Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is China peace loving?

It's an ongoing disagreement about China between Fela and I - he sees them as a peaceful, non-expansionist regime, whereas I see them as any other state with access to vast resources, human and natural, and a hugely expanding economy - just as the UK was in the C18/19th and the US has been since the 1930s/40s.
 
"China is basically a peace-loving country" sounds like the sort of smug self-congratulatory nonsense i hear on a daily basis from Chinese people. Along with stuff like "Chinese people invented air" and that "the Mongolian empire was actually Chinese".
The other day one Chinese guy said something to the same effect; that China doesnt attack other countries its other countries that attack China (talking about the 8 country alliance with sacked Beijing in 1884 or whatever). I know that Chinese people honestly believe this stuff, and through no fault of their own, its just that the re-written version of history they get spoon-fed is all they have to go on.
Although China may not be as overtly interventionist as (for example) the U.S I would cite the Korean and Vietnam wars as cases in point where China has played an massive role in recent major conflicts.
As for China being a pacifist because it was not overseas empire-builder, this is only because of its superiority complex (partly justifable) which meant it viewed anything outside China as inferior and barbarian (which is why China retarded itself and didnt develop into the force it should have been when it was so far advanced of all other nations 400 years ago).
China has built a successful land empire and the peoples (Khampa and Uyghur) of the 2 territories which China currently occupies by force (Tibet and Xinjiang) would certainly contend the notion that "China is peace-loving".
Apart from this I think the particular brand of militaristic nationalism which all Chinese people have drilled into them is evidence China isnt peace-loving. Chinese students have to go through 2 lots of military training (age 16 and 18). Complete with full military uniform, marching, war games etc. Even younger students have daily militaristic flag-raising, marching, screeching nationalistic music exercises.
There is so much evidence here to suggest that the Chinese are actually obsessed with warfare. The magazine stands are stuffed with loads of different types of military magazines. The other day i was on a bus next to a guy who spent the entire journey reading a magazine about China's latest military technology. Added to this half the Chinese people will tell you that they are ready and willing for a full-scale offensive against Japan and Taiwan.
One guy i know thinks 3 million Chinese people should go to Japan with swords and behead 3 million Japanese in retalition for WW2. I dont think he's thought the customs restrictions through but still.
China and Chinese people are definitely not peace-loving. Despite their global charm-offensive they are still ridiculously nationalistic and very much warfare-oriented.
 
Red Horse said:
China and Chinese people are definitely not peace-loving. Despite their global charm-offensive they are still ridiculously nationalistic and very much warfare-oriented.

But what about the economic numbers. Because of the size of its economy China has most to gain from the status quo (global free trade). The current rules of the game favour China. Conflict usually comes from actors who want to change the rules of the game.
 
Conflict usually comes from actors who want to change the rules of the game.

The US has been the source of 'the rulebook' for over 50 years, and yet the US has started many conflicts in that time.

China hasn't embarked on an aggressive FP (aside from Tibet etc) yet because it hasn't needed to - as I say earlier, the only reason we absolutely know about US aggression in FP is because pretty much all of the relevant govt documents are available for all to see...try getting papers of the kind that Chomsky looks at from the Chinese equivalent of the State Department.

I'd like to think that China will bring some '1,000 year plan' wisdom to it's FP, but until it stops sabre rattling about Taiwan, the Spratleys, gets out of Tibet I won't believe it for a second.
 
kyser_soze said:
The US has been the source of 'the rulebook' for over 50 years, and yet the US has started many conflicts in that time.

I'm really talking about the economic conditions behind major conflicts (regional/ world wars between great powers).

Lets indulge in some short hand binary thinking.

Under the current system (free trade), China wins, USA loses.

To win, USA has to change the current rules (more protectionism/ imperial expansion).

What is a source of mutual benefit now (Chinese American trade) becomes a source of conflict.

US actions close down Chinese access to global markets.

China threatens to pull its debt holdings in US economy.

Tawain becomes the pretext for an America who wants to win the game.
 
Under the current system (free trade), China wins, USA loses.

To win, USA has to change the current rules (more protectionism/ imperial expansion).

Take me through your thinking here...it's largely been the US and EU that have driven through the current WTO rules that China has signed up to so I really don't understand your approach here - if the US wants to boycott or place tarriffs on Chinese goods it can quite easily. Also, the US is the SINGLE largest overseas investor in China - how do you square that with your scenario?

Plus - tell me why the US invaded an economically and resource insignificant country like Vietnam.
 
Red Horse said:
"China is basically a peace-loving country" sounds like the sort of smug self-congratulatory nonsense i hear on a daily basis from Chinese people. Along with stuff like "Chinese people invented air" and that "the Mongolian empire was actually Chinese".
The other day one Chinese guy said something to the same effect; that China doesnt attack other countries its other countries that attack China (talking about the 8 country alliance with sacked Beijing in 1884 or whatever). I know that Chinese people honestly believe this stuff, and through no fault of their own, its just that the re-written version of history they get spoon-fed is all they have to go on.
Although China may not be as overtly interventionist as (for example) the U.S I would cite the Korean and Vietnam wars as cases in point where China has played an massive role in recent major conflicts.
As for China being a pacifist because it was not overseas empire-builder, this is only because of its superiority complex (partly justifable) which meant it viewed anything outside China as inferior and barbarian (which is why China retarded itself and didnt develop into the force it should have been when it was so far advanced of all other nations 400 years ago).
China has built a successful land empire and the peoples (Khampa and Uyghur) of the 2 territories which China currently occupies by force (Tibet and Xinjiang) would certainly contend the notion that "China is peace-loving".
Apart from this I think the particular brand of militaristic nationalism which all Chinese people have drilled into them is evidence China isnt peace-loving. Chinese students have to go through 2 lots of military training (age 16 and 18). Complete with full military uniform, marching, war games etc. Even younger students have daily militaristic flag-raising, marching, screeching nationalistic music exercises.
There is so much evidence here to suggest that the Chinese are actually obsessed with warfare. The magazine stands are stuffed with loads of different types of military magazines. The other day i was on a bus next to a guy who spent the entire journey reading a magazine about China's latest military technology. Added to this half the Chinese people will tell you that they are ready and willing for a full-scale offensive against Japan and Taiwan.
One guy i know thinks 3 million Chinese people should go to Japan with swords and behead 3 million Japanese in retalition for WW2. I dont think he's thought the customs restrictions through but still.
China and Chinese people are definitely not peace-loving. Despite their global charm-offensive they are still ridiculously nationalistic and very much warfare-oriented.
Welcome to the game Red Horse.

:)

I agree with much of what you write (though I'm not sure that some random missle-nerd on a bus proves much - get them everywhere ;) ) and agree that China will make a formidable adversery to anyone willing to have a crack in the future. That said, I can't help get the feeling that the leadership are far more interested in stability (both internally and across the east Asian region,) than they are in warfare.

I think that most of the nationalistic rhetoric spread internally, serves predominately as a means to distract peeps from other issues and while it could, in short order, be turned into a nasty, motivated, military to be focussed abroad, I just don't see such shenanigans to be in China's interests. As China modernises, however, and more and more information seeps/leaks into the country, the leadership will find it increasingly difficult to manage the social consequences of such rapid development.

It is during times of internal crisis that such nationalism may be directed externally. Since the early 90's, China seems to be handling herself pretty well on the international diplomatic stage, despite massive internal strains. Long may this continue.

Over the longer haul, I think those predicting an increasingly tense global environment with respect to energy (and water) supplies/security, could well be hunting in the right Parish. This will inevitably dictate and determine national strategies. In this regard, I get the feeling that the sheer size of China scares the living heeby jeebies out of many in the west.

I certainly hope that all the "major powers" learn to work together somewhat more effectively than of late. The alternative looks decidely iffy. :(

I still take a fairly optimistic view on China. We've come a long way in a generation and that creates its own problems, but the problems faced today are less immediately crippling to the vast majority.

Heh! I think I'm probably too terrified to take an entirely pessamistic viewpoint. :eek:

:)


Woof
 
Red Horse said:
I know that Chinese people honestly believe this stuff, and through no fault of their own, its just that the re-written version of history they get spoon-fed is all they have to go on.

i'm chinese and i don't 'honestly believe this stuff.'
 
RHOQ said:
But what about the economic numbers. Because of the size of its economy China has most to gain from the status quo (global free trade). .
Obviously its in China's best economic interests to observe the status quo and perpetuate free trade, and it's not in any position to enter into conflict at present...a situation China understands only too well.
I just find the idea of China as peace-loving grates when it continues to squash resistance in its western colonies with military force, continues to allocates inordinate sums of the budget to military spending, and continues to propagate such a militaristic ethos in society.
 
CharlieAddict said:
i'm chinese and i don't 'honestly believe this stuff.'
Apologies Charlie i hate Westerners spouting sweeping generalisations about China. But am guilty myself here. I'm referring to the masses who swallow the PRC version of reality hook line and sinker, not the educated section of society like yourself who question and mistrust the party line.
 
kyser_soze said:
I'd like to think that China will bring some '1,000 year plan' wisdom to it's FP, but until it stops sabre rattling about Taiwan, the Spratleys, gets out of Tibet I won't believe it for a second.
To be fair, China has been clear for a very long time that Taiwan and Tibet are non-negotiable.

Tibet is a part of China now - there is no way it will ever achieve independence. Taiwan will almost certainly "return to the motherland" at some point as well. Jiang Zemin had a benchmark of 2050, which tallies quite nicely with the dissolution of HK's "one country two systems" formula in 2047. By that time, the distinctions between the mainland and Taiwan will be far fewer than they are now - China will inevitably liberelise politically - and resistance to integration will be minimal. Economic integration between Taiwan and the mainland is happening at an astonishing rate (just as HK owns the better part of Guangdong, Taiwan owns just about the whole of Fujian province ;) ) as it is with HK. This is the driving force towards social and political integration and will continue to be so in a "globalising" economic environment.

There will come a tipping point, when a majority in Taiwan will see the overall benefits of integration - and anyway, Ah Bian's time is nearly done and the KMT's poster boy, Ma, looks a shoo-in for Pres in 2008. That will swing things the integrationists way again.

The Spratleys is a separate issue. Many countries are squabbling. It'll get sorted out diplomatically over time.

Apart from these specific issues which at least from one perspective could all be seen as internal issues, China has been remarkably restrained in international affairs for the last 25 years or more.

The clearly stated policy is to not (be seen to ;) ) interfere in the internal affairs of other countries - and that has largely been adhered to.

China is in no hurry. The country has suffered massive hardship, hunger, war, slaughter, starvation, invasion, occupation and humiliation for a couple of hundred years.

Times are a'changing.

There's no hurry.

:)

Woof
 
kyser_soze said:
Take me through your thinking here...it's largely been the US and EU that have driven through the current WTO rules that China has signed up to so I really don't understand your approach here - if the US wants to boycott or place tarriffs on Chinese goods it can quite easily. Also, the US is the SINGLE largest overseas investor in China - how do you square that with your scenario?

Compare the potential and actual size of the Chinese and US economies. Under the current system (free trade, with exceptions) which economy will end up bigger than the other? Historically reference Britain and America.

It shouldn't really matter whose economy is bigger, but there may some thinkers and planners in America who disagree. One way to protect your trade advantage and choke off competitors is greater protectionism. Reference how European inter state competition led to greater economic protectionism in the run to to WWI. Simply due to China's size, more US tariffs (are there any now?) on Chinese goods would signal a move away from free trade.

kyser_soze said:
Plus - tell me why the US invaded an economically and resource insignificant country like Vietnam.

Another thread perhaps?
 
Well as China and the US are both signatories and member of the WTO, and the US imports way more from China than it exports (US trade deficits are the stuff of legend) already and despite SOME in the US (some of the neo-cons, labor related Democrats) calling for trade tariffs, the momentum for now and in the foreseeable future is with the Free Traders.

And let's take your thought fox and reverse it - let's say that China decides that US and other Western Companies are damaging China, and suddenly all that FDI dissappears and the US blocks Chinese goods and vice versa? You also haven't answered the point about the level of investment the US has in China (and vice versa).

Both sides have more to loose through tariffs etc then they have to gain.
 
fela fan said:
But what about my next line, in effect telling the forum why i mentioned my experiences of chinese people?

"My experiences of china and chinese people run directly counter to those postulated in western media."

Which makes my comments relevant to this thread, and i still believe than china, both the nation, and its individual people, are peace-loving relatively compared to the US. In a big big way.

I don't really see that much portrayal in the Western media of the Chinese being a warlike and aggressive people - unless you're talking about kung fu films! ;)
 
RHOQ said:
the Chinese ambassador to the US remarked that "a look at our history will tell you that China is basically a peace living country".
I think the point here is that when you consider that in the last hundred years China has invaded Xinjiang, Tibet, Vietnam, fought border conflicts with Russia and India, fought the Americans in Korea and Vietnam, and killed millions of its own during civil war and Cultural Revolution, this statement can be seen as nonsensical and a typical attempt by the PRC to re-write the history books to its liking. In this case painting China as a magnanimous pacifist.
 
Red Horse said:
Surely this a separate thread about China's human rights record which we all know about. Not sure how it relates to China being peace-loving
the whole thread concept is quite nebulous. by 'China' do we mean, the government? the people? just the Chinese who live in China, not worldwide?

similarly, 'peace-loving' is a very vague concept... so I would think that the article would have a place in what is quite a loose area of discussion... just my humble opinion....
 
snouty warthog said:
the whole thread concept is quite nebulous. by 'China' do we mean, the government? the people? just the Chinese who live in China, not worldwide?

similarly, 'peace-loving' is a very vague concept... so I would think that the article would have a place in what is quite a loose area of discussion... just my humble opinion....

The thread title is taken from a quote of a Chinese Ambassdor to the US, reported in Time magazine in relation to concerns over Chinese military expenditure.

The thread gives you an opportunity to speculate on what you think he means and why he said it? Does a reading of History support his comment?
 
if you look at China steaming into Tibet and murdering peaceful, passive Buddhist monks... then no, I would say they are not peaceful. however, that is a government action.

the Chinese people that I have met in the UK, both Uk born and immigrants, have been charming people.
 
Red Horse said:
Surely this a separate thread about China's human rights record which we all know about. Not sure how it relates to China being peace-loving

How peace loving can a nation be that makes war on its own people?
 
kyser_soze said:
I don't trust teh intentions of any state that has systematically repressed it's people for over 3000 years with rigid hierarchy, and a system of imperial government.

The interesting thing is why they allowed themselves to be repressed. Maybe for a lot of that time they didn't see it as being repressed? Maybe we use a western concept in making values judgments on others' lives. Don't know. What i do know is that the average thai considers the concept of human rights differently to that of the average briton. One reason is that they are not as developed in the aspect of indivudualism and are still very group-oriented, where one is very accepting of the position one has been dealt in life. China is not far away, is asian, and in fact thailand soaked up hundreds of thousands of immigrants a couple of generations ago, so maybe they see things in a similar way. It would be nice to see whether a chinese person thought of their history as 3000 years of repression.

Either way, i'd add that i don't trust the intentions of any state or nation anywhere in the world.
 
kyser_soze said:
It's an ongoing disagreement about China between Fela and I - he sees them as a peaceful, non-expansionist regime, whereas I see them as any other state with access to vast resources, human and natural, and a hugely expanding economy - just as the UK was in the C18/19th and the US has been since the 1930s/40s.

Yes, but i do kind of have history to back me up! At what point in history was China acting the empire? They've certainly had times of preeminence. But beyond tibet, they've basically stayed within their borders.

I also hear constantly from every chinese person i meet (quite a few now over the last three years) a very refreshing attitude to life and current affairs, both about their country and internationally. Often it is devoid of judgment, something we westerners have quite a problem doing.

That attitude is not isolated i'd say, and therefore it must to some effect reflect the country as a whole. They speak in much more peaceful terms about their fellow human beings than we do.
 
20th/21st C Wars listed under China at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/

China Civil War 1940s
China Invasion of Tibet 1950
China Quemoy and Matsu 1954-1958
China Sino-India Border War 1962
China Sino-Soviet Clashes 1969-1978
China Invasion of Vietnam 1979
China Tiananmen Violence 1989
China Senkaku Islands 1968 -->
China Spratly Islands 1988 -->
 
People's Republic of China: 2004 White Paper on National Defense
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/natdef2004.html

Principles of China’s foreign policy (no provenance)
http://english.people.com.cn/china/19990914A128.html

The third section being:

3. Upholding the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence

"The five principles of peaceful coexistence was put forward in line with the reality of a multipolar world. Respect to sovereignty is the most fundamental principle in a new type of international relations. Mutual non-aggression means to get rid of the threat of using arms and armed threat in the internal relations among countries. Non-interference in each other's international affairs is the most important principle in international relations to guarantee each country's right to take care of its own internal affairs and prevent any other country from interfering with any means. Equality and mutual benefit mean political equality, economic equality, cooperation, mutual benefit and supplement to each other's needs. Peaceful coexistence calls on all countries to seek common interests, reserve differences, respect each other, maintain friendly cooperation and live in harmony regardless of differences in their social systems and ideologies."
 
The Chinese version of history is that instead of Genghis Khan being the emperor of Mongolia which conquered China and subsumed it into his empire, he was in fact a Chinese emperor who happened to be an ethnic Mongolian. By this logic China has one of the bloodiest histories of ruthless expansion and empire-building known to humanity.
 
The interesting thing is why they allowed themselves to be repressed. Maybe for a lot of that time they didn't see it as being repressed?

Yeah, but face it, oppression by an élite of some description has been the norm througout history - and as a rule the propaganda of the state, whether through religion, education or media, would aim to keep people from realising that they were oppressed (e.g. if you've never heard of the idea or concept of free speach, you aren't likely to miss it!).

Point taken on the differing cultural viewpoints on rights (espeically WRT it's link to individualism), but pursue that view and you can end up with a defence of footbinding...
 
Back
Top Bottom