|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: The Agreement (US-China) |
 |
|
Francesco Sisci reports
| Quote: |
[O]n Tuesday the heads of the two nations announced, if not a wedding, then at least an engagement. Behind them lay a nine-page joint statement full of principled pledges yet devoid of specific actions.
For Beijing, the "strategic bilateral trust" is a guarantee that the US will not try to stop China's economic and political growth by internal subversive actions or external containment.
In return for this, China recognizes US geopolitical interests in Asia, since it acknowledges the US as an Asia-Pacific power. This, in turn, means that China could be ready to support or even help American interventions in the region. This could be very important in the future, especially given the ongoing economic and political decline of Japan as a regional power.
This time, the US promised cooperation in the fields of aerospace, aviation, and environmental technology - all fields with potential dual-use technology. In other words, Washington is preparing to lift (or is actually lifting) the arms embargo imposed on China after the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989. |
This agreement would be the culmination of Clinton's economic policy and Bush's cooperation on North Korea. Provided it holds.
| Quote: |
[T]he joint statement said that human rights should be addressed through dialogue, but it acknowledged historical differences, as the two countries reciprocally recognize their "core interests".
This means that human rights will not be used anymore as a political cudgel to beat Beijing on the head every time that it is convenient - and what's more, not to do so in public. |
This last overture by Obama is hardly a roadmap to Democracy, but I really think what's been accomplished by this trip will define US-China relations for the next decade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How's this playing in China? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I think China�s internal business is just that, China�s internal business and none of our business. Also, I feel that we shouldn�t be pushing China to become a democracy. However, I think it would be prudent to continually remind China that economic growth comes from the preservation of individual rights, which is respect for life and a commitment to protect private property. On a bilateral level, I�d like to see the two countries work towards expanding trade. Special interests in both countries are trying to prevent open trade or would like to create an unfair advantage on the trade scale. These unfair advantages should be mitigated to the greatest extent possible, and there will be some losers (sorry UAW). Also, I think the Dollar/Renminbi exchange rate will continue to be a sticky issue. Regardless of what China does with the RMB, I believe the US and the Federal Reserve should keep an actual commitment to a strong and honest Dollar. Again, I don�t think we should be inserting ourselves into the middle of China�s business, although I see nothing wrong with advising the Chinese political leadership on how to grow their economy. The more important issues w/r/t to the US and China bilateral relationship is trade and currency exchange.
Also, there was this. An article in the WSJ not painting the most flattering picture for President Obama in China:
| Quote: |
BEIJING -- Barack Obama's first trip here signaled a turning point in relations between a weakened U.S. power and a China that senses its time has come, as the president was hectored about economic policy, largely ignored on human rights and restricted in his efforts to reach out to ordinary Chinese.
Mr. Obama's four-nation Asian trip, seen through the prism of his domestic policy struggles, appears to have been destined from the beginning to disappoint his hosts. |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125857743503654225.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Finally a return to where R. Nixon/H. Kissinger and Mao were taking Chinese-American relations. But for Tiananmen, H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations would have moved here long ago. And besides Tiananmen, other minor obstacles appeared: Watergate removed the Nixon administion, the Carter administration's human rights emphasis, the Reagan administration's focus elsewhere not to mention its extremist ideology, and then W. Bush administration's having to deal with the spyplane caper...
Even better...
| Quote: |
| Hu said for the first time very openly that China is opposed to Tehran's nuclear proliferation. |
I notice this article says nothing at all about Taiwan, Kuros. Did it even appear as an issue in these discussions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mises,
The Chinese seem skeptical of anything the US says or does.
| Pluto wrote: |
| Personally, I think China�s internal business is just that, China�s internal business and none of our business. Also, I feel that we shouldn�t be pushing China to become a democracy. |
I agree we shouldn't push China to become a democracy. However, the Chinese should know that Taiwan is theirs only when they become democratic.
But I don't buy the Commies' 'internal business' line. Human rights transcends national boundaries. If they want to play with their currency, that's an internal issue. If they want to tax foreign companies less than domestic countries, that's an internal issue (or it was, anyway, until they agreed to WTO membership). If they want to exact X or Y policy in Tibet or Xinjiang, that's an internal issue.
But the United States was absolutely right to inflict punishing arms sanctions for Tienanmen. The United States shouldn't use human rights as a political cudgel, though. If universal human rights is what the United States is really about (as Obama has said time and again), then it undermines our position to play politics with it. Engagement with China needs to proceed whether or not China improves its human rights record, but if the Commies want the real goodies like a strategic alliance or Taiwan, they'll have to do better when it comes to treating their own people. I mean forget the Tibetans or Uighers for a second; the Han themselves have no recourse if they are thrown in jail, and can be disappeared for traffic offenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| However, the Chinese should know that Taiwan is theirs only when they become democratic. |
The U.S. shouldn't support independence if Taiwan citizens want it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| However, the Chinese should know that Taiwan is theirs only when they become democratic. |
The U.S. shouldn't support independence if Taiwan citizens want it? |
No. It shouldn't. Or, should China support (in the sense you mean) the Seminole if they want independence? I'd sure consider that an intolerable violation of US sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The status-quo with Taiwan is preferable for all involved. Over time, Taiwan will move towards reunification with the mainland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| However, the Chinese should know that Taiwan is theirs only when they become democratic. |
The U.S. shouldn't support independence if Taiwan citizens want it? |
How many Taiwanese citizens? Half? Tell me, is there a precedent for a free country voting itself into slavery? China does not provide any Due Process of Law whatsoever. This is not like countries joining the EU, which is a superstate which provides ample guarantees for human rights. Can a majority vote a minority into submitting its sovereignty and their individual freedoms?
Certainly the US cannot dictate the fate of Taiwan. Its not as if Taiwan is some colony ripped from the Chinese while they were under Manchu dominion that can simply be given back. But I really doubt we'll ever get a majority of Taiwanese who are willing to submit to Beijing's fiat, so the question, while fascinating, is also rather academic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry, I meant Taiwanese wanting independence. I suppose if there was a clear majority who wanted a sovereign state, the U.S. should support that. I'm not saying the U.S. should supply arms or internally interfere... but why can't they at least voice support for the self-determination of the majority of a geographical area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Sorry, I meant Taiwanese wanting independence. I suppose if there was a clear majority who wanted a sovereign state, the U.S. should support that. I'm not saying the U.S. should supply arms or internally interfere... but why can't they at least voice support for the self-determination of the majority of a geographical area. |
Well that's my question. What does self-determination mean? It seems to me to mean a preference for democracy above all other systems. Can a democratic system vote itself out of democracy? I am skeptical that it can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well if a majority of Taiwan supported being part of the PRC, then the government would be undemocratic if it didn't accept this, I suppose.
As it is, I believe a majority prefer independence/the status quo, so democratic countries should support this regardless of its affect on Chinese relations.
With regards to interfering with Chinese internal policy, you guys are probably right: integrate as much as possible and capitalism will take car of the rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Also, there was this. An article in the WSJ not painting the most flattering picture for President Obama in China:
Quote:
BEIJING -- Barack Obama's first trip here signaled a turning point in relations between a weakened U.S. power and a China that senses its time has come, as the president was hectored about economic policy, largely ignored on human rights and restricted in his efforts to reach out to ordinary Chinese.
Mr. Obama's four-nation Asian trip, seen through the prism of his domestic policy struggles, appears to have been destined from the beginning to disappoint his hosts.
|
There is another side to that story:
From James Fallows: "It's not just me. Two colleagues with different perspectives -- from each other's, and sometimes from my own -- marvel at how badly the mainstream American press distorted the picture of what happened during Barack Obama's just-ended tour of Asia."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/manufactured_failure_2_the_pre.php
Even more importantly, "Ambassador Jon Huntsman said the reports missed the fact that the visit had yielded important progress on cooperation in areas such as clean energy, military-to-military exchanges and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
"I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier.
"I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings," he said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hopMZkJxkn_lh9AvGu2oQySbyl7wD9C35FNO0
Not even the Babe hit a grandslam homerun every time he was up, so progress on several issues is a creditable performance.
I watched the town hall meeting with the students and in my view Obama did a more than decent job talking about universal rights, although he didn't brow-beat the gov't over human rights. Huntsman made a further point: although the meeting wasn't broadcast, it was on the internet and 350 million Chinese have access to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Also, there was this. An article in the WSJ not painting the most flattering picture for President Obama in China:
Quote:
BEIJING -- Barack Obama's first trip here signaled a turning point in relations between a weakened U.S. power and a China that senses its time has come, as the president was hectored about economic policy, largely ignored on human rights and restricted in his efforts to reach out to ordinary Chinese.
Mr. Obama's four-nation Asian trip, seen through the prism of his domestic policy struggles, appears to have been destined from the beginning to disappoint his hosts.
|
There is another side to that story:
From James Fallows: "It's not just me. Two colleagues with different perspectives -- from each other's, and sometimes from my own -- marvel at how badly the mainstream American press distorted the picture of what happened during Barack Obama's just-ended tour of Asia."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/manufactured_failure_2_the_pre.php
Even more importantly, "Ambassador Jon Huntsman said the reports missed the fact that the visit had yielded important progress on cooperation in areas such as clean energy, military-to-military exchanges and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
"I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier.
"I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings," he said." |
I'll take Huntsman and Fallows on recent events in China over the WSJ.
| Quote: |
| I watched the town hall meeting with the students and in my view Obama did a more than decent job talking about universal rights, although he didn't brow-beat the gov't over human rights. Huntsman made a further point: although the meeting wasn't broadcast, it was on the internet and 350 million Chinese have access to it. |
Obama's treatment of human rights really is pitch-perfect.
I don't know how many Chinese he will win over, though. Obama simply can't compete with state media and nationalist fervor, nationalist fervor which has more to do with anti-imperialist (and expansionist) sentiment than any loyalty to the CCP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Obama's treatment of human rights really is pitch-perfect.
I don't know how many Chinese he will win over, though. Obama simply can't compete with state media and nationalist fervor, nationalist fervor which has more to do with anti-imperialist (and expansionist) sentiment than any loyalty to the CCP. |
I'm not sure how many he has to win over. I'm in the middle of reading 'Beijing Coma', Ma Jian's novel about Tiannamen. My take on it is that the Chinese have already been won over; they're just willing to tolerate the status quo as long as the economy keeps chugging along. I'm also betting that Obama's 'soft power' was a more potent influence last June in Iran than is currently understood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Obama's treatment of human rights really is pitch-perfect.
I don't know how many Chinese he will win over, though. Obama simply can't compete with state media and nationalist fervor, nationalist fervor which has more to do with anti-imperialist (and expansionist) sentiment than any loyalty to the CCP. |
I'm not sure how many he has to win over. I'm in the middle of reading 'Beijing Coma', Ma Jian's novel about Tiannamen. My take on it is that the Chinese have already been won over; they're just willing to tolerate the status quo as long as the economy keeps chugging along. I'm also betting that Obama's 'soft power' was a more potent influence last June in Iran than is currently understood. |
I agree about Iran, but soft power is at least as limited as hard power.
The Chinese who were not alive or simply to young for Tiananmen are just giddy on China's rise. I'm sorry to say they're almost all extremely politically naive. And the Chinese who came of age during the Cultural Revolution are basically drones, there's little hope for them as a group. That leaves a gap of about a decade, a Tiananmen generation, who is skeptical of the government. (There are also the descendants of the KMG families, but they are not numerous enough).
Also, China is not yet ready for a democracy, which is usually a necessary precursor to civil rights.
I can't see past the coming economic collapse in China, anyway, but I'm not optimistic for any sort of civil rights reform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
