because it would harm Asia-Pacific relations. The fact is, neither China or the West bring up each others crimes because it would be bad for business.

Except he has brought up China's past actions as criticism. The West also does that. The double standard lies in why its ok for them to do it, but not ok for China to do it? In case you are wondering he brought it up here. A thread I might add you also contributed to. Thanks for playing

There is a huge difference between pulling diplomats out of a country and having diplomats storm out of UN meeting. Also, there is a huge difference between statements and gestures made domestically and being made on the international stage.

The US also pulls diplomats out of countries. The point you seem to miss is the reason for each country's actions. China snubs Japan because of WWII atrocity denial, the US snubs Iran because of 9/11 denial and holocaust denial. Somehow its only wrong for China to do it.

So your saying that past imperialism doesn't count if there is a clear break in continuity in government. In that case Japan should be absolved since modern Japan is nothing like Imperial Japan and there was a clear break in continuity in the form of being occupied by a foreign power for seven years and having said foreign power draft up a new constitution and government.

1. That was Stas.
2. He didn't because he said China is entitled to make a play for the Far East if they so choose. Which at the moment they don't.

Two big differences here. Firstly, Britain is still run by the same government that was around during World War 2, Japan is not.

I was unaware the Churchill administration was still running things. But if you want to go down that route, Russia still inherited debts from the USSR when the latter broke apart, even though its clearly a different government, governing different size countries. Try again.

Secondly, Britain repaid its debts because it was financially capable of doing so. Japan is not capable of large scale war reparations thanks to 220% debt, rapidly aging population, and still not having recovered from Fukushima and the earthquake that brought it about.

This is so stupid I don't know where to start. Are you for real? Japan isn't financially capable? An economy measured the trillions of USD can't find a few more billion over several years? Even if this was true now, it certainly wasn't true in their heyday when people were worried Japan would overtake the US.

[mr friendly guy]

Jesus Christ, it's like the perfect internet debating post. 'Oh my god you used a logical fallacy' followed by a line-by-line 'analysis' that spectacularly misses the wood for the trees.

Yes how I dare I point out the flaws in your argument. Nice to see you are still dodging the point genius. We don't reason in the jester world. No. Reason? Whats that?

Here's the thing: at no point have I suggested China's rise is 'wrong', or put forward any of the double standards you are obsessing about.

The double standard lies in the fact its wrong for China to dredge up the past for <insert reason here> but its ok for others to dredge up the past. You have done it numerous times on various topics on this board including in regards to China. In fact you did it right here. The only reason I seem to be "obsessing" over a double standard is, because you want to get away with using it. Thats my criticism of your point, which you kind of failed to note.

My sole point is that internet tough guy rage is a stupid way to go about international relations, and would further inflame tensions in a region already becoming increasingly and unnecessarily inflamed.

Aside from the double standard of course.

[thejester]

The double standard lies in the fact its wrong for China to dredge up the past for <insert reason here> but its ok for others to dredge up the past. You have done it numerous times on various topics on this board including in regards to China. In fact you did it right here. The only reason I seem to be "obsessing" over a double standard is, because you want to get away with using it. Thats my criticism of your point, which you kind of failed to note.

Fuck me, do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot? From that post:

Nah. China just directly supported the Khmer Rouge throughout their rise, reign and fall in Cambodia (even invading Vietnam in 1979 in response to the former's attempts to depose the KR), fought a war against UN forces for two years, continues to support brutal dictatorships in places like North Korea, Burma and Sudan, imprisons business executives it doesn't like, and is just as culpable as the US in the failure to address climate change.

The pattern of Chinese behaviour is no difference [sic] to that of the US, they just have less power and consequently less reach.

Clearly I am indulging an outrageous double standard here! None of which has anything to do with my original point anyway, that a deliberately outraged policy from China does it no good. It is not in the interests of China - specifically continued growth - to aggravate all of its neighbours through overly aggressive rhetoric about things that happened 150 years ago.

[mr friendly guy]

The double standard lies in the fact its wrong for China to dredge up the past for <insert reason here> but its ok for others to dredge up the past. You have done it numerous times on various topics on this board including in regards to China. In fact you did it right here. The only reason I seem to be "obsessing" over a double standard is, because you want to get away with using it. Thats my criticism of your point, which you kind of failed to note.

Fuck me, do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot? From that post:

Nah. China just directly supported the Khmer Rouge throughout their rise, reign and fall in Cambodia (even invading Vietnam in 1979 in response to the former's attempts to depose the KR), fought a war against UN forces for two years, continues to support brutal dictatorships in places like North Korea, Burma and Sudan, imprisons business executives it doesn't like, and is just as culpable as the US in the failure to address climate change.

The pattern of Chinese behaviour is no difference [sic] to that of the US, they just have less power and consequently less reach.

Clearly I am indulging an outrageous double standard here! None of which has anything to do with my original point anyway, that a deliberately outraged policy from China does it no good. It is not in the interests of China - specifically continued growth - to aggravate all of its neighbours through overly aggressive rhetoric about things that happened 150 years ago.

I know you are stupid, but what does the fact you also criticise the US have anything to do with it? Come up, dig up those last reserves of grey matter. You can do it. Ok maybe not.

I am saying it strangely is ok for OTHERS (including yourself) to dredge up the past, but its somehow not ok for China to do so. Since you obviously missed it the first time, I underlined it in the reply post. No, that service is free.

Translating that in your vernacular, its a classic example of the perfect internet debating post where you see one line (where you also criticise the US) and that spectacularly misses the wood for the trees (that its somehow wrong for China to bring up the past, but ok for others including yourself to do it).

BTW - I still trying to figure out how aggressive rhetoric against Britain will inflame tensions with Japan. This should be good.

Edit - so who shot who in the foot again?

[Metahive]

It is not in the interests of China - specifically continued growth - to aggravate all of its neighbours through overly aggressive rhetoric about things that happened 150 years ago.

What, will "aggressive rhetoric" suddenly cause China's neighbors to stop doing business with them? Get real. Quite a bit of first world economy is propping itself up on China, it's not going to happen, especially not over "aggressive rhetoric".

Also, why does China need to get over "events that happened a 150 years ago" (BTW, Japan's mistreatment of China is not "150 years ago") when,say, the UK hasn't even managed to get over fuckin' WWI yet and still feels the need to wave a poppy around every November? You know, if I were to lambaste the British for this ritual, you can be sure many a poster on this very board would be at my throat immediately.

[mr friendly guy]

Lets take a trip down memory lane

It's unbelievable Stern Hu hasn't got more airtime. Has he been fucking charged yet? It's such a blatant political powerplay, it's embarrassing to see cunts like this buttering up.

The cunt he was referring to was Western Australian premier Colin Barnett, and the link thejester posted said things like Indeed and he's reiterated that again today saying that Australian business has to quote him "dropped the ball" when it comes to Stern Hu and that we should be really focussing on getting on and doing business.

You know what, thejester is a douchebag, but he is absolutely right to raise the issue about China's treatment of Mr Hu. This is despite of course that such a move may raise tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and it may affect Australia's interests, which is continued economic growth. In fact, he criticised Colin Barnett for trying to play down tensions with China and looking after Australia's economic interests. Hmm.

By the same token China is entitled to raise criticisms as well. Its ridiculous that China must get over it, be magnanimous while every other fucking state and individuals like himself don't hold to the same standard. And he is too goddamn stupid to see the double standard even if you post a link showing him doing exactly the same thing.

BTW - I anticipate thejester is going to say wah wah that example is fucking recent wah wah wah. Yeah buddy, so were some of the other examples I listed in this thread, like historical denialism for instance.

[K. A. Pital]

As it stands, China's growth has already prompted an overt refocus from the US on the Asia-Pacific.

Lesson 1. Your nation's economy is growing? The US refocuses it's military. Why? Because.

It continues to cause great alarm in Japan, still the world's third largest economy.

Lesson 2. A nation which has endured genocide at your hands ca. 70 years ago and got shit nothing instead of billions of reparations has economic growth and contests some of your bullshit territorial claims which are driven by pure revanchism (you don't think Japan really needs the islands in the South China Sea which it renounced control of after WWII? Maybe you think Japan should also grab Sakhalin, Taiwan and Manchuria, after all, it controlled those at some point in history?) - causes "great alarm" in your nation, which occupied a huge swath of Chinese islands out of imperialist madness for half a century and occupied large swaths of Chinese land for decades. Killing millions. "Great alarm". Well what can I say, Japan can fuck itself.

I'd be fascinated to know what historical wrongs China is righting there

Lesson 3. History teaches you nothing. How about half a century of Japanese occupation of Formosa and all adjacent island territories which were captured in a blatant imperialist landgrab? God you're an ignoramus.

Having your leadership stand up and scream YOU GOT US HOOKED ON DRUGS SO FUCK YOU is stupid and likely to further escalate tensions in a way that doesn't need to happen, no matter how much it soothes the ego of internet fatties.

Yes, because China needs Britain... uh... something something? It's the other way round - China doesn't need Britain so as long as it has the US and the rest of Europe. Britain needs Chinese goods. And rare earths too. So China can relax and have fun and tell Britain to fuck off in a great multitude of ways to the satisfaction of a great many people. And the consequences would be... zero.

[mr friendly guy]

Its amazing isn't it? China saying "fuck you" is like Voldemort's killing curse or something. Quick the sky is falling. Raise tensions in the pacific and impact its continued economic growth. But actions with real consequences should be ignored. Because they are history or something. I am starting to think "tensions in the Asia-pacific region" is euphemism for <insert country here's> interest.

[K. A. Pital]

Genociding your way through China and never paying shit for it despite being the "third largest economy in the world" is okay. Does not cause "great alarm". Cause you see they have an aging population (nevermind they didn't pay shit at the zenith of their economic growth in the 1970-1980s either), cause you see they're deep in debt and must pay for this and that (as if that or a large number of elderly prevented Germany paying 70 billion in reparations without whining a single fucking day). Cause blah. Blah. Blah.

China verbally saying Japan's rulers and nationalists behave themselves like total pieces of shit, whitewash war criminals and refuse to compensate private individuals who endured endless horrors of the Japanese occupation, imprisonment, rape and mass experimentation on humans - this causes "great alarm", and China needs to shut up!

For the sake of the 大東亜共栄圏, I suppose.

[Ralin]

China verbally saying Japan's rulers and nationalists behave themselves like total pieces of shit, whitewash war criminals and refuse to compensate private individuals who endured endless horrors of the Japanese occupation, imprisonment, rape and mass experimentation on humans - this causes "great alarm", and China needs to shut up!

And turns a blind eye when their citizens hold protest marches, smash Japanese cars and businesses, assault Japanese citizens, etc.

[K. A. Pital]

And turns a blind eye when their citizens hold protest marches, smash Japanese cars and businesses, assault Japanese citizens, etc.

The exact opposite you mean:

According to Sing Tao Daily, the government sent in large numbers of armed police, who called for an end to the violent protests, began driving the protesters away and detaining several over-reacting protesters. On 14 September, the Shenzhen Police detained 4 protesters for violating private property rights by deliberately smashing roadside cars.

As for the reaction itself, I'd imagine quite a few German cars would get burned on the very same day a German politician would dare to go to Himmler's, Rosenberg's or Heydrich's grave and pay them respects as war heroes. Or if Germany said that it wants, say, to occupy some northern "terra nullus" islands which might have belonged to Norway for example. Maybe some Germans might get severely beaten too. But this never happened to my knowledge. So maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.

All I see is "shut up China - you've been terribly wronged of course, that's sort of an "open secret", but you have to take it like a bitch". The problem is, China no longer looks like a bitch.

[Ralin]

I just think that you're making unrealistic expectations here. Yeah, maybe it would be the right and decent thing for Japan to go as far as Germany did in admitting their historical misdeeds, paying reparations and driving it home to everyone who goes through their public education system. But Germany is on the pretty extreme end when it comes to fessing up to past crimes, and they had to be forced to do it. Maybe the US should have done the same thing back during the occupation, but the moment has passed. I think the best that can be hoped for is to focus on condemning the Japanese politicians who do outright deny or downplay atrocities instead of holding out for something that's just not going to happen.

Also conceded on the textbook issue.

[K. A. Pital]

I think expecting reparations to private individuals is perfectly realistic and the only thing precluding it is... well, Japanese government being a bunch of self-serving racist assholes, I guess.

And one more important note - the severity of the crime matters. Germany is on the extreme end because it's crimes have been extreme. Japan's crimes, especially in the Second Sino-Japanese War, were just as extreme if you ask me. Not a series of rape incidents, but a rape-massacre. Not a series of extrajudicial murders, but a wave of them. Not a defensive war but a pure war of agression, as pure as they come - in fact a sequence of pure wars of agression. Not just mistreatment of Chinese and many other prisoners of war, but their mass extermination. You know about how many (or shall I rather say, few) surviving Chinese were liberated by the Allies from Japan's incarceration, right?

[Kane Starkiller]

You can stop at "would succeed". There's no need to bring America to its knees (if only to humiliate it, perhaps). China succeding is enough. That would be the story of 1,5 billion men becoming a superpower from a bunch of warlord-controlled regions in a timespan of a century or so. The story of awesome. If there was a great divergence, this would be the great convergence. Of course, some payback might be delivered and some past wrongs remembered. "Inevitably, some upheavals of the social order might follow".

Chinese growth for the last few decades was awesome to be sure. It's recent aggressive expansionist policies in South China sea (directed mostly on Asian third world countries instead of the West!!?) not so much. When Vietnam of all places starts cozying up to US that might be a sign your foreign policy might be a tad too aggressive. And you think Chinese leaders should amp up the aggressive rhetoric?

Is that the justification for hegemony?

And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?

"Puffed up Croatians". How can you not love that guy.
But seriously I'm not sure what is your intent posting an article by Mr. German-nationalist-imperialist-racist Engels. Do you agree with his justifications for German imperialism? Or do you think I unwittingly agreed with him somewhere so you are throwing it in my face?

You obviously can't comprehend that "West" can refer solely to European colonial powers and ignore the US, right?

Not really since the West encompasses US too and conveniently leaves out Russia, one of the worst transgressors. Countries that did crimes have names and between them there are degrees of crimes.

[thejester]

I know you are stupid, but what does the fact you also criticise the US have anything to do with it? Come up, dig up those last reserves of grey matter. You can do it. Ok maybe not.

I am saying it strangely is ok for OTHERS (including yourself) to dredge up the past, but its somehow not ok for China to do so. Since you obviously missed it the first time, I underlined it in the reply post. No, that service is free.

Translating that in your vernacular, its a classic example of the perfect internet debating post where you see one line (where you also criticise the US) and that spectacularly misses the wood for the trees (that its somehow wrong for China to bring up the past, but ok for others including yourself to do it).

Are you seriously trying to compare me with the foreign policy of the world's largest country? Put it this way: if the US were to come out and say "you attacked and killed thousands of Americans in 1950 so fuck you' and then set mobs on the Chinese embassy, I would think it equally counterproductive and stupid. I don't see how that holds me, a private individual not responsible for the affairs of anyone but myself, to a double standard.

BTW - I still trying to figure out how aggressive rhetoric against Britain will inflame tensions with Japan. This should be good.

Edit - so who shot who in the foot again?

I only just caught Stas' little backpedal on what he meant in his initial comment. Sorry, but refering to 'the West' clearly implies more than Britain given that all of the European major powers and the US clearly did fuck over China in the second half of the 19th century. But whatever - let's say it did just refer to Britain. Then who cares? There's nothing in the original article to suggest Chinese leadership is throwing hand grenades at the UK. So I guess the only reason to write it is if you want to feel like an internet hero.

You know what, thejester is a douchebag, but he is absolutely right to raise the issue about China's treatment of Mr Hu. This is despite of course that such a move may raise tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and it may affect Australia's interests, which is continued economic growth. In fact, he criticised Colin Barnett for trying to play down tensions with China and looking after Australia's economic interests. Hmm.

This may come as a total surprise to you, but the Premier of Western Australia does not control the foreign and defence policy of Australia. And this may also comes as a surprise, but over the last five years - even as Australia's economy has become totally dependent on digging shit up and sending it to China - we have increasingly adopted policy that sees China as a threat. This includes the 09 Defence White Paper, the recent agreement to allow US troops to be based in Darwin, and increasing engagement with other regional countries in defence ties - as with talk of a formal alliance with Japan. Now before you go on rant about double standards, I think almost all of the things I just listed are silly and not in Australia's best interest. But they're happening.

snip

Sorry but at what point did I suggest this was China's fault, as opposed to an unfortunate by product of China's growth? Once again it's fascinating the way you, like friendly guy, assume that I hate China. I don't, but unlike you I can apparently look at the facts without feeling the need to take a side. It's a simple fact that the entire region is wary of China's growth. It's also clear that any refocus on a narrative of Chinese nationalism is designed as much for domestic as international consumption. My point is that that's a stupid way to do business. Deliberately stoking the fear of your neighbours has no upside and means China is less likely to get its way in regional disputes. Should, in an ideal world, Japan pay repatriations for what it did? Absolutely, but I seriously do not see that happening and particularly not if the Chinese leadership ramps up the heat. Of course it needs to be emphasised that the new Chinese leadership hasn't actually done that - it was just you, posturing.

Although I do have to say when I said that I'd love to know what historical wrongs China was righting, I was refering to their strongarming of Vietnam in the South China Sea.

[K. A. Pital]

Put it this way: if the US were to come out and say "you attacked and killed thousands of Americans in 1950 so fuck you' and then set mobs on the Chinese embassy, I would think it equally counterproductive and stupid. I don't see how that holds me, a private individual not responsible for the affairs of anyone but myself, to a double standard.

Thousands? So low? And that's right. It "attacked" Americans in the middle of another nation which was not American territory and never was. America's death toll in the bloody XIX and bloody XX centuries was terrifically small; it was always fighting abroad nay at home, never endured the horror of occupation or total war on their own soil, much less genocide. If America of all nations was going "you killed... uh... my soldiers... while they were abroad... fighting for... uh... our allies" - the world would erupt in a burst of laughter. Of course it would be perhaps injust, America did a great many good things. But it never endured hardship such as many other nations were forced through. So it has no "claims" to other nations. None.

I only just caught Stas' little backpedal on what he meant in his initial comment. Sorry, but refering to 'the West' clearly implies more than Britain given that all of the European major powers and the US clearly did fuck over China in the second half of the 19th century. But whatever - let's say it did just refer to Britain.

Learn your history. US was never deeply involved in the colonization of China. US did not plunder and destroy China's cities, US did not kill millions of Chinese, to my knowledge US was not selling opium to China and the US, in fact, alarmed by the European expansion into China, only tried to expand "business interest" in ca. 1900 - about the same time as Sun Yatsen, funded by Chinese American money, overthrew the Qing monarchy. So if anything, the US ignored China while Europe, and primarily Britain and France, two greatest culprits, were plundering and denigrating China, stomping on China's face with their shiny boots, and the US helped, perhaps unwittingly, China to eventually launch a revolution against all this shit. Or should I just refer you to Wikipedia?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations#Open_Door_Policy

So when did the US opress, invade, plunder China, occupy parts of China? Do tell.

My post did not refer to Britain alone. It refered to all Western parties complicit in what was going on in China in the XIX century. That includes Russia, but to a large degree excludes the United States. However, it includes France, Britain primarily and other European colonial empires.

Sorry but at what point did I suggest this was China's fault, as opposed to an unfortunate by product of China's growth? Once again it's fascinating the way you, like friendly guy, assume that I hate China. I don't, but unlike you I can apparently look at the facts without feeling the need to take a side. It's a simple fact that the entire region is wary of China's growth. It's also clear that any refocus on a narrative of Chinese nationalism is designed as much for domestic as international consumption. My point is that that's a stupid way to do business. Deliberately stoking the fear of your neighbours has no upside and means China is less likely to get its way in regional disputes. Should, in an ideal world, Japan pay repatriations for what it did? Absolutely, but I seriously do not see that happening and particularly not if the Chinese leadership ramps up the heat. Of course it needs to be emphasised that the new Chinese leadership hasn't actually done that - it was just you, posturing.

You are telling me about "facts" when you hardly even know that US wasn't by and large complicit in China's carving-up by European colonial powers in the XIX century? Really?

And please, just cut that fucking "ideal world" shit. Reparations for inflicting round the same damage as the Nazis did in Eastern Europe are an absolute normality. What you are saying is that you think the current abnormal situation is the norm. However, it's not. Just like in a pandemia, disease does not become the norm, it remains a disease and if untreated, might kill the population.

As for Chinese leadership saying nothing about Japan's refusal to pay reparations to individual war victims who sue Japan in court, that's a blatant falsehood:

On the day the two judgments were delivered, PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu
Jianchao made the following comments:

“The waiver of war reparations claims against Japan made by China in the China-
Japan Joint Communiqué was a political decision undertaken with the aim of
achieving amity and coexistence between the peoples of both countries. China
strongly opposes the Supreme Court of Japan’s actions in adopting a unilateral
interpretation of its provisions disregarding the repeated solemn representations
made by China. The interpretation of the China-Japan Joint Communiqué by the
Japanese Supreme Court is illegal and invalid. We call on the Government of Japan
to seriously address China’s concerns and resolve this problem appropriately.
During the invasion of China, Japan forced Chinese nationals to relocate and
treated them as slaves. This was a grave criminal act perpetrated against Chinese
people by Japanese militarism and remains a grave and present human rights
problem that has not been adequately resolved. The Chinese Government has
already requested Japan to effect an adequate resolution with a responsible attitude
to history.”

http://www.china.org.cn/english/news/209388.htm
http://sydney.edu.au/law/anjel/document ... 20Ryan.pdf

Moreover this has been a consistent Chinese position
http://www.scmp.com/article/386797/war- ... s-japanese

Why are you so ignorant? Of course China, as a state, can no longer demand reparations due to the settlement in 1972, but it has been supportive of the private compensation claims.

[K. A. Pital]

Chinese growth for the last few decades was awesome to be sure. It's recent aggressive expansionist policies in South China sea (directed mostly on Asian third world countries instead of the West!!?) not so much. When Vietnam of all places starts cozying up to US that might be a sign your foreign policy might be a tad too aggressive. And you think Chinese leaders should amp up the aggressive rhetoric?

Depends on the why and when and with whom. If China tells Japan or Britain to fuck off, that's good and long awaited. In a dispute between China and Vietnam I might as well side with Vietnam.

"Puffed up Croatians". How can you not love that guy. But seriously I'm not sure what is your intent posting an article by Mr. German-nationalist-imperialist-racist Engels. Do you agree with his justifications for German imperialism? Or do you think I unwittingly agreed with him somewhere so you are throwing it in my face?

Just demonstrating how important it is to put things into perspective. History is creative writing. Attemps to conserve, to keep things as they are, and especially maintain inequality between the First and the Third World are failing and I'm very glad that this is happening. Conservatism should die, for it is always the new which triumphs and the old which dies. Even the collapse of the USSR was a historically inevitable thing driven by the cold logic of history. We have to take and learn our lessons. And it's high time for the Gold&Silver Billion, the first industrialized nations, to be no longer able to just shove responsibility for their past crimes on somebody else or "ur pur ancestors" and stop bullying around Third World nations. Third World, rise! First and Second World, diminish and become first among equals, not a boot stomping on the human face!

And of course you support Engels. You support that the US (1) has a right to all territories it has now (2) nobody has a right to reclaim large swaths of territory from the US - despite the fact that this territory was cleansed by genocide and carved out from other troubled nations. You support these claims on the basis of practical impossibility of say, Indian reclamation of US territories.

Not really since the West encompasses US too and conveniently leaves out Russia, one of the worst transgressors. Countries that did crimes have names and between them there are degrees of crimes.

How does "West" leave out Russia when Russia was one of the European, Western colonial powers who carved up China? Oh wait I know how -in the Eurocentric world of Kane, Russia is an Eastern power. But from China's view Russia is a Western power. Moscow is waaay to the West, from the West they came and took over Manchuria. But then Japan took over it too. So East, West, everyone has to feel fucking sorry for what they did to China. ALL OF THEM MOTHERFUCKERS.

Russia, one of the worst transgressors

I'd say Russia goes next after Japan Britain and France. Perhaps a tie with France. So yeah, pretty high on the shit list. Japan, Britain (hard to judge who's first), France, Russia (payback time, though none of the candidates are in any shape to repay, lol) and then the rest of colonial European empires.

The US is nowhere to be found. In fact, I'm lecturing thejester right now on his idiotic claims that the US was party to pillaging of China in the second half of the XIX century when it was not.

But didn't we have that talk already, Kane? My opinion there has been final:

Surprisingly enough, imperialist rivalry carries the seed of destruction of empires. It might be paradoxical, but there are many examples. The rivalry between the Japanese and British Empires in Asia was not a small factor in the collapse of both empires. Whereas one imperialist entity which triumphs - that's just a boot trampling the human face forever. Maybe in the future, when there is a non-imperialistic possibility to unify the world, I could support that. But as of now, I can't. Honestly, I wish I could.

It has not changed since then. So there you go.

[mr friendly guy]

Are you seriously trying to compare me with the foreign policy of the world's largest country?

Ah, so you shot yourself in the foot and are trying to back pedal. First it was I accused you of a double standard which you somehow didn't work because you also criticise America. Now its a private individual has less responsibility. Tell me is this your final position, or will you be shifting it some more.

Put it this way: if the US were to come out and say "you attacked and killed thousands of Americans in 1950 so fuck you' and then set mobs on the Chinese embassy, I would think it equally counterproductive and stupid. I don't see how that holds me, a private individual not responsible for the affairs of anyone but myself, to a double standard.

Ah I see you are shifting the goal posts some more. No longer is it simply China says fuck you (which is exactly Stas position and as you can see he clearly advocates ignoring those countries instead of attacking them), but saying fuck you and attacking other countries as well. And for the final time you imbecile the double standard wasn't because you commit violence, its because you bring up the past in arguments, but China isn't allowed to. Keep clutching at straws to build that strawman. It will just make a bigger blaze.

I only just caught Stas' little backpedal on what he meant in his initial comment. Sorry, but referring to 'the West' clearly implies more than Britain given that all of the European major powers and the US clearly did fuck over China in the second half of the 19th century. But whatever - let's say it did just refer to Britain. Then who cares? There's nothing in the original article to suggest Chinese leadership is throwing hand grenades at the UK. So I guess the only reason to write it is if you want to feel like an internet hero.

1. I thought it was pretty obvious he was referring mainly to the UK, just as its obvious you are referring to Asian countries.
2. You have been on this board long enough and you don't realise sometimes topics gets somewhat side track? Thats why we have a split function.
3. Now some people like Kane did think he was also referring to the US, however it became obvious shortly after he wasn't referring to the US since both Stas and myself explained to Kane Starkiller that the US was a minor player. All this occurred before you joined in. Oops.

This may come as a total surprise to you, but the Premier of Western Australia does not control the foreign and defence policy of Australia.

This may come as a surprise to you, but how does that affect my position in anyway? Is this the same level of reading comprehension you are displaying when you accused me to shooting myself in the foot?

Please tell what has this got to do with 1) the fact Barnett in your opinion, shouldn't have "buttered up to China" while the Stern Hu saga was going on, even though this will decrease tension BUT at the same time you hold a position which states 2) China shouldn't bring up the past in disputes because it will increase tension.

One wonders if decreasing tension is so important, why did you have a hard on for Mr Barnett. Unless of course increasing or decreasing tension isn't the real reason, in which case just don't waste my time and just say the real reason.

I believe talking about who controls Australia's foreign policy in this context is called a red herring. Oh noes, I called you out on a logical fallacy, woe is me.

And this may also comes as a surprise, but over the last five years - even as Australia's economy has become totally dependent on digging shit up and sending it to China - we have increasingly adopted policy that sees China as a threat. This includes the 09 Defence White Paper, the recent agreement to allow US troops to be based in Darwin, and increasing engagement with other regional countries in defence ties - as with talk of a formal alliance with Japan. Now before you go on rant about double standards, I think almost all of the things I just listed are silly and not in Australia's best interest. But they're happening.

You are right. I won't call it a double standard it had nothing to do with what I said. I would normally thank you for new and interesting information, but I already knew it. However it sounds like what we are doing is possibly raising tensions (as we all military build ups), so why condemn Barnett when what is doing is decreasing tension. Oh, and if you bring up Stern Hu's well being I going to throw your "in an ideal world" line back at you, and say in an ideal world Chinese prosecutors should have charged him much faster instead of taking their sweet time, but that didn't happen, and what Barnett is doing is a good way of doing business.

[thejester]

Thousands? So low? And that's right. It "attacked" Americans in the middle of another nation which was not American territory and never was. America's death toll in the bloody XIX and bloody XX centuries was terrifically small; it was always fighting abroad nay at home, never endured the horror of occupation or total war on their own soil, much less genocide. If America of all nations was going "you killed... uh... my soldiers... while they were abroad... fighting for... uh... our allies" - the world would erupt in a burst of laughter. Of course it would be perhaps injust, America did a great many good things. But it never endured hardship such as many other nations were forced through. So it has no "claims" to other nations. None.

Ok, try this: do you think it is to the detriment of the region it is located in that Israel leans heavily on Holocaust guilt in its defence of policy towards the Palestinians?

So when did the US opress, invade, plunder China, occupy parts of China? Do tell.

The obvious answer to that is the Boxer Rebellion, where the US mission did all of those things. A more subtle answer would be that while US policy toward China was always less overtly imperialistic than the European powers during the 19th century it was hardly benevolent. US merchants had a considerable slice of the opium trade prior to 1830, and US trade in general benefited greatly from the Opium Wars. Note that the whole idea of 'Open Doors' was basically a construction of British military success during the Wars - the US only forcefully restated it fifty years later due to the growth of the 'spheres of influence' concept.

And please, just cut that fucking "ideal world" shit. Reparations for inflicting round the same damage as the Nazis did in Eastern Europe are an absolute normality. What you are saying is that you think the current abnormal situation is the norm. However, it's not. Just like in a pandemia, disease does not become the norm, it remains a disease and if untreated, might kill the population.

Well, keep living the dream. We'll see what happens.

As for Chinese leadership saying nothing about Japan's refusal to pay reparations to individual war victims who sue Japan in court, that's a blatant falsehood:

I was actually referring to your GAGF screed, not Japanese repatriations specifically.

[PainRack]

Chinese growth for the last few decades was awesome to be sure. It's recent aggressive expansionist policies in South China sea (directed mostly on Asian third world countries instead of the West!!?) not so much. When Vietnam of all places starts cozying up to US that might be a sign your foreign policy might be a tad too aggressive. And you think Chinese leaders should amp up the aggressive rhetoric?

Oh for god sake. What the hell is an "aggressive expansionist" policy? What it actually is is China has had claims on those islands since the freaking FOUNDATION of the Republic.

More importantly, has you actually looked at the context of the dispute from the Chinese POV and actually understand why the dispute is nothing more than a "We Chinese should stand up for our rights, especially now that we're strong again and not going to be bullied"?

In an interview with BBC, Dr. Balazs Szalontai provided a detailed analysis of this issue:

The general context of the Chinese declaration was the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in 1956, and the resulting treaties signed in 1958, such as the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. Understandably, the PRC government, though not being a member of the U.N., also wanted to have a say in how these issues were dealt with. Hence the Chinese declaration of September 1958. In these years, as I said before, North Vietnam could hardly afford to alienate China. The Soviet Union did not give any substantial support to Vietnamese reunification, and neither South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem nor the U.S. government showed readiness to give consent to the holding of all-Vietnamese elections as stipulated by the Geneva Agreements. On the contrary, Diem did his best to suppress the Communist movement in the South. This is why Pham Van Dong felt it necessary to take sides with China, whose tough attitude toward the Asian policies of the U.S. offered some hope. And yet he seems to have been cautious enough to make a statement that supported only the principle that China was entitled for 12-mile territorial seas along its territory but evaded the issue of defining this territory. While the preceding Chinese statement was very specific, enumerating all the islands (including the Paracels and the Spratlys) for which the PRC laid claim, the DRV statement did not say a word about the concrete territories to which this rule was applicable. Still, it is true that in this bilateral territorial dispute between Chinese and Vietnamese interests, the DRV standpoint, more in a diplomatic than a legal sense, was incomparably closer to that of China than to that of South Vietnam.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Chin ... ite_note-8

Oh no. The PRC wasn't part of the UN, as the UN seat was then still given to the ROC/Taiwan. The current existing international laws that defined fishing zones and stuff? Drafted up without PRC input, and more importantly, they outright deny the existing PRC claims to those territories, territories they claim should had reverted back to PRC rule after the disruption of WW2/Civil war. I mean, Japan gave back EVERY territory it occupied, right?

The claims languished in diplomatic limbo for decades, flaring up every now and again. What we're seeing is actually a push back by multiple interests against China decades long strategy to enforce 'control' in the region, so that it can actually back up its claim to those territories in an international court of law. By placing docks, lighthouses, radio stations, military patrols and fishing boats, it can claim it has more recent adminstration/control than the other disputants like Vietnam, this combined with its territorial claim/history would buttress its claims well in the ICJ, afterall, that's how Singapore won its territorial dispute with Pedra Branca and Malaysia won its dispute against Indonesia. Hell, its the same reason why Indonesia aggressively re-explored its island archipelego and other government actions during the late nineties/early noughties, so it can ensure Indonesia won't lose another territorial dispute.


Of course, you can claim its not kosher, for China to have claimed territories so far and to sideline Vietnam/Phillipines diplomatic efforts, or their attempts to prevent a coalition effort to push back Chinese assertion of control and of course, illegal fishing under current laws and etc.

But if NOTHING else, the South China Seas dispute more than adequately illustrate the point of how China views it should no longer be bullied on the world stage.


Of course, asserting its weight invariably means denying others their rights/claims too and that IS a major problem. It would however be idiotic and ethnocentric to simply paint this dispute too simplistically and ignore the Chinese POV.