Posted on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 10:06 — by Clayton
Can China spell hypocrite? China sells arms to Mid Eastern terrorists yet objects to our selling weapons to an independent nation merely trying defend itself? Let us tick them off even more by selling missles to the Tibetians who want independence.
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Apparently not ... but then, all nations are more than willing to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Who do you think we blame for continued violence in the Sudan (or for sectarian violence in Iraq)?
The idea of supplying missiles to a bunch of Buddhists in Tibet is a tad preposterous ... but the idea of supporting their independence movement and right to self-determination is not. Unfortunately, again, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy involved here, too. We are more than willing to support "democracy" and "self-determination" ... when it acts to rile up a rival or make their control of things a little more shaky. We are far less likely to do so (in fact, might be batting close to 1.000) when it comes to supporting independence movements in territories or countries that we control and/or strongly "influence".
Personally, though I recognize the danger inherent in such a policy, I think we would be better off (and would have been better off since 1789) if we actually honored the notion that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and strove to support the right of people everywhere to self-determination and democratic (or at least republican) rule.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
The idea may be a tad preposterous, but becoming less so as the monks seem to be getting more militant. China might be less able to drive us into bankrupcy if they faced the same terrorism that Russia faces with the Chechan rebels. It would be nice if our nation lived up to it's founding philosophies, or if every nation and every organization did--but it's not reality and it is very unrealistic to assume. The best we can do is strive for that equality at all fronts from every nation and every organization. That includes China. The greater the unrest that can be encouraged in their nation the better.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Actually, the monks may be growing more militant, but it is the Tibetan people who seem on the verge of staging a last stand. If you read accounts of the Chinese settlement of Tibet, it sounds eerily familiar to American settlement of the West, with Tibetans playing the part of Native Americans displaced by the stronger and alien culture. There may be some Custer's in the Chinese military, but my suspicion is that the sheer weight of Chinese society is too much for Tibetans to resist. Unless, of course, Tibetans just make Tibet so inhospitable that the Chinese want to leave. That last line probably carries a message for aggressors and victims (alike) almost anywhere in the world. Metaphorically, of course.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Your are right, it is very similar to the actions of many nations; but it is also very apropos for China to face terrorism in their backyard after suporting and arming terrorists world-wide. It would also be very appropriate for us to encourage, support, and arm the terrorists.
China is simply not a friend of the US, so there is no reason to be nice to them--it would be in our best interest if the Chinese had terrorism problems of their own to slow their growth.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It wouldn't be too hard for anyone with an axe to grind to put the shoe on the other foot and, rightly or wrongly, substitute the words "United States" for each occurrence of "China" in your response. That, alone, is one reason to seek more open and direct means to address our concerns with others (China among them). Maybe we have spent too much time "arming" terrorists in other countries (Osama bin Laden comes to mind).
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Theoretically you make a good point, but as a nation we are no longer in the position to effect a negotiated settlement. We have nothing to negotiate with, and we tend to be more honest and generous then they. Nor do I think we have ever been capable of understanding our enemies to conduct effective negotiations with anyone. China has made it clear with action, that it's purpose is to challenge our existance (and the existance of our allies), not to co-exist. China supports and arms the Palistinians through Hamas; and probably arms Al Queda as well. They have not demonstrated trust-worthiness or honesty in any prior negotiated settlements, (Taiwan being their most recent effort to decieve the stupid westerners)--so on what basis or foundation could we negotiate with them now?
Practically we simply can not effect a negotiated settlement, shich will favor us with some benefit.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Before putting the horse before the cart, maybe we should take a deep breath and agree which negotiated settlement we are talking about ... are we still talking about Tibet, and attempting to negotiate some reasonable treatment for its people? ... or are we talking about life, the universe, and everything when it comes to China? The former, because it represents a small piece of the bigger picture, stands a better chance for resolution (though, as you say, we have given up or lost almost all the bargaining chips we once had). The latter represents something more akin to a quagmire (sort of like the quagmire already created in real time by rushing in to effect regime change without realistically looking at the bigger picture, first, and having contingency plans), and in my opinion will result in endless wheel-spinning. Traction is better gained by addressing issues in small steps. The process takes longer, but identifiable steps can be taken and measurable gains made. Perhaps more importantly, negotiation and coexistence IS a process ... how you get there is almost as important what you achieve.
Unless, of course, you reject coexistence. In that case, there is only one solution: Ultimate confrontation until only one player is left standing. Somehow, in this day and age that has so many of us worried sick that we will surrender our God-given rights (actually, living and breathing men described them for us, and set up a precarious system to try to preserve them) in order to gain even a modicum of (false?) security from the horrors of mushroom clouds, anti-toxins and terrorist bombers hiding behind every bush ... that "ultimate" confrontation does not sound like it would be too appealing or something most people would logically endorse.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Before putting the horse before the cart, maybe we should take a deep breath and agree which negotiated settlement we are talking about ... are we still talking about Tibet, and attempting to negotiate some reasonable treatment for its people? ... or are we talking about life, the universe, and everything when it comes to China? You are correct there is several issues involved, but they are interconnected. Tibet is the current issue and the co-existance of our two nations as different political philosophies is another. The self determination of the Tibetian people, (including the option of not being part of China which is what many Tibetians are seeking) touches on the issue of the status of Taiwan and of all minorities in China to self determination. That impacts the political nature of China and it’s continued existance as a non-democratic totalitarian regime. What small part of this are you proposing be seperated and negotiated? Further is it really for us to negotiate, or for the Tibetian people to negotiate? I think it is for them to negotiate, and for us-(because it is in our interest to make China more democratic of course) to support and empower the Tibetian people. Isn’t this precisely the argument China mada when they “empowered Cuba, Syria, and Hamas? Traction is better gained by addressing issues in small steps. The process takes longer, but identifiable steps can be taken and measurable gains made. Perhaps more importantly, negotiation and coexistence IS a process ... how you get there is almost as important what you achieve. So which part of the picture do you isolate and what is your response to those who suffer during the long and drawnout process of negotiation? And when has this process ever actually worked? Negotiated settlements last only as long and circumstances do not change and circumstances always change. Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury. The only guarrenty in a conflict is that circumstances will change. I am not suggesting that we fight China, only that we support those who would divide China and make it less of a threat. This is a policy that has worked to a greater degree then negotiation. I think the Japanese called it the death by a thousand nibbles. P.S. Sorry for the bad format, apparently the Times will not allow bold or underlined formats. Maybe I am discussing a topic they do not like.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Just a pointer before I begin:
P.S. Sorry for the bad format, apparently the Times will not allow bold or underlined formats. Maybe I am discussing a topic they do not like.
The last point may be true, but I have not yet personally seen any sign of CCT interference (or interest, for that matter) about what gets posted to this board. Oh well. As to formatting, there is a (very short) list of formatting tools at the bottom of the "Reply" box. The list begins with the bulleted statement "Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn to links automatically". The next bullet provides the tools you use to bold-face and italicize (and I don't see "underline" as one of the options, though the HTML command is usually ). It's pretty easy ... you put the command before the word (or words) you want to format and at the end. The beginning command is enclosed inside the "less than" (<) and the "greater than" (>) symbols, as is the end command, except you put a "backslash" in front of the symbol at the end ... I can't show you, because the program will try to format the command, but let's say I want to italicize your question (like above). Here's what I do:
Type the "less than" sign (<), type "i", then type the "greater than" sign (>). Copy and paste your sentence. Type the "less than" sign (<), type a backslash ( / ), type "i", then type the "greater than" sign (>). "b" equals bold-faced. I don't know what "ul" means, but the next word shows what it does ...
"underline"
, hmmm, it skips a line. I do not know what most of the other commands mean. Hope that helps.
Tibetan self-determination is certainly something we can ... and should ... support. But unless we are happy with China supporting efforts in Costa Rica or Honduras for "self-determination", we must be very careful how we go about it. "Breaking up China" ... whether in the Japanese style (which didn't work out too well, and was done in a manner that brought us into direct military conflict with Japan) or in some variant on it ... also does not seem to be a policy worth pursuing. We have a hard enough time holding our own country together without interfering in the internal affairs of someone else's country. This is the very justification that creates all the horrors our descendants will inherit (just as we have inherited similar nightmares) ... just one example: how much of our current issues with Iran can be traced back to 1953?
Nope ... maybe the trick is to break the constraints of traditional wisdom, and stop acting in the brutally logical way of protecting and serving self-interest? We can have open eyes as we try to address the government of China (and, by extension, all other governments) honestly and directly.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
The last point may be true, but I have not yet personally seen any sign of CCT interference (or interest, for that matter) about what gets posted to this board. One point you may want to take note of is the apparent change, on a daily basis, of the format changes allowed or not allowed. Some times I can cut and paste from WORD or POWERPOINT, other days I am limited to WORKS. Someone is “playing with the controls”, but I am not sure that it is or is not content related. Sometimes contributing is just more frustrating then others.
maybe the trick is to break the constraints of traditional wisdom, and stop acting in the brutally logical way of protecting and serving self-interest? We can have open eyes as we try to address the government of China (and, by extension, all other governments) honestly and directly. Nice philososphy, but highly impractical in application, (and niave) because IT HAS NEVER WORK and can never work unless human nature changes. The philosophical strategic dilemna known as War Games demonstrates this point clearly. If you party A operates under a cooperative non aggressive policy and Party B, say China, operates under an aggressive policy, A always loses. Only if A and B operate cooperatively, and can trust each other to do so in the future, is your stratagy feasible. But B will not be acting in their own interest if they know A will be playing a non-aggrssive game. So are you willing to agree to play an non-agresssive game with China, knowing that their objective is to win, not to co-exist? Granted this is traditional wisdom, but it reflects human nature, which at it’s core is aggressive. To break it’s contraints, you would have to “break” human nature—and repeated experimentation has shown that this is not possible. To be aggressive is to be human. Even you are competitve on this blog. You will go to extreme meansures to ensure that you have the last word on most discussions. Check out your own history, and you will see that this is true. How many times have you said you have nothing more to say, then come back with a response and more to say. All you are really seeking, it seems to me, is the last word on a subject.
MY POINT is that you are agressive, I am agressive, anyone who argues or debates is agressive. In fact humans are an agressive species. Can that change, possibly--but not in the foresee-able future. Unilateral adoption of passivity results in war, not peace. It has been a root cause of most wars in fact. Even Tibetian monks, traditionally nown for passivity and non-aggression are becoming more aggressive since for them peace has not worked.
Another history lesson--Jewish people practiced pacifism for 2000 years enduring pograms and the Inquistion is suffering and silence. In the end the result was the Holocaust. Is that what you are suggesting for the United States?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Is that what you are suggesting for the United States?
I am suggesting no such thing. With one's eyes open, one can always be prepared to defend oneself. One approach, of course, is to take the initiative and destroy an enemy (real or perceived) and destroy him ... or incapacitate him ... before he can destroy you. We have attempted that approach more than one time (Iraq is just the latest example), and it seldom solves the problem(s) it was designed to solve. In fact, it often opens up avenues for new or possibly different problems or challenges ... sometimes coming from an unexpected source. Another approach is to mix strategies ... sometimes even seemingly contradictory strategies ... in order to confuse, check, and contain a perceived enemy. We have done this, too, with varying degrees of success. Essentially, it requires attention to the details and sustained effort ... our habit of changing administrations and directions every four to eight years sometimes makes this impractical ... and we sometimes act as our own worst enemy.
I am merely suggesting a third strategy. One does not have to sacrifice one's principles or readiness to coexist with a competitor. The goal, of course, is to seek out common ground and to cooperate wherever possible, and then to neutralize where ever collaboration is impossible. With luck, the areas of cooperation grow larger while the differences shrink ... and even if they don't, the need for open (or even covert) violence decreases. We have at least three escalating global problems that are moving rapidly to convergence, and unless we find a way to "change human behavior", I do not see how these problems will be resolved without a major confrontation: (1) exponentially increasing population, (2) competing for dwindling resources, including mineral resources among the most obvious, but also such basic resources as clean water, air and food, (3) fighting with increasingly end-of-times weapons.
When one factors in such other spark-points as religious and ethnic intolerance, insatiable appetite, and a perceived need to constantly expand operations (personal, industrial, national) we are treading on really dangerous turf when we talk about continuing along lines we have always traveled. I agree ... it is perhaps overly idealistic to hope for such a transformation, and possibly naive to think it can happen (perhaps the collapse has to take place first, and then we can begin to re-imagine how we conduct our business) ... but I would much rather make a few sacrifices in my personal life and work towards that goal rather than shrug my shoulders and march knowingly into Armaggedon.
I don't know if you have read Jared Diamond's Collapse, but you might find it quite interesting. You do not need to read Guns, Germs and Steel before reading it, but some find that it helps.