China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[PainRack]

Errr, I would also like to point out that Vietnam and the other claimants has just as valid a territorial claim to those islands, from a mixture of both history,legalistic and other international norms. Just in case I seem to be one sided and not presenting the full picture.

[K. A. Pital]

What it actually is is China has had claims on those islands since the freaking FOUNDATION of the Republic.

But you see, nobody's interested in the history of China. People are interested in China-bashing - that's new. That's hot. That's so Yellow Dawn-ish.

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

Exactly. Japan's strategy to retake the Kuriles from Russia has been centered around an attempt to allow Japanese private investors to build up infrastructure in the nigh-deserted parts of the Kuriles and then say "See, we run the place? This means our old claim to it is legitimate". But Japan has a right for reviving claims to territories that it relinquished control of post-WWII - China doesn't.

The obvious answer to that is the Boxer Rebellion, where the US mission did all of those things.

The US had like 3000 men out of 55000 foreign invaders. So my point still stands - the US was on the sidelines of the European colonial exploitation of China. Japan, Britain, France and Russia were far more active. But if you feel that the involvement of the US in the Boxer Rebellion is a really bad episode of US-China relations, can't disagree here.

So then we can safely include all of the West - from Britain, France, Russia and other European colonial powers to the USA - and the Japanese Empire in the East. And whenever China says "fuck you" to any of these powers it's doing well. Because 100 years ago such a saying would result in thousands of foreign boots coming and smashing the poor Chinese heads for thinking too much about their "independence" and "sovereignity" and other silly concepts like that which are only reserved for first-tier powers.

[madd0ct0r]

I dunno about Japan, but I can't imagine Britain getting ruffled from a 'fuck you'. We know what we did, and China wasn't the worst of it.

also:

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?

Vietnam has fought China for thousands of years, the Americans were a mere decade of distraction. Seriously, the last war Vietnam fought was against China.

[Kane Starkiller]

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.

Except these things never work that way. Increased aggressive rhetoric can easily move the population and spin out of even the government control. And it is not only with Vietnam that China has clashed but Taiwan and Philippines to the point that Philippines and Japan are developing an alliance. In other words the countries of the third world including the ones exploited and subjugated by Japan and US are choosing US and Japan over China.

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!

Well as a citizen of a third world country I can certainly agree with that.
Though I'm afraid the actual division of the world is big and small. So I won't be holding my breath that China will become the champion of the third world. It's neighbors certainly aren't.

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.

Nothing you wrote above has any relation to the Engels' writing you quoted. Engels wrote that article in 1849 meaning that when he was describing US conquest of Mexican territory he was describing and justifying a contemporary event not some long past history. He was justifying the event not on the basis of impracticality or even immorality of returning the land that has long since been settled and developed by many generations of people but on the basis that certain races are simply better and more deserving that others.
Do you support that? If you do what is your general problem with US? It certainly was a successful country looking from that perspective growing from less than 3% of Chinese economy in 1820 to 140% today. Even if Chinese economy becomes double that of US by 2050 in historical terms US still gained on China. The story of awesome perhaps?

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.

Please. Don't insult both of our intellects by these pathetic evasions. We all know what countries are generally encompassed by the term "West" and Russia was never one of them.
And you probably meant "ALL OF US MOTHERFUCKERS" since your country was in there too right?

[K. A. Pital]

In other words the countries of the third world including the ones exploited and subjugated by Japan and US are choosing US and Japan over China.

Irrelevant. There are several easy things which Third World politicians remember. Do not choose and do not align in the truest meaning of the world. Find gullible sponsors, then dupe them for their money. Rise by any means necessary, break the chains and then make new alliances on a new level, as an equal. If you're not yet an equal, repeat the steps described above.

Well as a citizen of a third world country I can certainly agree with that. Though I'm afraid the actual division of the world is big and small. So I won't be holding my breath that China will become the champion of the third world. It's neighbors certainly aren't.

China already became a champion of the Third World by lifting over a billion Third Worlders out of colonial yoke, then warlordism and then poverty. Nay an ally to be "beefed up", it managed to manuever politically and break the hostility from US and Europe, and rise.

It cannot become a champion for others, but it is good enough that it is a champion for 20% of the world's population.

Do you support that?

Nah - Engels stooped low with that and betrayed his declared internationalism. Marx said that progress came through torment and Britain's half-baked modernization of Indostan does not excuse the fields strewn white with the bones of the weavers of India. My position is that it does not matter if 200 or 300 years have passed, retribution is often well-deserved as the present position of one and the other is the result of past actions. The Indian American genocide decimated the Natives irreversibly and there's no way they could have now had an America to settle, to explore and to build a civilization in. They lost that path, it was closed forever. No matter their primitive position, the path-locking is a severe transgression. The entire modern world is built on a series of such transgressions. The least that I can do is to support the Third World unconditionally and leave all Third World disputes to members thereof.

Even if Chinese economy becomes double that of US by 2050 in historical terms US still gained on China.

Uh... from zero to early XX century industrial level is one story. From zero to XXI century superindustrial level - that's a lot more cool. It's not a story of coal and iron; it's a story of electronics, space... And India's "story of software" is also a lot more awesome than the US. Software is not a weapon of war; electronics are not tools of imperialism. Coal and iron ushered the era of violent overtaking and carving up of the entire world sans a few irrelevant bits by a tiny bunch of white racists who were pompous, cruel and genocidal. India's and China's rise does not mean they will grab the land of the First World, drug them to death with opium, genocide them, put them into reservations and start chemical experiments on 'em. They make electronics and software.

So their story is the story of awesome. The First World's story is a story which fills me with intense anger - they were granted weapons which at the time nobody had and they used them, used them with all their strength. China and India are not granted any superweapons that would allow them to make the same deadly mistakes as the imperialists did.

And you probably meant "ALL OF US MOTHERFUCKERS" since your country was in there too right?

I'm in Germany like good old revolutionaries and I don't give a shit about the modern Russian Empire reborn. I do not consider Czar Putin's realm "my country" any longer as I've been out and gone without remorse. As someone said, a working man has no homeland; it must first be won. It's them. It's that nation, as those of us in Russia who aren't happy with the government sometimes say.

[mr friendly guy]

I find thejester's "in an ideal world but..." argument interesting. Because I can simply turn it around and use it to justify the opposite position. Not to mention any position.

For example I can state - in an ideal world China should be just keep quiet like a good little boy and ignore Japan's provocation. However for some strange reason they choose to ignore the massacre of millions of their citizens, and I seriously do not see the ideal thing happening, particularly if the Japanese keeps on making provocations. Having the Japanese leadership stand up and scream war crimes didn't happen 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 Japanese nationalists internet fatties. Its clear that a deliberately provocative policy from Japan does it no good. It is not in the interests of Japan - specifically continued growth any growth at all after another recession- to aggravate its leading export market.

This "in an ideal world but..." argument by thejester rests on a suppressed premise that the onus should be on China to make the ahem, conciliatory moves. The premise is not even stated much less justified with any arguments.

In fact going on, I would argue that the spats between China and Japan (at the current intensity) hasn't really affected China's continued growth even though its been going on in higher intensity since 2005 at least, because China was experiencing double digit (or close to double digit) growth. To be fair it hasn't affected Japan's lack of growth either, because their growth has been floundering for ages... except for two episodes. The first was REE ban which would have done damage if prolonged, and Japan folded in that dispute. The second is the boycott of Japanese car manufacturers by private citizens, and as the latest figures show, the current quarter is bad, worse than the previous quarter which already have negative growth, forcing Japan in a recession. So if you accept economic growth and being good for business as desirable, even at the expense of what you think is right, one would think Japan should be the one making conciliatory gestures.

[hongi]

That's not entirely accurate. Though the sincerity and completeness of those apologies can be questioned.

I'm as pro-China as anyone on these forums, but I don't think it can be denied that the PRC government uses the issue to distract attention from their own problems and shortcomings. And while I'll be the first to criticize Japanese politicians who do glorify war criminals the fact is that I don't think there's anything the Japanese government could do to satisfy the Chinese public.

I'm told the same is true in Korea and probably other parts of Asia.

There's a lot of annoying things with South Korea and its citizens, like the mindless nationalism that gets a pass there. Yes anti-Japanese sentiment is still there and it's used as a convenient political weapon by the people in charge. But contrary to popular belief, I don't believe that this racism is so deep and engrained that Koreans can't be assuaged by genuine, meaningful actions on the part of the Japanese government. But when has that been done? Why hasn't Japan gone as far as Germany?

[tim31]

Crippled with shame, that's why.

Oh, and one of the world's most insular, racist cultures. Could have something to do with it.

Just guessing though.

[stormthebeaches]

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.

Given the massive amount of trade China does with the West, some trade dispute are inevitable. Trade disputes happen between countries all the time and do not mean an "antagonistic" relationship. Similarly, the occasional tut-tut over human rights abuses (that is more for domestic consumption than anything) is not the sign of an antagonistic relationship. If Western countries start to seriously consider sanctions against China, then we can talk about antagonistic relations.

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.

Its okay for Jester to do so because his words have no sway on the international arena. Are you seriously comparing an individual to a national government?

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.

Its okay for them to do it because they are not in positions of power and therefore their words will not have an impact in the international area the way the words of a national government would. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, if Barrack Obama or David Cameron or Angela Merkel started bring up stuff that Mao did I would be opposed to that as well. I do not approve of people who try to whip up anti-China sentiment but the idea that a national government and a private individual/organization are comparable is completely absurd.

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.

Taking a look that that thread I see that Jester was responding to someone else who was bring up past American crimes to claim that China had a better international record by pointing out past Chinese actions. You are taking his statements completely out of context to make him look like some sort of rabid hatemonger. Also, Jester is a private individual, not a national government. You are comparing two private individuals getting into an argument of the internet over which country as a better/worse record to hypothetical statements made by a national government on the international stage. Do I have to explain how absurd that it?

Oh, and "thanks for playing"? So because I couldn't remember what an internet poster said on a board that I took a long break from two years ago you have to imply that I am being dishonest? Really?

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.

As I previously stated, when Japan engaged in that case WW2 denial (building the shrine) it was done domestically. When Iran engaged in 9/11 conspiracies and holocaust denial it was done on the international stage (the UN summit). There is a big difference between offensive stuff being done on the domestic stage and offensive stuff being done on the international state. Furthermore, whilst both China and the USA snubbed the respective countries they did so in very different ways. There is a difference between storming out of a UN meeting while the representative of another country is saying something offensive and withdrawing diplomats from another country. The later is a much bigger snub.

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.

I was addressing Stas. I should have made it more clear. My apologies.

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.

For most of the early 20th century Japan was a fascist nation dominated by a military so extreme that it would murder Japanese Prime Ministers who proposed peace. After World War 2 Japan went under foreign military occupation for seven years and had a new constitution and government drawn up by the foreign powers that occupied it whilst the militarists who previously dominated Japan were tried for war crimes. Japan is now a pacifist liberal democracy with a military that is practically non-existent. In my mind this is a clear break of the continuity of the Japanese government. In contrast, Britain is still run by the same constitutional monarchy that was around during WW2. There has been no violent change of government and no break in continuity. As for Russia, while it is true that current Russia held onto USSR debts, this was born of of a desire to maintain good relations with the rest of the world and it is not uncommon for a nation emerging from a violent revolution or civil war to refuse to recognize national debt on the ground that the debt was part of a past government.

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.

Look below the surface and you will find that Japan is a mess. It has a debt of 220% of its GDP, an economy that has been stagnant for two decades, and a rapidly aging population. The current Japanese economy is heading for a collapse in 10-20 years due to these factors. Furthermore, given the immense size of the Chinese population, any money Japan gives for reparations would have to dwarf the German reparations in order to be meaningful. Maybe Japan could have paid for it in its heyday in the 1980s but now it is too late.

[stormthebeaches]

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.

Of course a private individual has less responsibility than a national government. Private individuals saying things on the interest has no impact unless said private individual has a large amount of fame. National governments of powerful countries saying things on the world stage have a lot of impact.

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.

Raising tensions in the Asia-pacific region is not in anyone's interests. Least of all China.

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

Many people in Japan are afraid that China will come looking for vengance for wrongs in World War 2. If China engages in aggressive rhetoric against Britain for the opium wars these will increase Japanese fears that China will come after it for WW2 crimes. This in turn would strengthen the currently marginalized far right parties in Japan, who if they can gain more power and influence, would do something stupid like attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

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.

Diplomacy does not exist in a vacuum. If China acts aggressively towards Japan or Britain, Vietnam will wonder if it is next and might built up its military as a result, which in turn will inflame tensions in the region even more so.

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.

I don't approve of any actions that needlessly inflame tensions but there is a difference here. Mainly that China is still run by the Chinese Communist Party, whilst Japan is no longer run by a fascist military dictatorship and no longer has an empire. As for the situation in Australia, I do not know enough about Australia politics to comment.

This reminds me, on the topic of hypocrisy, is it not hypocritical for the PRC to denounce Japan for whitewashing its past whilst the PRC whitewashes the worst parts of its rule? And don't try to accuse me of hypocrisy on this matter, there is a big difference between a private individual making on the internet and a national government making statements on the international stage.

[mr friendly guy]

Given the massive amount of trade China does with the West, some trade dispute are inevitable. Trade disputes happen between countries all the time and do not mean an "antagonistic" relationship. Similarly, the occasional tut-tut over human rights abuses (that is more for domestic consumption than anything) is not the sign of an antagonistic relationship. If Western countries start to seriously consider sanctions against China, then we can talk about antagonistic relations.

Totally missing my point that China currently has better relationships with Russia than those countries mentioned. Whether you call the relationship "properly antagonistic" is up to you. But clearly some countries like the UK continue to push for maintaing the ban on ALL arms sales to China period, while Russia is at least willing to sell some stuff. So clearly less antagonistic.

Its okay for Jester to do so because his words have no sway on the international arena. Are you seriously comparing an individual to a national government?

Since you obviously haven't read the thread since then, Jester objects to a government official doing something which will raise tensions (when its China doing the raising of tensions) but objects to other officials trying to decrease tension (when its in regards to something he doesn't like). That is contradiction in terms. Either keeping tensions calm is more important than some human rights violations, or its not, and grievances should be aired.

Its okay for them to do it because they are not in positions of power and therefore their words will not have an impact in the international area the way the words of a national government would. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, if Barrack Obama or David Cameron or Angela Merkel started bring up stuff that Mao did I would be opposed to that as well. I do not approve of people who try to whip up anti-China sentiment but the idea that a national government and a private individual/organization are comparable is completely absurd.

Then why is he objecting to Stas saying it. Isn't Stas a private individual?

Taking a look that that thread I see that Jester was responding to someone else who was bring up past American crimes to claim that China had a better international record by pointing out past Chinese actions. You are taking his statements completely out of context to make him look like some sort of rabid hatemonger. Also, Jester is a private individual, not a national government. You are comparing two private individuals getting into an argument of the internet over which country as a better/worse record to hypothetical statements made by a national government on the international stage. Do I have to explain how absurd that it?

Way to take me out of context, quite ironic considering you are taking me out of context. Jester tried the same trick. Didn't work then either. You know why"? I didn't accuse him of being some sort of rabid hatemonger. I am accusing him stating its ok to a) dredge up the past b) do things to increase tensions when it suits him, but insists that China cannot do the same. The argument he is trying to win by bringing up the past is irrelevant. Only the fact that it was ok for him to bring up the past to win an argument, but its not ok for China to bring up the past to win an argument. Before you say private individual, I put forward an example of an official doing the opposite in trying to decrease tension which Jester objects to, and there are numerous cases where other states have brought up past wrong doings by geopolitical rivals, so no excuses.

Oh, and "thanks for playing"? So because I couldn't remember what an internet poster said on a board that I took a long break from two years ago you have to imply that I am being dishonest? Really?

No. I found it strange you wouldn't realise that I was obviously referring to what he said elsewhere given that you didn't see him type it in this thread.

As I previously stated, when Japan engaged in that case WW2 denial (building the shrine) it was done domestically. When Iran engaged in 9/11 conspiracies and holocaust denial it was done on the international stage (the UN summit). There is a big difference between offensive stuff being done on the domestic stage and offensive stuff being done on the international state. Furthermore, whilst both China and the USA snubbed the respective countries they did so in very different ways. There is a difference between storming out of a UN meeting while the representative of another country is saying something offensive and withdrawing diplomats from another country. The later is a much bigger snub.

This is special pleading especially in light of the US have withdrawn diplomats from countries it didn't like as well. I fail to see why using a bigger snub in response to a bigger crime is soo bad. As hard as it is to believe, more Chinese died in the Japanese invasion than Americans in 9/11, and Jews in the Holocaust. Which gives you an idea how heinous Japan's actions were.

I was addressing Stas. I should have made it more clear. My apologies.

Fair enough.

For most of the early 20th century Japan was a fascist nation dominated by a military so extreme that it would murder Japanese Prime Ministers who proposed peace. After World War 2 Japan went under foreign military occupation for seven years and had a new constitution and government drawn up by the foreign powers that occupied it whilst the militarists who previously dominated Japan were tried for war crimes. Japan is now a pacifist liberal democracy with a military that is practically non-existent. In my mind this is a clear break of the continuity of the Japanese government. In contrast, Britain is still run by the same constitutional monarchy that was around during WW2. There has been no violent change of government and no break in continuity. As for Russia, while it is true that current Russia held onto USSR debts, this was born of of a desire to maintain good relations with the rest of the world and it is not uncommon for a nation emerging from a violent revolution or civil war to refuse to recognize national debt on the ground that the debt was part of a past government.

Yet Japan still honours those soldiers who died defending another government. But I will make it easy for you. The we are a new government so we don't have to pay doesn't apply. You know why? Because Japan has compensated victims (albeit a miserly sum compared to Germany), even though its a totally different government. Since you have been reading this thread you can see where this was pointed out. The problem is, not because the Japanese argue "its a long time ago" or "we are a totally different government", but because they deny these particular crimes happen. They compensate for crimes they acknowledge, but not ones they pretend never happen. Its amazing how you use arguments which Japan doesn't even use, and which Japan acts contradictory to.

Look below the surface and you will find that Japan is a mess. It has a debt of 220% of its GDP, an economy that has been stagnant for two decades, and a rapidly aging population. The current Japanese economy is heading for a collapse in 10-20 years due to these factors. Furthermore, given the immense size of the Chinese population, any money Japan gives for reparations would have to dwarf the German reparations in order to be meaningful. Maybe Japan could have paid for it in its heyday in the 1980s but now it is too late.

Ignoring for a moment this doesn't explain how an economy in trillions can't afford a few billion over several years. Since I have to do the thinking for you, ask them print money. And before you go inflation, thats exactly what Shinzo Abe is suggesting Japan does to stimulate its economy.

Of course a private individual has less responsibility than a national government. Private individuals saying things on the interest has no impact unless said private individual has a large amount of fame. National governments of powerful countries saying things on the world stage have a lot of impact.

Addressed earlier.

Raising tensions in the Asia-pacific region is not in anyone's interests. Least of all China.

Except of course the point is, saying fuck you will barely do anything, hence why I mocked it with comparisons to Voldemort's killing curse. This is borne out by the fact China has done worse than saying "fuck you" such as pulling diplomats and it still experienced double digit growth, despite Jester's fear that raising tensions will affect "continued growth".

Many people in Japan are afraid that China will come looking for vengance for wrongs in World War 2. If China engages in aggressive rhetoric against Britain for the opium wars these will increase Japanese fears that China will come after it for WW2 crimes. This in turn would strengthen the currently marginalized far right parties in Japan, who if they can gain more power and influence, would do something stupid like attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

I guess thats why China executed British citizen Akmal Shaikh for drug smuggling with people blatantly casting allusions to the Opium Wars, Japan panicked and ... except it didn't happen..

I don't approve of any actions that needlessly inflame tensions but there is a difference here.

The problem lies in what you consider "needlessly". Apparently raising WWII atrocities is needless, but criticising China for taking a long time to charge someone who they arrested is not. Nice to see the standards.

Mainly that China is still run by the Chinese Communist Party, whilst Japan is no longer run by a fascist military dictatorship and no longer has an empire. As for the situation in Australia, I do not know enough about Australia politics to comment.

I really can't see how that has to do with "needlessly inflaming tensions", and spells like a jibe against China because you don't like their form of government.

This reminds me, on the topic of hypocrisy, is it not hypocritical for the PRC to denounce Japan for whitewashing its past whilst the PRC whitewashes the worst parts of its rule?

Correct. Both sides should come clean. Only problem is, China blames things like the Cultural revolution on Mao, Japan denies the Rape of Nanking ever happened. Even with secretive China thats a big difference.

And don't try to accuse me of hypocrisy on this matter, there is a big difference between a private individual making on the internet and a national government making statements on the international stage.

Its more than just a private individual can bring up the past if they so choose, while a government official shouldn't. Its that government officials do bring up the past, but its only wrong for China to do it.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe Japan could have paid for it in its heyday in the 1980s but now it is too late.

That's the only part of your argument which actually tries to be serious, but it is largely irrelevant. Now Japan has a lot less to pay than Germany had to in the 60s, 80s and 90s when most of the victims were still alive. Now the great majority are dead simply due to old age, and so Japan would hardly even need to undertake an effort that could cripple its economy.

Many people in Japan are afraid that China will come looking for vengance for wrongs in World War 2.

Doubt they are. Japan is protected by the US, could easily get their own nuclear weapons and Japan's Navy could sink most of the Chinese Navy in a 1-1 battle, I would presume. Japan does not have a "nonexistent military" nowadays. What they are afraid of is actually (1) admitting that in WWII they were not the victim (2) admitting that they massacred so many people in China and Korea that Chinese and Koreans will not simply "forget" this issue conveniently (3) paying up for their crimes.

I'll deal with the rest later.

[stormthebeaches]

Totally missing my point that China currently has better relationships with Russia than those countries mentioned. Whether you call the relationship "properly antagonistic" is up to you. But clearly some countries like the UK continue to push for maintaing the ban on ALL arms sales to China period, while Russia is at least willing to sell some stuff. So clearly less antagonistic.

Russia may have slightly better relations with China than the West but that hardly makes China's relationship with the West "antagonistic". As for Britain, that country seems to be an exception as the rest of the EU is happy to sell weapons to the Chinese. Not to mention, China is more than capable of making its own weapons so its not like an arms ban sale would be crippling.

Then why is he objecting to Stas saying it. Isn't Stas a private individual?

He was saying that Stas's proposal (China adopting a more aggressive stance on the grounds that it was wronged in the past) was dumb. He was forcefully expressing a disagreement with Stas's point. He was not saying that Stas should never have made the point on the grounds that it would raise tensions in the region. That would be absurd as Stas is a private individual and the stuff he says on an internet message board as no weight on the international arena.

Way to take me out of context, quite ironic considering you are taking me out of context. Jester tried the same trick. Didn't work then either. You know why"? I didn't accuse him of being some sort of rabid hatemonger. I am accusing him stating its ok to a) dredge up the past b) do things to increase tensions when it suits him, but insists that China cannot do the same. The argument he is trying to win by bringing up the past is irrelevant. Only the fact that it was ok for him to bring up the past to win an argument, but its not ok for China to bring up the past to win an argument. Before you say private individual, I put forward an example of an official doing the opposite in trying to decrease tension which Jester objects to, and there are numerous cases where other states have brought up past wrong doings by geopolitical rivals, so no excuses.

There is a huge difference between a private individual dredging up the past on an internet message board and the national government of a powerful nation dredging up the past on the international stage. As for the Chinese official, that was not in the link you provided that I was responding to. That link showed Jester getting into an argument with another contributor on this site over which country had a worse record, America or China.

No. I found it strange you wouldn't realise that I was obviously referring to what he said elsewhere given that you didn't see him type it in this thread.

The politics form policy thread specifically states that one should not hold grudges and jump on people because they said stupid stuff in the past. I assumed that you were not breaking those rules and therefore would not be referencing past threads. And to any moderators reading this, I am not attempting to backseat mod in any one, I am merely trying to explain my reasoning to Mr Friendly Guy.

Since you obviously haven't read the thread since then, Jester objects to a government official doing something which will raise tensions (when its China doing the raising of tensions) but objects to other officials trying to decrease tension (when its in regards to something he doesn't like). That is contradiction in terms. Either keeping tensions calm is more important than some human rights violations, or its not, and grievances should be aired.

Back when Jester made that comment he was referring to an ongoing human rights abuse in China (treatment of Stern Hu). There is a big difference between dredging up a crimes committed several decades ago by a different government and crimes currently being commented. Furthermore, Jester's issue seemed to be based on the callous statements of the Australian official regarded the human rights abuse (saying that ongoing human rights abuses should be swept under the rug in favor of business, just replace China with, say, Saudi Arabia to see how callous that statement is). Before you jump on me I would like to stress that I for one do not believe that it is worth to bring up China's human rights record as I think maintaining good relations with the country is more important. However, I still recognize the difference between what Jester was saying and what Stas is proposing.

This is special pleading especially in light of the US have withdrawn diplomats from countries it didn't like as well. I fail to see why using a bigger snub in response to a bigger crime is soo bad. As hard as it is to believe, more Chinese died in the Japanese invasion than Americans in 9/11, and Jews in the Holocaust. Which gives you an idea how heinous Japan's actions were.

If we are going by pure body count the Japanese crimes are worse. However, if we going by a percentages the Nazis killed a much larger percentage of Jews than the Japanese did Chinese. If we going by motive the Nazis were far worse than the Japanese (Imperial Japan never wanted to exterminate all Chinese people). So I would be careful stating that Imperial Japan's actions were more heinous that Nazi Germany's.

However, even if we assume that Japan's crimes are worse the issue is not so much the size of the crime by how the government engaged in denialism over said crime. In Japan's case the denialism was done in the domestic sphere. In Iran's case, the denialism was done on an international form. Doing it on the international stage is considered worse than doing it domestically. Furthermore, the Chinese snub seemed to be out of proportion to the Japanese offense. Having your diplomats storm out of an international forum whilst another nation is doing something offensive in said form is a proportionate response. Withdrawing your diplomats from a nation because the nation did something offensive in the domestic sphere is an out of proportion response.

Yet Japan still honours those soldiers who died defending another government. But I will make it easy for you. The we are a new government so we don't have to pay doesn't apply. You know why? Because Japan has compensated victims (albeit a miserly sum compared to Germany), even though its a totally different government. Since you have been reading this thread you can see where this was pointed out. The problem is, not because the Japanese argue "its a long time ago" or "we are a totally different government", but because they deny these particular crimes happen. They compensate for crimes they acknowledge, but not ones they pretend never happen. Its amazing how you use arguments which Japan doesn't even use, and which Japan acts contradictory to.

You misunderstand me. I am not trying to justify Japan's denialism. I think that Japan's denial of its past war crimes and glorification of war criminals is heinous and Japan should own up to them. However, this would not justify China acting in the manner that Stas suggested. Two wrongs do not make a right. As for Japan honoring the soldiers who died defending the past government, it all depends on context. Paying your respect for your war dead is acceptable (to my knowledge German does a similar thing with its WW2 dead). Honoring war criminals is reprehensible and should be opposed. Still, none of this changes the fact that there is a clear break in continuity between modern Japanese government and Imperial Japanese government and that the two governments are very different.

Ignoring for a moment this doesn't explain how an economy in trillions can't afford a few billion over several years. Since I have to do the thinking for you, ask them print money. And before you go inflation, thats exactly what Shinzo Abe is suggesting Japan does to stimulate its economy.

Given the vast size of China and the Chinese population, Japan would have to give far more than Nazi Germany for reparations to be anything other than a meaningless gesture. And just because Shinzo Abe proposed something stupid it doesn't mean that I should as well.

Except of course the point is, saying fuck you will barely do anything, hence why I mocked it with comparisons to Voldemort's killing curse. This is borne out by the fact China has done worse than saying "fuck you" such as pulling diplomats and it still experienced double digit growth, despite Jester's fear that raising tensions will affect "continued growth".

National governments making hostile statements can raise fear and unease in the populace of the nation the hostile statements are directed at. If the populace is fearful and uneasy enough right wing parties will be strengthened and they will use their new influence to push for enlarging the military, which in turn will make other nations uneasy and raise tensions. If tensions get raised high enough we will have things like trade wars, skirmishes in contested areas and maybe even an actual war. Just because raising tensions hasn't hurt Chinese growth at the moment it does not mean that raising tensions even more (which will happen if China acts in the war Stas suggests) won't hurt Chinese growth.

I guess thats why China executed British citizen Akmal Shaikh for drug smuggling with people blatantly casting allusions to the Opium Wars, Japan panicked and ... except it didn't happen..

Japan didn't back because China was executing a individual for crimes that that individual had committed. If China starts waging economic war on Britain as revenge for the opium wars this could cause alarm in the Japanese population as they will worry if they are next. This in turn will strengthen the currently marginalized right wing parties in Japan.

The problem lies in what you consider "needlessly". Apparently raising WWII atrocities is needless, but criticising China for taking a long time to charge someone who they arrested is not. Nice to see the standards.

Again, back when Jester made that comment it was an on going issue. There is a difference between bring on an ongoing issue and something that happened three generations ago.

I really can't see how that has to do with "needlessly inflaming tensions", and spells like a jibe against China because you don't like their form of government.

The difference is that Tiananmen Square as conducted under the leadership of the CCP. That government is still running China and this leads to debates out if such an incident could happen again and if the CCP has sufficiently reformed to ensure that it won't (this is a debate I do not wish to get into). Japan, in comparison, is no longer a fascist nation run by a cable of militarists but a liberal democracy with pacifism written into its constitution. Not only that, Japan is much weaker now relative to its neighbors than it was then and could not go on another rampage across South East Asia even if it wanted to. There is no fear of Japan repeating what it did during World War 2.

Correct. Both sides should come clean. Only problem is, China blames things like the Cultural revolution on Mao, Japan denies the Rape of Nanking ever happened. Even with secretive China thats a big difference.

To my knowledge the CCP refuses to acknowledge must of the things Mao did.

Its more than just a private individual can bring up the past if they so choose, while a government official shouldn't. Its that government officials do bring up the past, but its only wrong for China to do it.

Except in the case you cited it wasn't a government official bringing up the past. It was a government official saying that the media of his country shouldn't focus on what was a then on going human rights abuse at the time.

[stormthebeaches]

That's the only part of your argument which actually tries to be serious, but it is largely irrelevant. Now Japan has a lot less to pay than Germany had to in the 60s, 80s and 90s when most of the victims were still alive. Now the great majority are dead simply due to old age, and so Japan would hardly even need to undertake an effort that could cripple its economy.

So your saying that rather than paying the whole of China for past crimes Japan pay individual citizens? That sounds reasonable.

Doubt they are. Japan is protected by the US, could easily get their own nuclear weapons and Japan's Navy could sink most of the Chinese Navy in a 1-1 battle, I would presume. Japan does not have a "nonexistent military" nowadays. What they are afraid of is actually (1) admitting that in WWII they were not the victim (2) admitting that they massacred so many people in China and Korea that Chinese and Koreans will not simply "forget" this issue conveniently (3) paying up for their crimes.

Yes they are. There is a great deal of fear in Japan about China's rise and China coming for revenge. I was exagerating about Japan having a virtually non-existant military but the point is that Japan's military is very small is heavily reliant on the USA for protection (and from the Japanese point of, the US might throw Japan under a bus to maintain trade relations with China). And yes, the Japanese navy could defeat the Chinese navy at the moment but it might not be able to in ten years time and that is what the Japanese are afraid of.

As for Japan trying to acquire nuclear weapons, that is exactly what I am afraid of. That is, China acts aggressively towards Japan, Japan gets scared and tries to acquire nuclear weapons which massively inflame tensions in the region.

[K. A. Pital]

So your saying that rather than paying the whole of China for past crimes Japan pay individual citizens? That sounds reasonable.

Okay, now I'm going to ask you this: did you read the fucking thread? Seriously, all of a sudden you give me this. Ever wonder what we were discussing a bit before? Here's some trivia: "whole of China" can no longer demand any reparations from Japan as a state body due to the agreements signed in 1972, where China's government forfeits reparation demands. However, Japan refuses to pay even private individuals in China because it does not consider this to be a crime worthy of paying for. Which obviously causes China to make harsh statements about Japan being unable to come to terms with what it did in China and Korea.

Yes they are. There is a great deal of fear in Japan about China's rise and China coming for revenge. I was exagerating about Japan having a virtually non-existant military but the point is that Japan's military is very small is heavily reliant on the USA for protection (and from the Japanese point of, the US might throw Japan under a bus to maintain trade relations with China). And yes, the Japanese navy could defeat the Chinese navy at the moment but it might not be able to in ten years time and that is what the Japanese are afraid of. As for Japan trying to acquire nuclear weapons, that is exactly what I am afraid of. That is, China acts aggressively towards Japan, Japan gets scared and tries to acquire nuclear weapons which massively inflame tensions in the region.

Wait, the Japanese are afraid that their Navy won't totally curbstomp the Chinese one in 10 years? Hmm... sounds like a cause for concern. Not. It's like the US - "everyone has to stay fucking weak, stay down and keep low" and "they have 1 aircraft carrier we have 11 - they are planning to take over the world, we can't afford a carrier gap!!!" Japan can shove their paranoia where it belongs, and that's their ass. China is not going to risk Chinese lives to occupy Japan. It doesn't need Japan and the heyday of such foolishness is long past us (except for countries like the US still stuck in that paradigm).

Point is, Japan cannot hinder the rise of China and Japan cannot make China or the Chinese shut their mouth about Japanese policy in occupied South-East Asia. That's a given. My suggestion is to stop being butthurt about it.

As for Japan honoring the soldiers who died defending the past government, it all depends on context. Paying your respect for your war dead is acceptable (to my knowledge German does a similar thing with its WW2 dead). Honoring war criminals is reprehensible and should be opposed.

Germany neither honors war criminals nor refuses to compensate their victims, Japan does both. That's really simple. Japan honors the same people who were involved in and responsible for the planning and execution of Japan's decades-long colonial policy in SEA. Japan poses as a victim (because it was occupied after the war). Japan's anti-war stance is more of a product of fear and victim complex (we got the bomb thrown on us!), than a product of true reflection on its own actions.

[mr friendly guy]

Russia may have slightly better relations with China than the West but that hardly makes China's relationship with the West "antagonistic". As for Britain, that country seems to be an exception as the rest of the EU is happy to sell weapons to the Chinese. Not to mention, China is more than capable of making its own weapons so its not like an arms ban sale would be crippling.

Are you deliberately reading one part and going on tangents? The fact that China is capable of making its own weapons isn't the issue. The part about Britain refusing arms sales is an illustration of the antagonism some European countries hold towards China. You are literally redefining what antagonistic means. You have been doing this numerous times, that is simply restating your position even though its been demolished.

He was saying that Stas's proposal (China adopting a more aggressive stance on the grounds that it was wronged in the past) was dumb. He was forcefully expressing a disagreement with Stas's point. He was not saying that Stas should never have made the point on the grounds that it would raise tensions in the region. That would be absurd as Stas is a private individual and the stuff he says on an internet message board as no weight on the international arena.

But buddy, since a private individual on a message board can't affect the Chinese government, there is no need to object.

There is a huge difference between a private individual dredging up the past on an internet message board and the national government of a powerful nation dredging up the past on the international stage. As for the Chinese official, that was not in the link you provided that I was responding to. That link showed Jester getting into an argument with another contributor on this site over which country had a worse record, America or China.

Both arguments was addressed last post you dyslexic ignoramus. It wasn't just Jester dragging up the past, its been pointed out there are examples of people bringing up the past including other governments than China, even if we accept the bullshit rule which you guys just pulled out of your arse that its only bad for governments to do so.

The argument Jester was in is not relevant to my point. My point was to illustrate him using the same tactics he says Stas / China shouldn't use. Again this was explained and I am can see you choose to ignore it.

The politics form policy thread specifically states that one should not hold grudges and jump on people because they said stupid stuff in the past. I assumed that you were not breaking those rules and therefore would not be referencing past threads. And to any moderators reading this, I am not attempting to backseat mod in any one, I am merely trying to explain my reasoning to Mr Friendly Guy.

Referencing past threads is now holding a grudge now? Hard for it to be a grudge when I didn't attack him for saying that in the old thread, don't you think. I use the thread to illustrate that he himself doesn't hold the standard he advocates. This was stated numerous times in various ways, but you just choose to ignore that point.The fact he hasn't tried to say, "I change my mind," or "I was wrong previously" just supports my position.

Back when Jester made that comment he was referring to an ongoing human rights abuse in China (treatment of Stern Hu). There is a big difference between dredging up a crimes committed several decades ago by a different government and crimes currently being commented.Furthermore, Jester's issue seemed to be based on the callous statements of the Australian official regarded the human rights abuse (saying that ongoing human rights abuses should be swept under the rug in favor of business, just replace China with, say, Saudi Arabia to see how callous that statement is).

However it was used to illustrate his point about how important stability and not raising tensions is. If not raising tensions is soooo important, it doesn't matter whether a provocative discussion centres on recent events, or less recent ones. You are metaphorically failing to see the forest from the trees.

Moreover its quite clear you guys see a man being held without charge worse than the death of millions.

If we are going by pure body count the Japanese crimes are worse. However, if we going by a percentages the Nazis killed a much larger percentage of Jews than the Japanese did Chinese. If we going by motive the Nazis were far worse than the Japanese (Imperial Japan never wanted to exterminate all Chinese people). So I would be careful stating that Imperial Japan's actions were more heinous that Nazi Germany's.

And so we get to this stage from the original point that America snubs people for holocaust denial, but its somehow wrong for China to do the same for Japan's WWII denial. Are you seriously trying to play down Japanese war crimes by saying, oh well they didn't want to exterminate every Chinese person, so its not that bad.

However, even if we assume that Japan's crimes are worse the issue is not so much the size of the crime by how the government engaged in denialism over said crime. In Japan's case the denialism was done in the domestic sphere. In Iran's case, the denialism was done on an international form. Doing it on the international stage is considered worse than doing it domestically.

But genius, what happened to diplomacy does not exist in a vacuum. If Japan does it at home, it will be seen, reported, and has international ramifications. The fact you can't see that lots of things aim for domestic consumption has international ramifications just beggars belief.

You are literally just making more and more excuses up. Why don't you just come out and say it - that its ok for some countries to behave in a certain fashion, other countries must do so in a different fashion.

Furthermore, the Chinese snub seemed to be out of proportion to the Japanese offense. Having your diplomats storm out of an international forum whilst another nation is doing something offensive in said form is a proportionate response. Withdrawing your diplomats from a nation because the nation did something offensive in the domestic sphere is an out of proportion response.

Your claim of disproportionate is unjustified. Do point out out his unwritten rule which you just pulled out of your arse about "domestic spheres" and international spheres.

But hey, whatever happened to your belief about a need to maintain good relations? Apparently the onus is only on China and Japan can ignore that by just shouting domestic sphere.

You misunderstand me. I am not trying to justify Japan's denialism.

No, you just keep on making excuses for them. You have repeatedly said they shouldn't have to pay because of reasons x,y said which have never stopped anyone else compensating.

I think that Japan's denial of its past war crimes and glorification of war criminals is heinous and Japan should own up to them. However, this would not justify China acting in the manner that Stas suggested.

Yes because in your world saying "fuck you" is a bigger crime than denying the murders of millions of people. But hey, two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs do not make a right. As for Japan honoring the soldiers who died defending the past government, it all depends on context. Paying your respect for your war dead is acceptable (to my knowledge German does a similar thing with its WW2 dead). Honoring war criminals is reprehensible and should be opposed. Still, none of this changes the fact that there is a clear break in continuity between modern Japanese government and Imperial Japanese government and that the two governments are very different.

No one denies the governments are different moron. The previous post pointed out that argument is invalid despite the claim being true. You are simply restating your position again after its been demolished.

Given the vast size of China and the Chinese population, Japan would have to give far more than Nazi Germany for reparations to be anything other than a meaningless gesture.

Except of course, I already stated billions as an upper limit, so stop making some super high figure and saying they can't pay it. In fact lets channel you - two wrongs don't make a right. Japan pretending a wrong never happen, doesn't make it right. Japan not compensating for it doesn't make a right. They should pay up. Unless you mean 3 wrongs make a right.

And just because Shinzo Abe proposed something stupid it doesn't mean that I should as well.

Ah, but if they are going to print money anyway, then you have no grounds to object to them not being able to pay. Try again.

BTW - that is just one of the myriad of ways they can afford to pay.

National governments making hostile statements can raise fear and unease in the populace of the nation the hostile statements are directed at. If the populace is fearful and uneasy enough right wing parties will be strengthened and they will use their new influence to push for enlarging the military, which in turn will make other nations uneasy and raise tensions. If tensions get raised high enough we will have things like trade wars, skirmishes in contested areas and maybe even an actual war.

I know this is a hard concept for you, but empirical evidence triumphs your theory everytime no matter how nice or eloquent your theory sounds.

Just because raising tensions hasn't hurt Chinese growth at the moment it does not mean that raising tensions even more (which will happen if China acts in the war Stas suggests) won't hurt Chinese growth.

So prove it. Hard to believe especially when China does worse than just saying "fuck you" without adverse conseuqences. Which I mentioned before and you ignored again.

Japan didn't back because China was executing a individual for crimes that that individual had committed. If China starts waging economic war on Britain as revenge for the opium wars this could cause alarm in the Japanese population as they will worry if they are next. This in turn will strengthen the currently marginalized right wing parties in Japan.

You are slipping buddy. Your dishonesty is starting to show now. Hint - no one actually mentioned waging economic war (as opposed to China could survive one with Britain) with Britain. You however did claim mentioning the Opium war will raise tensions. I just proved that this event where it was mentioned did not. Ergo, you lose.

The problem lies in what you consider "needlessly". Apparently raising WWII atrocities is needless, but criticising China for taking a long time to charge someone who they arrested is not. Nice to see the standards.

Again, back when Jester made that comment it was an on going issue. There is a difference between bring on an ongoing issue and something that happened three generations ago.

I really can't see how that has to do with "needlessly inflaming tensions", and spells like a jibe against China because you don't like their form of government.

The difference is that Tiananmen Square as conducted under the leadership of the CCP. That government is still running China and this leads to debates out if such an incident could happen again and if the CCP has sufficiently reformed to ensure that it won't (this is a debate I do not wish to get into). Japan, in comparison, is no longer a fascist nation run by a cable of militarists but a liberal democracy with pacifism written into its constitution. Not only that, Japan is much weaker now relative to its neighbors than it was then and could not go on another rampage across South East Asia even if it wanted to. There is no fear of Japan repeating what it did during World War 2.

One wonders what all this has got to do with my point, that describing China's form of government (and Japan's form of government) has nothing to do with your claim about "needlessly inflaming tensions" and is just an attack because you don't like china's form of government.

To my knowledge the CCP refuses to acknowledge must of the things Mao did.

They say he did something like 20% mistakes or some such figure.

Except in the case you cited it wasn't a government official bringing up the past. It was a government official saying that the media of his country shouldn't focus on what was a then on going human rights abuse at the time.

Er, the Holocaust denial examples. Israel milking the holocaust example. The Tiananmen exampleas a reason not to sell weapons to China. These were mentioned and you choose to ignore them.

You didn't read the thread did you? Come on, fess up.

[K. A. Pital]

mr friendly guy, it's hopeless. He can't even comprehend only private Chinese individuals can seek compensation from Japan (and they've been told by Japan to bugger off), and Japan is denying the right of individuals to seek compensation. It's not about the government even. Japan flat-out doesn't give two shits. Germany paid its compensation out to indviduals.

They say he did something like 20% mistakes or some such figure.

30%.

[mr friendly guy]

And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, if Barrack Obama or David Cameron or Angela Merkel started bring up stuff that Mao did I would be opposed to that as well. I do not approve of people who try to whip up anti-China sentiment but the idea that a national government and a private individual/organization are comparable is completely absurd.

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.

As for Britain, that country seems to be an exception as the rest of the EU is happy to sell weapons to the Chinese. Not to mention, China is more than capable of making its own weapons so its not like an arms ban sale would be crippling.

So when can I expect your criticism of Britain's refusal to have the EU sell weapons to China over Tiananmen, despite being more than 2 decades ago (that of course does not preclude the Chinese no longer wanting to buy). After all you don't approve of a government trying to whip up anti-China sentiment, and its clear you believe Britain should have good relations with China.

Saying you want don't to bring up the past is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean much when a) every other country does it, hence China is disadvantage when its not allowed to and b) when the other countries do it, you actually defend them by playing it down (from Britain's refusal to sell arms over events more than 20 years ago, to Japan glorifying war criminals). In other words you don't even practice what you preach.

@Stas - yeah you are right. This guy is either incredibly stupid, or just downright dishonest.

[stormthebeaches]

Are you deliberately reading one part and going on tangents? The fact that China is capable of making its own weapons isn't the issue. The part about Britain refusing arms sales is an illustration of the antagonism some European countries hold towards China. You are literally redefining what antagonistic means. You have been doing this numerous times, that is simply restating your position even though its been demolished.

And as I stated, Britain is an exception as the rest of the EU has no problem selling weapons to China and Britain's refusal does not harm China at all. The fact of the matter is that Europe as a whole is a major trading partner with China and things like Britain's refusal to sell weapons is an exception to the norm. If anything, it is you who is attempting to redefine the terms antagonistic because branding refusing to sell arms to another nation antagonistic would make the term antagonistic being so overused that it would be meaningless.

Both arguments was addressed last post you dyslexic ignoramus. It wasn't just Jester dragging up the past, its been pointed out there are examples of people bringing up the past including other governments than China, even if we accept the bullshit rule which you guys just pulled out of your arse that its only bad for governments to do so.

The argument Jester was in is not relevant to my point. My point was to illustrate him using the same tactics he says Stas / China shouldn't use. Again this was explained and I am can see you choose to ignore it.

The example you cited was not the case of another government bringing up the past. It was the case of a government official attacking the media in his country for focusing on an on going human rights abuse with a major trading partner because it was bad for business. Your example is not what you said it is. And once again, it is okay for Jester to use these tactics because he is a private citizen engaging in an internet debate, not a national government engaging in international diplomacy. The two are not at all comparable.

But buddy, since a private individual on a message board can't affect the Chinese government, there is no need to object.

This part of the message board is dedicated to discussing politics. It would defeat the point of being here is you didn't object to people expressing opinions you disagree with.

Referencing past threads is now holding a grudge now? Hard for it to be a grudge when I didn't attack him for saying that in the old thread, don't you think. I use the thread to illustrate that he himself doesn't hold the standard he advocates. This was stated numerous times in various ways, but you just choose to ignore that point.The fact he hasn't tried to say, "I change my mind," or "I was wrong previously" just supports my position.

In the form policy thread it quite clearly says to treat someone if their a new person for each thread and not to reference past threads to discredit them in current threads. Furthermore, Jester does not need to hold himself for the standard he advocates for a national government because he himself is not a national government engaging in international diplomacy but a private individual engaging in a internet debate. The two are not remotely comparable. Jester himself even implied as such when he likened the diplomacy that Stas would like China to take to "internet tough guy" behavior. Thus implying that there are different standards between individuals engaging in internet debates and national governments engaging in international diplomacy.

However it was used to illustrate his point about how important stability and not raising tensions is. If not raising tensions is soooo important, it doesn't matter whether a provocative discussion centres on recent events, or less recent ones. You are metaphorically failing to see the forest from the trees.

Moreover its quite clear you guys see a man being held without charge worse than the death of millions.

You have completely missed my point. It is not that killing millions is worse than holding a man with charge. It is about events that are three generations in the past versus on going issues (treatment of Stern Hu was an on going issue when Jester was talking about it).

Are you seriously trying to play down Japanese war crimes by saying, oh well they didn't want to exterminate every Chinese person, so its not that bad.

Now you are engaging in a strawman. I never said that Japanese war crimes were "not that bad". I objecting to your statement that Japanese war crimes were worse than Nazi war crimes.

But genius, what happened to diplomacy does not exist in a vacuum. If Japan does it at home, it will be seen, reported, and has international ramifications. The fact you can't see that lots of things aim for domestic consumption has international ramifications just beggars belief.

I never said that stuff done domestically does not have an international impact. Just that it will have much less of an impact and will be considered much less offensive than something done on the international stage.

Your claim of disproportionate is unjustified. Do point out out his unwritten rule which you just pulled out of your arse about "domestic spheres" and international spheres.

Common sense? Think of it this way. Imagine the US President saying to a crowd of people in Alabama "The Chinese are untrustworthy, remember Tiananmen square". Now image the US President saying the same thing at a UN summit. agree that the later would be considered more offensive and provocative than the former.

But hey, whatever happened to your belief about a need to maintain good relations? Apparently the onus is only on China and Japan can ignore that by just shouting domestic sphere.

I never said what Japan did was okay. But this does not change the fact that withdrawing diplomats was a massive overreaction. A more proportionate reaction would be to complain to the UN and draw comparisons to Nazi Germany.

No, you just keep on making excuses for them. You have repeatedly said they shouldn't have to pay because of reasons x,y said which have never stopped anyone else compensating.

All I said was that your comparison to Japan to Britain was flawed for reasons I previously stated.

Yes because in your world saying "fuck you" is a bigger crime than denying the murders of millions of people. But hey, two wrongs don't make a right.

Its not that saying "fuck you" is a crime. It is that saying "fuck you" can inflame tensions in an increasingly tense region.

No one denies the governments are different moron. The previous post pointed out that argument is invalid despite the claim being true. You are simply restating your position again after its been demolished.

You implied that with your statement "Yet Japan still honours those soldiers who died defending another government" in response to my statement that there is a clear break in continuity between the governments of Imperial Japan and modern Japan. And no, my argument as not been demolished considering that this argument was opposed to your argument that the continuity of government between Britain and Japan are comparable.

Except of course, I already stated billions as an upper limit, so stop making some super high figure and saying they can't pay it. In fact lets channel you - two wrongs don't make a right. Japan pretending a wrong never happen, doesn't make it right. Japan not compensating for it doesn't make a right. They should pay up. Unless you mean 3 wrongs make a right.

Yes, it is wrong for Japan to engage in denialism. And yes, they should be paying money to specific individuals who they wronged. But the fact that Japan does not do this does not give China the right to engage in aggressive actions and rhetoric that will only inflame tensions in the region.

Ah, but if they are going to print money anyway, then you have no grounds to object to them not being able to pay. Try again.

Are they going to print money. Or was this just an idea that will never get approval by the rest of the government.

I know this is a hard concept for you, but empirical evidence triumphs your theory every time no matter how nice or eloquent your theory sounds.

So, what are you disputing? That raising tensions can lead to an arms race? Or hurt trade relations? Or lead to skirmishes in contested areas? That right wing parties generally thrive on xenophobia and fears of national security? Because the fact of the matter is, there is already an arms race going on in South East Asia. And nations in that region are forming alliances. Here are a few articles on the arms race http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 567750.stm and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 95198.html. If China were to act in a manner that Stas suggested it would only make things worse, to the detriment of all.

So prove it. Hard to believe especially when China does worse than just saying "fuck you" without adverse conseuqences. Which I mentioned before and you ignored again.

Are you seriously arguing that raising tensions in the region (and thus the potential for war) will not hinder Chinese growth? And yes, China taking a "fuck you" stance will make things worse because it will be combined with the previous stuff you mentioned China doing to create an impression in the minds of China's neighbors that China is aggressive and not interested in sensible negotiations.

You are slipping buddy. Your dishonesty is starting to show now. Hint - no one actually mentioned waging economic war (as opposed to China could survive one with Britain) with Britain. You however did claim mentioning the Opium war will raise tensions. I just proved that this event where it was mentioned did not. Ergo, you lose.

Stas seemed to strongly imply that it would be good if China refused to sell (or at least made it difficult to sell) Britain goods it needs for its industry due to Britain's imperialist past (mainly the opium wars, something he has mentioned several times in this thread). Furthermore, there is a huge difference between mentioning the opium wars in the context of punish an individual for a crime that committed and mentioning the opium wars as a justification for a hostile stance against another country. You are comparing private individuals to national governments again.

One wonders what all this has got to do with my point, that describing China's form of government (and Japan's form of government) has nothing to do with your claim about "needlessly inflaming tensions" and is just an attack because you don't like china's form of government.

My point was that China is still run by the government that committed Tiananmen Square is still in charge of China and this leads to fears if such an event could happen again. On the other hand, Japan is not going to go on another rampage across South East Asia for the reasons I have already mentioned. That is the difference between bring up Tiananmen Square and Japan's WW2 crimes in the context of the modern day. Now, I am in no way supporting people who bring up Tiananmen Square as proof of China being untrustworthy or whatever. However, I recognize that there is a difference between bringing up Tiananmen Square in the context of the modern day and Japan's WW2 crimes in the context of the modern day.

They say he did something like 20% mistakes or some such figure.

That is hardly recognizing the horrors of things like the cultural revolution or the great leap forward.

Er, the Holocaust denial examples. Israel milking the holocaust example. The Tiananmen exampleas a reason not to sell weapons to China. These were mentioned and you choose to ignore them.

You didn't read the thread did you? Come on, fess up.

Its quite ironic that you accuse me of not having read the thread when it is clear that you did not read most of the examples you posted. The "Holocaust denial" example was a case of US diplomats storming out of a UN summit because Iran said something offensive at said summit. It was not the case of the US digging up unsavory actions in Iran's history to bash the country on the international stage.

The "Isreal milking the holocaust" example was used as an argument against China by saying that China using other nations past wrongs against it would be on par with what Israel is currently doing. No one ever said that what Israel is doing is okay.

[stormthebeaches]

Okay, now I'm going to ask you this: did you read the fucking thread? Seriously, all of a sudden you give me this. Ever wonder what we were discussing a bit before? Here's some trivia: "whole of China" can no longer demand any reparations from Japan as a state body due to the agreements signed in 1972, where China's government forfeits reparation demands. However, Japan refuses to pay even private individuals in China because it does not consider this to be a crime worthy of paying for. Which obviously causes China to make harsh statements about Japan being unable to come to terms with what it did in China and Korea.

I got you and Friendly Guy blurred together. That happens sometimes when I am debating multiple people. Sorry.

Wait, the Japanese are afraid that their Navy won't totally curbstomp the Chinese one in 10 years? Hmm... sounds like a cause for concern. Not. It's like the US - "everyone has to stay fucking weak, stay down and keep low" and "they have 1 aircraft carrier we have 11 - they are planning to take over the world, we can't afford a carrier gap!!!" Japan can shove their paranoia where it belongs, and that's their ass. China is not going to risk Chinese lives to occupy Japan. It doesn't need Japan and the heyday of such foolishness is long past us (except for countries like the US still stuck in that paradigm).

Its not that the Japanese navy won't curbstomp the Chinese navy in 10 years. Its that in ten years the Chinese navy will be superior to the Japanese navy. Just some numbers, by the end of the decade China will to 2-3 carriers. Japan has no aircraft carriers and will still have no aircraft carriers by the end of the decade. Japan is a rapidly declining power and China is a rapidly rising one. Aggressive Chinese rhetoric will only increase Japanese fears of China coming for revenge, it doesn't have to be as extreme as an occupation, China could simply blockade Japan with the superior navy it will have by the end of the decade. This doesn't mean that China would do it but if Japan fears that it might Japan might attempt to gain nuclear weapons, which would be a disaster. You can rant about Japanese paranoia all you like but at the end of the day that Japanese feelings with be considered to deflate tensions in the region.

Germany neither honors war criminals nor refuses to compensate their victims, Japan does both. That's really simple. Japan honors the same people who were involved in and responsible for the planning and execution of Japan's decades-long colonial policy in SEA. Japan poses as a victim (because it was occupied after the war). Japan's anti-war stance is more of a product of fear and victim complex (we got the bomb thrown on us!), than a product of true reflection on its own actions.

I never said that German honors war criminals and refuses to compensate victims. And while I think Japan's denial over its WW2 past is wrong this does not justify increasing the tensions in the region.

mr friendly guy, it's hopeless. He can't even comprehend only private Chinese individuals can seek compensation from Japan (and they've been told by Japan to bugger off), and Japan is denying the right of individuals to seek compensation. It's not about the government even. Japan flat-out doesn't give two shits. Germany paid its compensation out to indviduals.

Saying I'm hopeless before I even have a chance to explain myself? Really?


@ Friendly Guy

So when can I expect your criticism of Britain's refusal to have the EU sell weapons to China over Tiananmen, despite being more than 2 decades ago (that of course does not preclude the Chinese no longer wanting to buy). After all you don't approve of a government trying to whip up anti-China sentiment, and its clear you believe Britain should have good relations with China.

Saying you want don't to bring up the past is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean much when a) every other country does it, hence China is disadvantage when its not allowed to and b) when the other countries do it, you actually defend them by playing it down (from Britain's refusal to sell arms over events more than 20 years ago, to Japan glorifying war criminals). In other words you don't even practice what you preach.

First of all, I would like to appologize as the arms embargo covers all of the EU, not just Britain. I was wrong. Secondly, the arms embargo was enacted in direct response to the Tiananmen square massacre, in 1989, just a few months after the massacre. Its not like Western governments are just now, after twenty years, bring up Tiananmen square. Thirdly, Tiananmen square has some relevance to the modern day because the government that did it is still in charge of China and there is the question of the Chinese government being sufficiently reformed to prevent such massacres from occurring again. In comparison, there is no chance of Japan going on another rampage across South East Asia. Finally, since 2004 the EU has been considering lifting the ban on China, so its not like it will be held indefinately.

@Stas - yeah you are right. This guy is either incredibly stupid, or just downright dishonest.

You have been trying to compare private individuals engaging in internet debates to national governments engaging in international relations. You are in no position to call anyone stupid or dishonest.

[PainRack]

Except these things never work that way. Increased aggressive rhetoric can easily move the population and spin out of even the government control. And it is not only with Vietnam that China has clashed but Taiwan and Philippines to the point that Philippines and Japan are developing an alliance. In other words the countries of the third world including the ones exploited and subjugated by Japan and US are choosing US and Japan over China.

I would like to point out that the "aggressive" rheoteric here isn't FROM the government per se but rather from alternate factions in the party, goaded on by the population.
The 'closest' to aggressive rheoteric would be the Jiang Zemin and other government officials comments during Asiapac conference when Vietnam/Phillipines rejected the idea of direct talks settling the dispute.

All the talk about China would not hesitate to use force to settle the argument come from the official equivalent of Fox News or Mitt Romney....

[K. A. Pital]

Saying I'm hopeless before I even have a chance to explain myself? Really?

Either you read the thread or you don't. I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot read the discussion.

Stas seemed to strongly imply that it would be good if China refused to sell

I did not imply that. I said that now the tables have turned and Britain needs China more than China "needs" Britain (not that it needed it in the first place, of course).

[stormthebeaches]

I would like to point out that the "aggressive" rheoteric here isn't FROM the government per se but rather from alternate factions in the party, goaded on by the population.
The 'closest' to aggressive rheoteric would be the Jiang Zemin and other government officials comments during Asiapac conference when Vietnam/Phillipines rejected the idea of direct talks settling the dispute.

All the talk about China would not hesitate to use force to settle the argument come from the official equivalent of Fox News or Mitt Romney....

Its not that China is engaging in aggressive rheoteric at the moment. Its that Stas advocated that China should engage in aggressive rheoteric in the future. This would be a bad idea for reasons that have been repeatedly stated in this thread.

Either you read the thread or you don't. I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot read the discussion.

Come off it. I got you and Friendly Guy blurred together on one quote out of about twenty that I was juggling. I was under the impression that Friendly Guy was advocating that Japan as a nation pay compensations to China as a nation. Now that I see that Friendly Guy is not proposing that so I withdraw my previous objections.

I did not imply that. I said that now the tables have turned and Britain needs China more than China "needs" Britain (not that it needed it in the first place, of course).

Sorry, but between your comments definately left me with the impression that you thought it would be good for China to refuse to sell (or at least make it difficult for Britain) to buy the materials it needed for its industry. But this still does not change my original point that if China starts holding Britain's feet over the fire for the Opium Wars would inflame Japanese fears.

[K. A. Pital]

I think that if Britain alienates China, then China would be able to meaningfully retaliate. If China alienates Britain, then Britain... will do shit. It's not that big of a market for Chinese goods. So it is in the interests of Britain not to stir the pot, while China can curse at Britain any day and still feel itself at ease. Japan's more useful as a market for China, at the very least.

I said that I wouldn't object to China telling Japan or Britain to go fuck themselves once in a while just to make them remember. Telling as in diplomatically communicating, you know. Not shelling them with ammunition from guns, not going to war. Just telling.

If your nation can't stand a bit of perfectly legitimate criticism without shitting their pants, and if it wants other nations to shut up, then I guess it is your nation's problem. And that alone.

[stormthebeaches]

I think that if Britain alienates China, then China would be able to meaningfully retaliate. If China alienates Britain, then Britain... will do shit. It's not that big of a market for Chinese goods. So it is in the interests of Britain not to stir the pot, while China can curse at Britain any day and still feel itself at ease. Japan's more useful as a market for China, at the very least.

Fair enough.

I said that I wouldn't object to China telling Japan or Britain to go fuck themselves once in a while just to make them remember. Telling as in diplomatically communicating, you know. Not shelling them with ammunition from guns, not going to war. Just telling.

Saying "fuck you" for past crimes is in itself is not particularly bad. However, saying "fuck you" in addition to making territorial claims can cause problems. It could create the impression either a) that China is irrational and not interested in serious negotiations, or b) the Chinese government does not care about past wrongs and is merely using them for leverage on the international arena. Luckily the Chinese government is, for the most part, refraining from taking such action.

If your nation can't stand a bit of perfectly legitimate criticism without shitting their pants, and if it wants other nations to shut up, then I guess it is your nation's problem. And that alone.

The Japanese fear is that the legitimate criticism would be used as a front for hostile actions.