" Can the U.S. and China Get Along?" misleading headline. The question is whether the US can go along with a rising China. The ball is in Washington's court.
7
Enemies have more disagreements than agreements.
Allies have more agreements than disagreements.
The gulf between concepts of personal liberty & changing spheres of influence between the US & China are too big, imo, to solve leaving both sides content with the results.
That leaves 2 solutions.
1. War
2. A higher vision
Excepting the ending, people know what the 1st option entails.
As for the 2nd option, it has to be great enough so that major disagreements confronting these 2 superpowers would fade into the background, not forgotten, but no longer flashpoints for belligerency.
The prime driver of civilization over the last century has been energy, mainly oil. While this has produced great gains in our standard of living, it has come with pollution & accelerating climate change.
What if China & the US decided on harvesting "a steady stream of 13,000 terawatts of power" from that ½ of the moon perpetually bathed in sunlight? ("the total installed electricity generation summer capacity in the US was 1,050.9 gigawatts". Do the math.
http://www.space.com/23810-moon-luna-belt-solar-power-idea.html
Clean solar energy would be transmitted via microwaves. Of course, microwaves can be used as weapons. Hence, the beauty of it. No nation can do this without properly being accused of militarizing outer space.
But if 2 nations or a consortium of nations took on this task, maybe a lot of the chess moves nations of all political stripes are intent on now could be put on hold.
Allies have more agreements than disagreements.
The gulf between concepts of personal liberty & changing spheres of influence between the US & China are too big, imo, to solve leaving both sides content with the results.
That leaves 2 solutions.
1. War
2. A higher vision
Excepting the ending, people know what the 1st option entails.
As for the 2nd option, it has to be great enough so that major disagreements confronting these 2 superpowers would fade into the background, not forgotten, but no longer flashpoints for belligerency.
The prime driver of civilization over the last century has been energy, mainly oil. While this has produced great gains in our standard of living, it has come with pollution & accelerating climate change.
What if China & the US decided on harvesting "a steady stream of 13,000 terawatts of power" from that ½ of the moon perpetually bathed in sunlight? ("the total installed electricity generation summer capacity in the US was 1,050.9 gigawatts". Do the math.
http://www.space.com/23810-moon-luna-belt-solar-power-idea.html
Clean solar energy would be transmitted via microwaves. Of course, microwaves can be used as weapons. Hence, the beauty of it. No nation can do this without properly being accused of militarizing outer space.
But if 2 nations or a consortium of nations took on this task, maybe a lot of the chess moves nations of all political stripes are intent on now could be put on hold.
The good, the bad, and the ugly – very insightful. I vote for all to keep rolling. It will take everyone to take down the neo-communists.
2
"we will not accommodate unreasonable claims around the world and, if necessary, are even prepared for a latter-day strategy of “containment,”
Here is a reminder. This is not 1945, when we were the last country standing after World War II. For that matter, This is not 1972 when China was an impoverished country needing our help to move forward.
This is a bullet point summary of a well written article in the December 10, 2011 issue of the New York Times titled Study Predicts Future for U.S. as No. 2 Economy, but Energy Independent. The topic is a discussion of the results of four years of studying and analysis of the future by the National Intelligence Council that reports to the Director of National Intelligence of the United States.
We encourage everyone to read the above article. The synopsis below is taken almost verbatim from it and we claim no originality on this one. We felt the information was too important not to share. I encourage you to pass it on to your family members who are in their late teens and early twenties. They can benefit the most from it.
China Becomes number One Economic Power: "China will outstrip the United States as the leading economic power before 2030, but that America will remain an indispensable world leader, bolstered in part by an era of energy independence."
http://lstrn.us/1NUbvjJ
Here is a reminder. This is not 1945, when we were the last country standing after World War II. For that matter, This is not 1972 when China was an impoverished country needing our help to move forward.
This is a bullet point summary of a well written article in the December 10, 2011 issue of the New York Times titled Study Predicts Future for U.S. as No. 2 Economy, but Energy Independent. The topic is a discussion of the results of four years of studying and analysis of the future by the National Intelligence Council that reports to the Director of National Intelligence of the United States.
We encourage everyone to read the above article. The synopsis below is taken almost verbatim from it and we claim no originality on this one. We felt the information was too important not to share. I encourage you to pass it on to your family members who are in their late teens and early twenties. They can benefit the most from it.
China Becomes number One Economic Power: "China will outstrip the United States as the leading economic power before 2030, but that America will remain an indispensable world leader, bolstered in part by an era of energy independence."
http://lstrn.us/1NUbvjJ
Does anyone doubt that China is sharing the military, industrial and other classified information it is stealing from the U.S. with Iran? Including information pertaining to the current nuclear talks.
4
In the name of stopping the Soviets, the US cuddled up with China. This benefited the latter as it became an acceptable player in the World and became the backroom manufacturing base. Now, China has become strong and is threatening US and West's role in the World both in economic and security ways. It is about time that the US realized that two new partners have to be added to balance the World: one from Europe as in Germany and one from Asia as in India; these two should be in the Security Council.
6
Vietnam can and will defend its claims in the seas called South Chinese. Chinese Taipei can and will defend its right to exist.
Out of a record 16,600 foreigner-admissions to University of California (Professor Schell taught at the Berkeley campus), 11,300 were Chinese or Chinese/Taipei. The equivalent in Yuan of $2,000,000,000,000 was lost on the Shanghai bourse alone -- most of the money was lost by consumers (despite the claims of a hegemony of global institutional investors).
Out of a record 16,600 foreigner-admissions to University of California (Professor Schell taught at the Berkeley campus), 11,300 were Chinese or Chinese/Taipei. The equivalent in Yuan of $2,000,000,000,000 was lost on the Shanghai bourse alone -- most of the money was lost by consumers (despite the claims of a hegemony of global institutional investors).
2
I think the question is beyond this now. It should ask how will the US get along with a dominating "partner" who does not share our values or culture. Given that we are the largest importer of Chinese goods and that America is a completely hollowed out post-industrial nation, it is not at all clear that we would even win a conflict if one occurred. This is new for us in the US. A far better strategy than resistance and compromise might be to rebuild our industrial base, have sensible economic and trade policies that assist this endeavor, and contain China by being economically strong again. Doing nothing and importing everything from a robust antagonist seems particularly suicidal.
7
johns-- you are 100% right, but this righteous plan would not please the corporate masters. Imagine an Apple, for instance, having to produce the i-phones here-- and actually pay a decent wage and let people go home at night. It's not part of their money strategy, and thus it will not happen.
4
The question isn't whether the US and "China" can get along. It's whether the US and The Communist Party of China can. And the answer is simple: no. Because it is in The Party's interest to demonize the "West" in general and the USA specifically and present itself as the only alternative to China being swallowed or humiliated by evil outside forces. I lived in China for 11 years and still have friends there. I was chatting with one of them yesterday and he totally seriously stated that China's recent stock market woes were being caused by foreigners manipulating China's markets for some nefarious reason. I found this slightly terrifying because he was at one time not all that long ago one of the few Chinese I met who was willing to question The Party openly and not blindly defend every move it made. The reality is that The Party doesn't really WANT to get along with the USA, at least publicly. It is widely despised at home and NEEDS an enemy to rally The People behind it. It's a classic tactic for any dictatorship and let's make no bones about it, China's government is a dictatorship.
5
demonize the "West", lol, when was the last time you saw on CNN or BBC about any positive news from China, sure, nothing good can come out of China right?
4
China is a fascist state. And, it's recent hostile actions in the South China Sea, the recent modernization of nuclear missiles pointed at the United States and it's brutal crack down on civil liberties, it is a serious threat to the United States. The economic, educational and social exchange between the United States and China served to strengthen this fascist state. China is not moving toward greater openness and constitutionalism. Rather China seeks more power to crush those that stand in the way of its fascist agenda. The United States should immediately cease The economic and educational exchange that only serves to strengthen China and immediately pursue a policy of containment.
5
but we can't do what you suggest because what we have done in, with and for China has benefited the US multi-nationals beyond anyone's imagination and they are not going to give that up.
2
When it comes to China and money in America, every thing else is moot.
3
"To the litany of the old problems — Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, intellectual property, currency policy — a host of new ones have been added." I bet "a host of new ones" is all Chinese affairs that are vital to the Chinese interest.
Manipulating another country's internal affairs is no way to build a mutually respectful and mutually constructive relationship. Just look at what Turkey is now doing: Turkey is trying to manipulate the ethnic/religious situation in Xinjiang to achieve whatever Turkey tries to achieve.
Manipulating another country's internal affairs is no way to build a mutually respectful and mutually constructive relationship. Just look at what Turkey is now doing: Turkey is trying to manipulate the ethnic/religious situation in Xinjiang to achieve whatever Turkey tries to achieve.
5
Schell's horizon is at "if I have learned anything in my more than six decades of studying China, it is that . . . China can be a counterintuitive and unpredictable player." I think he needs to look in his own backyard while continuing to interact with the outside world to get beyond his own limitations. Sadly, I would say just as black-white relations took a whole civil rights era to get better before relapsing as it seems to be doing now, many dialectical cycles and unfortunate tumult are in the cards before a real meeting place happens between China and America. Of course, we have to hope for the best!
4
Many Chinese immigrants to the U.S. embrace their new country and make major contributions. U.S. Ph.D programs have hundreds of thousands of Chinese students and postdocs, many of whom go on to successful careers in the U.S. and some return to China. Many who become tenured U.S. faculty members frequently have large numbers of Chinese students in their research groups and have vigorous, unfettered back and forth collaborations with Chinese universities and industries. I doubt that any of this activity results in transferring important knowledge to China that can subsequently be used to hack into U.S. cyberinfrastructure and certainly there is no military value in any of it
3
The author presupposes that China would be reasonable and negotiate in good faith. In fact China sees the US as a rival, an adversary to be taken advantage of at every chink in the armor of the US, at every opportunity of the US's weakness. No less than Deng himself said and i paraphrase: 'hide your strength, bide your time'. What Mr. Xi did was to not heed Deng's admonition and show his hand prematurely, perhaps spurred on by the need to divert attention of the Chinese people from internal problems and whip up patriotism in support of the party.
The same think tankers have been preaching engagement with China for 5 decades and the communist party is still in power, in fact it has tightened its grip on the people of late.
It is human nature that, once in power, the people in power would do anything to stay in power and to hope that the PRC would evolve into liberal democracy is a pipe dream.
The same think tankers have been preaching engagement with China for 5 decades and the communist party is still in power, in fact it has tightened its grip on the people of late.
It is human nature that, once in power, the people in power would do anything to stay in power and to hope that the PRC would evolve into liberal democracy is a pipe dream.
5
I think this is how the Chinese leadership and people should respond to Orville Schell:
1) Containment? Bring it on. We are not afraid of America at all.
2) For Korea to unify, there shall be no American troops in ANY part of Korea, PERIOD.
3) The maritime disputes will be settled through bilateral negotiations. Period.
4) Disavowal of us of military force in the Taiwan Strait? Only if the Taiwanese agree to a strict timetable for reunification. Otherwise, nothing doing.
5) Hong Kong - none of your business.
China does not need to kow-tow, bow down or submit to America. China has her own redlines, and like someone said... superpowers DO. NOT. BLUFF.
1) Containment? Bring it on. We are not afraid of America at all.
2) For Korea to unify, there shall be no American troops in ANY part of Korea, PERIOD.
3) The maritime disputes will be settled through bilateral negotiations. Period.
4) Disavowal of us of military force in the Taiwan Strait? Only if the Taiwanese agree to a strict timetable for reunification. Otherwise, nothing doing.
5) Hong Kong - none of your business.
China does not need to kow-tow, bow down or submit to America. China has her own redlines, and like someone said... superpowers DO. NOT. BLUFF.
10
What would the world be like if China had the leading currency, bankers and army? I cannot imagine a country of 1.5 billion welcoming foreign talent. I cannot imagine two-sided trade agreements. I can, however, imagine policies of colonialism, mercantilism, and conquest in which global food supplies and raw materials are shipped back to the Middle Kingdom. Small nations with limited populations would be swarmed and colonized. I imagine perpetual wars and arms races. Some welcome China's rise, but I praise the devil I know, the one commonly derided as American imperialism.
9
Schell's observations, which echo George Soros' recent call for improved Sino-American relations, are incisive and constructive. Unfortunately they are both politically and ideologically problematic.
American exceptionalism is grounded in the Western concept that individual political liberty should be a template for the world. It's a lovely dream, but it isn't shared by China. Although our Enlightenment was based on the importance of the individual; the Confucian ideal is based on centralized power deployed for the common good. There is an irreconcilable gulf between these worlds. Unless we abandon our demands that China adopt western human rights, our common ground with the China will be limited to economics, technology, and ecology.
I have always hoped that as the Chinese become wealthier, that the growing middle class would be a force for liberalization. That does not seem to be happening. Perhaps that day will come, but we cannot wait until then to come to terms with the world's new superpower. We must accept China as it is, and ensure our paths avoid unnecessary conflict. Unfortunately that is not the current direction of American policy and attitudes towards China.
American exceptionalism is grounded in the Western concept that individual political liberty should be a template for the world. It's a lovely dream, but it isn't shared by China. Although our Enlightenment was based on the importance of the individual; the Confucian ideal is based on centralized power deployed for the common good. There is an irreconcilable gulf between these worlds. Unless we abandon our demands that China adopt western human rights, our common ground with the China will be limited to economics, technology, and ecology.
I have always hoped that as the Chinese become wealthier, that the growing middle class would be a force for liberalization. That does not seem to be happening. Perhaps that day will come, but we cannot wait until then to come to terms with the world's new superpower. We must accept China as it is, and ensure our paths avoid unnecessary conflict. Unfortunately that is not the current direction of American policy and attitudes towards China.
19
First, both sides need to change, respect each other core values and do not demand "my way or the highway" mentality!
Second, Chinese must change their culture behaviour
Third, further education is needed on both sides.
Second, Chinese must change their culture behaviour
Third, further education is needed on both sides.
2
Orville Schell is a person who advocates selling your friends and allies for whatever stupid benefits he thinks China will give the U.S. History has been telling us when the US and the democratic countries were selling their friends, millions of people died. Just think about what happened during the WWII. What the US should do is to teach China a lesson like you are teaching a bully in the classroom. Stop bothering people around you and behave yourself.
No wonder the US has a disastrous China policy in the past decades, when policy-makers are surrounded by those so-called Chinese experts who support selling friends for so called national interests.
As a citizen of Republic of Taiwan, selling Taiwanese to China will only encourage China to be more aggressive to Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines.
Shame on you Orville Schell!
No wonder the US has a disastrous China policy in the past decades, when policy-makers are surrounded by those so-called Chinese experts who support selling friends for so called national interests.
As a citizen of Republic of Taiwan, selling Taiwanese to China will only encourage China to be more aggressive to Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines.
Shame on you Orville Schell!
6
Every day China ships millions of goods to the U.S. and we ship jobs back, so I'd say the relationship is operating without the slightest hitch.
2
We need to keep talking and meeting with the Chinese, regardless of the outcome.
And as the Chinese continue to pursue and to protect their goals, we need to continue to do likewise, i.e. cyber, trade, open international sea lanes, and defense.
We each need to be aware of our respective spheres of influence, and acknowledge theirs, in protecting our allies and our own interests. We have to acknowledge that they control their own internal policies, i.e. internal freedoms, which we cannot control, just as they don't have the right to foist their internal actions upon us.
And as the Chinese continue to pursue and to protect their goals, we need to continue to do likewise, i.e. cyber, trade, open international sea lanes, and defense.
We each need to be aware of our respective spheres of influence, and acknowledge theirs, in protecting our allies and our own interests. We have to acknowledge that they control their own internal policies, i.e. internal freedoms, which we cannot control, just as they don't have the right to foist their internal actions upon us.
1
Perhaps the better question is "should the US and China get along".
And the answer would be a simple No. China is an opaque autocracy - it is run by raw militaristic and territorial ambition - look what it is doing to its immediate neighbors and project that 50-100 years into the future. It is forever playing chess with everyone with a view to dominate, surround and weaken. It is already on our shores - see the new canal it is digging in central america.
We will either have to face China or submit to it. For either option, we have ultimately ourselves are to blame. Facilitated by the abject stupidity of our own "leaders" who we elect as long as they confirm that we are exceptional, and the vile connivance of bankers, we have sold our technological superiority and our ability to make things for a pittance to them, and continue to do so. We have devalued the importance of technology, science and education focusing instead which 2000 year-old prophet is the right one, worshiping the quick buck, and ensuring that the disadvantaged amongst us do not get a leg up.
And the answer would be a simple No. China is an opaque autocracy - it is run by raw militaristic and territorial ambition - look what it is doing to its immediate neighbors and project that 50-100 years into the future. It is forever playing chess with everyone with a view to dominate, surround and weaken. It is already on our shores - see the new canal it is digging in central america.
We will either have to face China or submit to it. For either option, we have ultimately ourselves are to blame. Facilitated by the abject stupidity of our own "leaders" who we elect as long as they confirm that we are exceptional, and the vile connivance of bankers, we have sold our technological superiority and our ability to make things for a pittance to them, and continue to do so. We have devalued the importance of technology, science and education focusing instead which 2000 year-old prophet is the right one, worshiping the quick buck, and ensuring that the disadvantaged amongst us do not get a leg up.
27
Very well said. "Rise" of autocratic China would be a disaster for US and the World.
1
Hmm, the so-called "China experts" of every political persuasion fell into a neat line supporting "engagement" which has proved to be a dismal failure. Now, Mr. Schell says the White House and the Senate should call on this very same crowd for advice on how to "accommodate China's rise?"
The only reason that Mr. Schell and the rest of the "old China hand" crowd are starting to step away from engagement is NOT because of the the litany of rights abuses he cites but because his and the others' corporate underwriters are unable to make money in China.
If Tiananmen Square was such a big deal why did 100% of developing market FDI go to China after 1989?
Let Russia and China have each other I say. There bilateral history is riven with distrust and conflict. Let's just step back and see what happens.
The only reason that Mr. Schell and the rest of the "old China hand" crowd are starting to step away from engagement is NOT because of the the litany of rights abuses he cites but because his and the others' corporate underwriters are unable to make money in China.
If Tiananmen Square was such a big deal why did 100% of developing market FDI go to China after 1989?
Let Russia and China have each other I say. There bilateral history is riven with distrust and conflict. Let's just step back and see what happens.
5
Conflict is coming because we signal we will do nothing about the bases being built in the South China Sea.
4
Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to be stuck between the proverbial rock and the Hard Place; but, both were created by his own design. He has taken a hard line to assert his power within China; however, by doing so, he has created many enemies among the elites of the Communist Central Committee. At the same time, he cannot defeat the invisible hand of economic reality.
The brief comparison to forcing President Xi to take a hard turn toward a Putinesque style of management might not be as radical as one might think. Gorbachev and Yeltsin orchestrated the shift in the old Soviet Regime toward one of openness and trustworthiness; but, President Putin has made a U-turn back to the old Soviet Order.
Similarly, President Xi has already started turning China back in time, away from the Deng Xiaoping’s ideas. Yes, Xi appears to be openly fighting corruption; however, might he be doing so selectively--choosing between friend and foe. Likewise, his response to the recent bursting of the of the Chinese stock market bubble has relied primarily on government control, directing the Chinese Central Bank to take specified action and even using police force to reinforce the will of the government control.
Might President Xi be grasping at straws? He’s tried everything that he can, and its not working. Control! Control! Control!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The brief comparison to forcing President Xi to take a hard turn toward a Putinesque style of management might not be as radical as one might think. Gorbachev and Yeltsin orchestrated the shift in the old Soviet Regime toward one of openness and trustworthiness; but, President Putin has made a U-turn back to the old Soviet Order.
Similarly, President Xi has already started turning China back in time, away from the Deng Xiaoping’s ideas. Yes, Xi appears to be openly fighting corruption; however, might he be doing so selectively--choosing between friend and foe. Likewise, his response to the recent bursting of the of the Chinese stock market bubble has relied primarily on government control, directing the Chinese Central Bank to take specified action and even using police force to reinforce the will of the government control.
Might President Xi be grasping at straws? He’s tried everything that he can, and its not working. Control! Control! Control!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
Getting along will be difficult when one country thinks it is "exceptional" and the other thinks it is the "Middle Kingdom".
Chinese have been around from 500 years before Christ. They think of themselves as a civilization. The United States has been around for only 240 years. The citizens of both countries are proud of their heritage.
For thousands of years China called themselves the “Middle Kingdom”, meaning they were the center of civilization and all other countries and cultures were inferior to theirs. For much of China’s history they did not pay close attention to the rest of the world. They believed that non-Chinese were barbarians and they had nothing to learn from them.
Up until the mid 18th century China had no interest in conquering other lands. When they visited other parts of the world China was not out to conquer. They accepted gifts from the barbarians and had no interest in ruling them. Often they would invite the barbarians to visit China and provide gifts, called tribute, to the Emperor of China. The Chinese explorers would leave in peace believing they had nothing to learn from others. This attitude was costly for China......
http://lstrn.us/1HpPRPl
Chinese have been around from 500 years before Christ. They think of themselves as a civilization. The United States has been around for only 240 years. The citizens of both countries are proud of their heritage.
For thousands of years China called themselves the “Middle Kingdom”, meaning they were the center of civilization and all other countries and cultures were inferior to theirs. For much of China’s history they did not pay close attention to the rest of the world. They believed that non-Chinese were barbarians and they had nothing to learn from them.
Up until the mid 18th century China had no interest in conquering other lands. When they visited other parts of the world China was not out to conquer. They accepted gifts from the barbarians and had no interest in ruling them. Often they would invite the barbarians to visit China and provide gifts, called tribute, to the Emperor of China. The Chinese explorers would leave in peace believing they had nothing to learn from others. This attitude was costly for China......
http://lstrn.us/1HpPRPl
5
Sure, China had no interest in conquering other lands, but they also had no interest in overtaking their surroundings like the Westerners did. I do not think this attitude derives from this suggested self-centered aspect of being the "Middle Kingdom" or the fact that there was nothing to learn because history indicates that with the introduction of foreigners in their country, influences on culture and clothing were clearly evident at the time. Instead, Chinese culture and for many other Asian cultures that have survived for much longer and at much more advance capability than the western civilization, emphasized on spirituality and harmony with living with nature, not overtaking it. What you call was costly for China was a longer-term stability versus what is happening now.. with the introduction of industrialization is global warming and environmental issues, and the only option for China to retain their large chunky and juicy land was to keep up with the rest of the world, abandoning this "attitude." I've considered what would've happened if easternization occurred instead of westernization, but I've realized that it would never happen because it is not within the interests or cultural importance to ancient China.
I can't say your ideas are naive. They are quite noble, but you miss the point that the Pentagon started this cold attitude first by flying surveillance flights along the Chinese coast, one time resulting in the death of a Chinese fighter pilot who shadowed the plane, then the Pentagon instigated the "Pivot to Asia" following the wind down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in South Asia. Naturally the pushover Obama just followed the Pentagon lead as they have his ear everywhere. The Pentagon is in the business of making enemies to assure the continuation of their empire.
3
The multinationals run the relationship between the US and China, not governments. As long as Chinese workers are willing to work for next to nothing and live in dormitories, change will not occur.
4
China is essential to keep Apples products flowing .
1
I have to agree with some of the comments here that this article reads like a wish list issued by the Chinese. China has taken a marked authoritarian turn under Xi, which makes the regime more dangerous than it has been in decades. No one denies that China has interests, and that under an open international trading system largely underwritten (at great domestic cost) by the United States, it has become wealthy and powerful. But it must play by the rules. Bullying smaller nations should be seen by the Chinese leadership as dangerous and counter-productive. Antagonizing the interests of its neighbors and its largest trading partner should likewise be seen as a course laden with long-term risks to its interests.
3
America relationship with China is extremely important -- because China is likely to have at least twice as large an economy as America in 20 to 30 years. If that happens,their labor cost would still probably be roughly half ours, meaning they could afford roughly 3 to 4 times the troops and military equipment we could. And we cannot count on our alleged technological superiority to save us. China is already the world's largest producer of electronics. China is graduating 5 times as many student in science and engineering as we do. A high percent of current cutting edge technology papers are authored or co-authored by people having Chinese names. The Chinese are an intelligent people, probably having a higher average IQ than Americans have. And their concentration of political power into a relatively small band of extremely intelligent leaders gives them a much greater ability than our government to plan decades ahead and to plan in secret.
The many public voices that tell us America is likely to remain the most powerful country in the world for the rest of this century are either lairs or fools. For America to have even a chance of remaining roughly equal in power with China we will have to greatly increase the intelligence and effectiveness of not only our education system, and economy, but also of our political system and government.
The many public voices that tell us America is likely to remain the most powerful country in the world for the rest of this century are either lairs or fools. For America to have even a chance of remaining roughly equal in power with China we will have to greatly increase the intelligence and effectiveness of not only our education system, and economy, but also of our political system and government.
10
China is still a Communist state and the Communist Party will not give up power in any way, that means no rule of law and no liberal democratic institutions even as it seeks wealth and power in a mixed state and privately owned industrial economy. We can pursue the bulleted objectives but we must consider what we need to accomplish to secure our own best interests, including continuing to control the world trading routes and keeping the resources of the world available to everybody to use. We need to maintain a Navy and to continue to maintain surveillance over China because it will be our biggest competitor in the world over the next century.
3
Enough ideas here to make both sides uncomfortable. Orville Schell is right that the two countries especially need each other because of the necessity to cooperate on climate change. The special China group inside the White House seems unnecessary, whereas a careful study, respect and management of the US China relationship is vital. The idea that made me the most uncomfortable, was putting a refusal to continue arming the Taiwanese on the table. It's complicated, but my initial reaction is that we could agree to that, when they agree to democracy.
posted also at my blog LindsayOnVietnam.wordpress.com
posted also at my blog LindsayOnVietnam.wordpress.com
5
Beside re-listing and demanding all those old list, We shall come out to a better ones. We too have violated the list, just read China Daily on China Annual Report in rebuking of the USA, most if not all came from our own media, police, FBI and not to mention from the Snowden's disclosure....
Clean up our own house before making and demanding other to follow us.
My colleagues in China used to said "your freedom is I being oppressed"! Think about it....who control us?
Clean up our own house before making and demanding other to follow us.
My colleagues in China used to said "your freedom is I being oppressed"! Think about it....who control us?
1
Commentators bluster about China's rise as some sort of foolish gift bestowed on the PRC by a combination of misplaced US benevolence and greed. However, China was the world's largest economic power 1800 of the last 2000 years with no US to be seen. Also the US is increasingly alone in its geopolitically driven eagerness to demonise and isolate China. Most of the US's Western allies happily joined China's new infrastructure bank. In 2015 the UK and China are celebrating a year dedicated to their Sino British cultural exchange. Australia just signed a major free trade deal with China. See Xi's recent visit to France for more of the same. And this is just "the West"! The rest of the world from Africa to South America is welcoming peaceful Chinese investment/ infrastructure building and closer relationships but these are not stories you will see in the US MSM. They conflict with the China as militaristic/dystopian environmental nightmare nonsense needed to sell the Pacific Pivot driven by the US military industrial complex. Meanwhile those poor oppressed slave labour Chinese face the scourge of ever rising wages and improvements in standards of living. PEW records them as amongst the most satisfied with their government. China's real crime is an economic system that promotes government intervention in the market thus conflicting with the interests of the US .1% and Wall Street . They just intervened to protect small investors. This can't be tolerated.
4
I agree with you on USA attitudes, but part company that China's infrastructure expansion in SA is peaceful-- far from it.
In "The End of History?" (1989), Francis Fukuyama predicted that capitalist (market-driven) economics and western liberal democratic politics would take hold around the world including in places like China and the Soviet Union.
Market-driven capitalist economics has taken hold in communist China and the former Soviet Union, now Russia.
But what Fukuyama got wrong was to think that western liberal democracy would also take hold in communist and fascist countries because of western liberal democracy's inherent superiority (he was quite an optimist).
Instead, dog-eat-dog economic capitalism is thriving in communist countries like China and in fascist countries like Russia (and in China, man-eat-dog capitalism).
Fukuyama's other big mistake was to discount the attraction of fascism, including the religion-based fascism of Islamic groups (like ISIS).
Market-driven capitalist economics has taken hold in communist China and the former Soviet Union, now Russia.
But what Fukuyama got wrong was to think that western liberal democracy would also take hold in communist and fascist countries because of western liberal democracy's inherent superiority (he was quite an optimist).
Instead, dog-eat-dog economic capitalism is thriving in communist countries like China and in fascist countries like Russia (and in China, man-eat-dog capitalism).
Fukuyama's other big mistake was to discount the attraction of fascism, including the religion-based fascism of Islamic groups (like ISIS).
2
And may I add, the religion based fascist tendencies of evangelical christians right here in the good old USA.
Apparently China has failed to respond satisfactorily to American directives on how to run their society and economy.
How rude of them to reject our instruction and stern lectures on how to be just like us.
Frankly, the United States is becoming a little tired of other nations pursuing different routes to national development than those that we approve of.
How rude of them to reject our instruction and stern lectures on how to be just like us.
Frankly, the United States is becoming a little tired of other nations pursuing different routes to national development than those that we approve of.
3
Mr. Schell cited the drop of Americans viewing China favorably. Apparently Chinese opinion does not matter as there was no mention of how Chinese view the US.
Blaming China for hacking and cyberattacks takes a lot of chutzpah, in light of the Snowden revelations and other reports on what the NASA has been doing.
Mr. Schell said that Americans should "reaffirm in the most public way possible that while we welcome China's rise, ----- (we) are even prepared for a latter-day strategy of "containment".
We "welcome China's rise" - This is such an empty phrase. Not going to do anything for the Chinese. Besides, the China think the US has never stopped to try to contain China.
Mr. Schell also wants China to allow Hong Kong more autonomy to work out its timetable for attain universal suffrage. Now, where did this come from? While we are at this, maybe the US should repeal all the States' laws which curb voting access as part of managing our relationship with China.
Blaming China for hacking and cyberattacks takes a lot of chutzpah, in light of the Snowden revelations and other reports on what the NASA has been doing.
Mr. Schell said that Americans should "reaffirm in the most public way possible that while we welcome China's rise, ----- (we) are even prepared for a latter-day strategy of "containment".
We "welcome China's rise" - This is such an empty phrase. Not going to do anything for the Chinese. Besides, the China think the US has never stopped to try to contain China.
Mr. Schell also wants China to allow Hong Kong more autonomy to work out its timetable for attain universal suffrage. Now, where did this come from? While we are at this, maybe the US should repeal all the States' laws which curb voting access as part of managing our relationship with China.
3
The American policy to China has to get a total reorientation - the world has changed in last 30 years, the policy of containment will not work any more.
The Western liberal democracy and market capitalism is today challenged by the viable model of single Party dictatorship and state controlled Capitalism of China. No longer West can claim her supremacy. The objective performance of China's model is far superior than Western model.
Second, the cultural differences between West and East has to be accepted - freedom in West is individual freedom, freedom in East ( Mukti or Nirvana) is freedom from bondage - very different idea. Individual freedom in East is subordinate to this broader idea of Mukti or Nirvana. West will not understand this subtle difference - it's culture never looked to life in this mirror.
The new generation of American understand this nuance differences of West and East - the older generation is struggling - their unconscious arrogance prevented them to see the reality. It is not true that Western minds never tried to understand - remember "On Golden Pond".
America needs to focus on a foreign policy that will accept the differences of China form West and at the same time help China to avoid pitfalls of dictatorship for the betterment of the world - a cooperative game.
The Western liberal democracy and market capitalism is today challenged by the viable model of single Party dictatorship and state controlled Capitalism of China. No longer West can claim her supremacy. The objective performance of China's model is far superior than Western model.
Second, the cultural differences between West and East has to be accepted - freedom in West is individual freedom, freedom in East ( Mukti or Nirvana) is freedom from bondage - very different idea. Individual freedom in East is subordinate to this broader idea of Mukti or Nirvana. West will not understand this subtle difference - it's culture never looked to life in this mirror.
The new generation of American understand this nuance differences of West and East - the older generation is struggling - their unconscious arrogance prevented them to see the reality. It is not true that Western minds never tried to understand - remember "On Golden Pond".
America needs to focus on a foreign policy that will accept the differences of China form West and at the same time help China to avoid pitfalls of dictatorship for the betterment of the world - a cooperative game.
4
The grammar says, troll.
The U.S. can get along with China as long as it does not mistake China to be a developing capitalist nation that will become one where the government is controlled by the governed. Deng Xiaoping was a true believer of Communism but he was a pragmatic Marxist style socialist who saw Mao's attempts to achieve the Communist ideal through continual revolution to be futile, he did not advocate that China attempt to become a liberal democracy. The current leadership in China is about preserving the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat while working out economic progress over the near future not about developing a capitalist society nor a form of government which is based upon the whims and selfish concerns of the people. China in has no legal framework designed to limit the authority of government nor effect laws to keep individuals in power at any level of government from doing what they choose. Any generation of people is transient and so their wishes are focused not upon the long term good of all generations. The Marxists strive for the benefit of a people that is not just the people alive but the people who will be alive many generations hence, and so it very real sense Marxism cannot rely upon the people living today to decide how the government should be run, and so it's opposition to the kind of democratic institutions practiced in the U.S. and in liberal democracies.
3
One of the most devastating aspects of our trade relationship with China is the Chinese population is either unable or unwilling to buy American products, while they continue to flood American markets with their worthless junk through retailers such as Walmart. Due to a lack of time, I can only briefly mention the significant job losses suffered by America since 2001, largely attributable to our one sided trade relationship. The only American companies that prosper in China are the ones moving their production from the US to China. The fact that we are constantly bombarded by Chinese cyber-attacks seeking more intellectual property or other sensitive information is also appalling. The US relationship with China is one only beneficial for the Chinese in its current incarnation. I can only hope our policy makers wake up and attempt to see past the lobbyists employed by companies financially benefitting from the farce they call international trade.
6
Why should China and the US get along? Because the US wants to retain its stranglehold on superpower status? Why wouldn't China want to be as powerful, economically and militarily, as we are? We didn't ask anyone's permission to get where we are. Add to that that we are a democracy with a First Amendment, whereas the Chinese are a dictatorship which suppresses free speech, and gosh, we don't really have that much in common, do we? Except that we both fought the Japanese, 70 years ago. So no- we are natural competitors and that won't change anytime soon. Especially as we foolishly continue to trade with China and educate its future repressive leadership in our universities, while China continues to mount increasingly-serious attacks our computer infrastructure with seeming impunity. I'm sure China is quite happy with the volatile status quo; expect more of the same.
7
One of the biggest errors at the founding of the Uniter Nations was allowing China and Russia to be permanent members of the UN Security council with absolute veto power against the other democratic members.
4
As long as china goes full bore in poisoning the planet and destroying tomorrow , no.
And our trade policy encourages them.
And our trade policy encourages them.
5
I’m astonished that as MANY as 38% of Americans view China favorably.
We remain hugely interdependent, our trade a sometimes oppressive reality that nevertheless keeps millions of Chinese paying bills, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that upwards of 40 million American jobs are tied to global trade to one extent or another – much of it with China.
But we’re Venus and Mars. There are very few basic tenets of governance or ideological conviction that we share. Indeed, the only reason they’ve modified their once-Soviet command economy to ape some of the mechanisms of our own very different model is the manifestly dismal failure of theirs. But very little else has changed in how they’re governed or how they view the rest of the world. It’s not really about interdependency with them at all, but the minimal degree of arms-length interaction required to extend their influence for the sole purpose of protecting what they deem to be their interests.
If there is to be a new civilizing influence in the world, China’s is the worst imaginable model for it.
They’ve grown in heft largely due to their population far beyond our ability to merely ignore them as just one more example of a state teetering on the edge of historic failure. Anything OTHER than containment as a strategic response assumes that they have some legitimacy BEYOND the ability to apply force.
But almost all the examples of cooperation cited in this op-ed ASSUME such legitimacy, which is simply wrong.
We remain hugely interdependent, our trade a sometimes oppressive reality that nevertheless keeps millions of Chinese paying bills, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that upwards of 40 million American jobs are tied to global trade to one extent or another – much of it with China.
But we’re Venus and Mars. There are very few basic tenets of governance or ideological conviction that we share. Indeed, the only reason they’ve modified their once-Soviet command economy to ape some of the mechanisms of our own very different model is the manifestly dismal failure of theirs. But very little else has changed in how they’re governed or how they view the rest of the world. It’s not really about interdependency with them at all, but the minimal degree of arms-length interaction required to extend their influence for the sole purpose of protecting what they deem to be their interests.
If there is to be a new civilizing influence in the world, China’s is the worst imaginable model for it.
They’ve grown in heft largely due to their population far beyond our ability to merely ignore them as just one more example of a state teetering on the edge of historic failure. Anything OTHER than containment as a strategic response assumes that they have some legitimacy BEYOND the ability to apply force.
But almost all the examples of cooperation cited in this op-ed ASSUME such legitimacy, which is simply wrong.
8
So basically, we throw our SE Asian allies under the bus by giving China a "sphere of influence" and imposing limits on US flyovers near China; throw Taiwan under the bus by blocking weapon sales; throw S. Korea under the bus by pre-emptively agreeing to restrictions on our behavior in the north in the [inevitable] event of reunification; throw Hong Kong under the bus by letting China off the hook on reforms; give up our priority focus on human rights to focus on unenforceable and unverifiable climate change agreements (yes, we must address climate change but this is not the way to do it); investigating how we can help China improve its domestic consumption, presumably without pushing for China to respect those pesky intellectual property rights and while continuing to shift American manufacturing jobs to China; and let China have an outsize say on running the IMF presumably while the US remains its chief funder? And nothing serious about getting China to actually play by the international rules, including those it ostensibly agreed to - such as in the areas of trade; nothing at all about getting China to stop the illegal consumption of endangered species (elephants, tigers, rhinos, etc.); nothing at all about the Chinese oppression (to put it mildly) of Tibetans and Uighurs; and so on.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Schell?
The only question I have is, why on earth would we ever want to do all that? What is the benefit? There is no benefit whatsoever that I can see.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Schell?
The only question I have is, why on earth would we ever want to do all that? What is the benefit? There is no benefit whatsoever that I can see.
11
Any U.S. relationship with China should, as a prerequisite, be based on China (a) respecting American intellectual property rights; (b) abiding by the various international agreements to which it is a party, including CITES and various trade agreements; (c) respecting international borders and the rights of its neighbors, including in the South China Sea and Taiwan; and (d) respecting the human, religious and cultural rights of its oppressed Tibetan and Uighur minorities. Further, we must stop the one way flow of American jobs and technology to China in the name of ‘free’ trade. Anything less, and we’re simply fooling ourselves and squandering all our advantages – and risking the future of the American middle class – for a quick buck. But with our elected leaders in the pocket of big multinationals and the financial industry, I am not holding my breath.
1
This was another article that brings up China's future "role" in the world. But what is that role? China contributes pretty much nothing to the world other than manufacturing cheap crap. Its a Jabba the Hut nation that wants to plop itself in the middle of room, intimidate smaller neighbors, and for some reason be respected. The deep thinkers in DC and NYT Opinion Page need to enlighten us as to what that country wants from the world and is willing to contribute.
Why do "we" as Americans have to do this? Rearranging China internally is not my problem. As a people they have shown over many years their willingness to go along with what is a very old culture of authorianism. All of this is done under the guise of the People's Republic, how bad it is, and how we, starting with Nixon's venture in are somehow responsible for the Chinese way of life. They chose it.
Now, in the interest of the GOP obsession with capitalism as a panacea for everything, "we" (well some of us) are buying their junk at Walmart. It is not racist at all to say it, it's just the truth. The business interests in this country have milked this one beyond belief. People are all good, no matter what country they come from, but that does not mean everything they do is good. A lot of what the Chinese business community does is from hell. And the Republicans these days take their cues from them.
If they can get away with selling poisoned food additives to children, some of them will do it. If they can build a railway across South America and wreck sensitive environments to provide materials for China's industrial sector, they will do it.
Wake up. They do business worse than we do, and that''s pushing it. No more excuses that they are still a developing nation. They have completely taken advantage of us and their own people, and will continue to do so unless told explicitly NO.
Now, in the interest of the GOP obsession with capitalism as a panacea for everything, "we" (well some of us) are buying their junk at Walmart. It is not racist at all to say it, it's just the truth. The business interests in this country have milked this one beyond belief. People are all good, no matter what country they come from, but that does not mean everything they do is good. A lot of what the Chinese business community does is from hell. And the Republicans these days take their cues from them.
If they can get away with selling poisoned food additives to children, some of them will do it. If they can build a railway across South America and wreck sensitive environments to provide materials for China's industrial sector, they will do it.
Wake up. They do business worse than we do, and that''s pushing it. No more excuses that they are still a developing nation. They have completely taken advantage of us and their own people, and will continue to do so unless told explicitly NO.
9
The U.S. needs China more than China needs the U.S. The Chinese believe it is inevitable that they are moving inexorably toward becoming the world's dominant economic and military power. They will cooperate with the U.S. and the West where and to the extent that it is in their perceived interest to do so, but they will do so on their terms as the balance of power inevitably shifts their way. While their form of government is antithetical to Western values, it has served the Chinese well thus far and there is little reason to believe the Communist Party will change its approach to governing, and certainly not because the West demands it.
11
For a long time, American has been preach freedom, democracy, rule of laws, human rights. Instead it embraces hegemony, unilateralism, execptionalism, dominance and human right violations. China forbid any activities and ideas that can destabilize the society. China's rise is a challenge to America's embraced goals. To avoid disastrous conflict, America should establish relation with China with mutual trust and respect.
8
An important aspect of Sino- American relationships is the amount of Chinese and those of Chinese heritage living in the United States. Along with the large amount of US debt and securities held by China and its citizens these are sufficient enough reasons for the current administration to pursue better relationships with this key world power.
2
It is not necessary for the US to do anything new. All the provocations came from China, not from the US. The US has maintained the prudent role of 'good cop in the world'. President Xi's "China Dream" will be collapsed in any time soon since this is based upon his ambition that China will become No.1 economy overtaking the US during his 10-year presidency. Unfortunately for China, the growth of her economy has been slowing down dramatically as conversion from export oriented economy to consumption oriented economy is not an easy task as President Xi has imagined. China's economic growth is based upon Japan's economic model using 'state' initiated industrial policy to catch up with the advanced West. It is nearly a joke for Chinese people to spend like Americans as they tend to save or gamble as we have seen recently in their stock markets.
2
Reality - we're substantially indebted to China, asymmetric warfare has largely neutralized our vaunted 'Blue Water Navy,' our suicidal 'Free Trade' program has seriously weakened our economy and hollowed out our manufacturing sector, our government is ineffectual - rendered impotent and a laughing stock due to an unwillingness to focus and adherence to vapid ideologies, our foreign policy and military have been humiliated in the Middle East - while further draining our treasury, we brought the 2008 Great Recession to the world, our public schools perform poorly vs. most other nations, and our health-care sector is the world's most expensive - yet, patient outcomes are not commensurate.
We no longer are 'a beacon on a hill.' Instead we're living off our past and slowly declining. Yet, we continue our hubris - telling other nations what to do. China, along with other nations, sees the obvious and no longer respects.
We no longer are 'a beacon on a hill.' Instead we're living off our past and slowly declining. Yet, we continue our hubris - telling other nations what to do. China, along with other nations, sees the obvious and no longer respects.
10
• Acknowledging that China is entitled to some kind of “sphere of influence” in the South China Sea, just as the United States has in the Caribbean, without completely yielding to all of its territorial claims;
These two claims are hardly analogous. The United States claims in the Caribbean are based on proximity to US shores and territorial claims which are not disputed by anyone. China's claims in the South China Sea defy any rational explanation and they have offered none beyond "might makes right" or "the weak are meat and the strong do eat" Look at this map and tell me their claims make any sense
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.ra...
These two claims are hardly analogous. The United States claims in the Caribbean are based on proximity to US shores and territorial claims which are not disputed by anyone. China's claims in the South China Sea defy any rational explanation and they have offered none beyond "might makes right" or "the weak are meat and the strong do eat" Look at this map and tell me their claims make any sense
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.ra...
1
You mean like the base on Cuba, surrounded by the world's 2nd largest active minefield?
Not disputed by anyone on the other side of the gun barrel, I'm sure.
Hawaii, Guam, and the other territories. America shows the world that might makes right.
Not disputed by anyone on the other side of the gun barrel, I'm sure.
Hawaii, Guam, and the other territories. America shows the world that might makes right.
1
Absolutely 100% agree with this comment.
1
Alex Nabaum's graphic representation is brilliant.
3
Brings to mind the opinion of two of our our greatest Generals. First McArthur wanted to go after them when we finsihed with Japan. George Patton wanted to arm their billions, each with a stick, and send them after the Russians. He said the line would never end. Odd both countries are the ones we have a problem with.
2
This is the finest analysis of current relations with China that I have ever read. It is difficult for me to accept compromise but it requires me to take a second look at my attitudes. The author's specificity and clarity in action points is refreshing, and all done in a concise way. This piece sails above the usual noise about this subject.
The U.S. government will always place the best interests of corporations & capital over that of it's citizens. China is well aware of this & understands that is the reason the U.S. will do nothing about the data hacking. The U.S. does not want to "offend" China which would close their markets even further to corporate interests. And because the priority of the U.S. government is always military power, while China's focus is on economic power, China will continue to outmaneuver us across the board. Meanwhile, China continues to destroy distant lands & its wildlife to ensure China's continued "growth", just like the U.S.
5
The author -- and so many other "China experts" -- can only maintain his professional position by keeping his access to China. Any opinion deviating too strongly from Communist Party doctrine will get him banished from China.
Thus we have him proposing that the US give up its right to operate in international airspace and waters.
Further, he wants the US to abandon its support for the free and democratic society on Taiwan, because, well, that would be convenient to the Communist Party.
In exchange, maybe M.r Xi, et al, MIGHT CONSIDER letting Hong Kong have 30% of the rights it was promised by the CCP in 1997.
WOW! What a bargain!
Thus we have him proposing that the US give up its right to operate in international airspace and waters.
Further, he wants the US to abandon its support for the free and democratic society on Taiwan, because, well, that would be convenient to the Communist Party.
In exchange, maybe M.r Xi, et al, MIGHT CONSIDER letting Hong Kong have 30% of the rights it was promised by the CCP in 1997.
WOW! What a bargain!
7
The North Vietnamese soldiers had a saying back in the Vietnam War: "lets tell the Chinese that the Americans taste good, then they will come and help us."
Mr. Schell wants to give the Chinese everything they want. I say we give them nothing. They seem to be preparing for war: building islands, stealing our secrets, hacking our computers, giving arms & explosives to our enemies and harassing our allies.
Lets make it hard for them instead by cutting off some trade. Less Chinese junk isn't a bad thing. Why not form some alliances right now with Vietnam, the Philippines and just to poke them in the eye, Taiwan. The Japanese know what is coming. Lets let the Japanese create a division or 6. The Japanese are tough soldiers. The Australians are ready too, so lets continue building up bases there and New Zealand.
It is obvious the Chinese are not going to give us a thing or do anything positive for the world we live in. They want this and that. Make them pay for it. They are scared to death of our carriers. Lets build a few more, so we can add to that fear. If they pull a knife, lets pull out a gun.
Mr. Schell wants to give the Chinese everything they want. I say we give them nothing. They seem to be preparing for war: building islands, stealing our secrets, hacking our computers, giving arms & explosives to our enemies and harassing our allies.
Lets make it hard for them instead by cutting off some trade. Less Chinese junk isn't a bad thing. Why not form some alliances right now with Vietnam, the Philippines and just to poke them in the eye, Taiwan. The Japanese know what is coming. Lets let the Japanese create a division or 6. The Japanese are tough soldiers. The Australians are ready too, so lets continue building up bases there and New Zealand.
It is obvious the Chinese are not going to give us a thing or do anything positive for the world we live in. They want this and that. Make them pay for it. They are scared to death of our carriers. Lets build a few more, so we can add to that fear. If they pull a knife, lets pull out a gun.
5
There isn't a carrier afloat or carrier group that can withstand a 100 cruise missile attack.
Carriers and their group could turn parts of China to irradiated glass, but the aircraft launched, if they could be launched, would have nowhere to land.
Carriers are the battleships at Pearl Harbor. They work well today against foes with near zero air power. Like Assad in Syria. Or Daesh.
Carriers and their group could turn parts of China to irradiated glass, but the aircraft launched, if they could be launched, would have nowhere to land.
Carriers are the battleships at Pearl Harbor. They work well today against foes with near zero air power. Like Assad in Syria. Or Daesh.
Now that China manufactures (what seems like) almost everything we have in our stores, they might have more muscle to flex than we do. Can you imagine what it would be like if China decided to tell us we can no longer use their manufacturing facilities? Walmart would have to close its doors as a starter, but many others would have to do the same.
2
I can live with that. Bring manufacturing back to the United States.
Yes we should get along with China - and with Russia too. We won the Cold war and do not want to admit it.
As I see it, we still have a bit of the gun diplomacy/lone ranger/Kiplingnesque mentality of the XX Century. These are large nations with a long and proud hiostory; we should deal with them as equals, seek concensus, instead of trying to trip them today and seek their support tomorrow when we are in hot water..
As I see it, we still have a bit of the gun diplomacy/lone ranger/Kiplingnesque mentality of the XX Century. These are large nations with a long and proud hiostory; we should deal with them as equals, seek concensus, instead of trying to trip them today and seek their support tomorrow when we are in hot water..
1
Orville's solutions look alot like telling China to do whatever they like.
God knows we wouldn't want to make them angry.
God knows we wouldn't want to make them angry.
1
Sometimes I wonder at the Times selection process for op-eds. Appoint a special envoy to China? What do we have an ambassador for---not to mention the myriad members of his staff. Edify the Us public on China? They have multiple sources of information already. And then Schell suggests a long list of concessions Washington should make. It's past time to realize---as Jimmy Carter discovered--- that making concessions will simply embolden Beijing to demand more.
21
Totally agree with Prof. Dreyer. See you on the NBR forum June!
Ambassadors CANNOT do what ordinary people like you and me do, i.e. a dinner chat with our respected counterpart after a long da of working together.
Chinese do not want much. All they want for the world to respects that are due to them, now that are in the position to demand such respects, which we call them "dangerous expansionists"!
Chinese do not want much. All they want for the world to respects that are due to them, now that are in the position to demand such respects, which we call them "dangerous expansionists"!
The reference to "containment" as US policy raises a question not answered by this article. That is contain what and why? In the Mao years we obviously wanted to "contain" the Chinese brand of socialism. But since China is no longer a socialist country and is fully part of the global capitalist system why do we respond to China by urging Japanese remilitarization, or new Marine bases in Australia? Add to this "response" military surveillance flights and up-grading rather than reducing our nuclear arsenal.
If the US was really serious about supporting human rights this would certainly be an issue of contention because of China's regression on that issue. But after supporting repressive dictatorships all over the world it's obvious that human rights is not an American principle, it's a card that we play when it advances some other agenda and one that we conveniently ignore when we have other issues at play.
So what "containment" really means is that the US continues to see itself as the global chieftain that other nations need to line up and follow. We will serve ourselves first on the worlds energy resources, markets, and financial ownership of capital assets.
But those days of unipolar power are over. The real way forward is for the US to recognize that we live in an increasingly interdependent world and must relate to other nations like China as partners, not vassals. Both county's need to learn new lessons for navigating this world in this age of climate change.
If the US was really serious about supporting human rights this would certainly be an issue of contention because of China's regression on that issue. But after supporting repressive dictatorships all over the world it's obvious that human rights is not an American principle, it's a card that we play when it advances some other agenda and one that we conveniently ignore when we have other issues at play.
So what "containment" really means is that the US continues to see itself as the global chieftain that other nations need to line up and follow. We will serve ourselves first on the worlds energy resources, markets, and financial ownership of capital assets.
But those days of unipolar power are over. The real way forward is for the US to recognize that we live in an increasingly interdependent world and must relate to other nations like China as partners, not vassals. Both county's need to learn new lessons for navigating this world in this age of climate change.
5
I agree with a great deal of what Mr Schell has described, but we must always remember to follow the money. China is the US number one trading partner (and also someone we owe over 300 billion in trade deficit). In the immortal words of Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) in Network:
20th century people think in terms of nations and peoples.
There are no nations.
There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Chinese. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is no East.
There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immense, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, RMB, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today!
Arthur H Tafero
Professor of Marketing Management
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
20th century people think in terms of nations and peoples.
There are no nations.
There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Chinese. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is no East.
There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immense, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, RMB, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today!
Arthur H Tafero
Professor of Marketing Management
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
Working for a university in China surely hasn't influenced your objectivity.... right?
The primary policy issue with China is how much money US businesses can make by exporting manufacturing and importing workers. US consumers vote with their pocket books millions of times a day on the issues, supporting the hollowing out of the middle class in this country. The US is just a willing stepping stone, a placemat for the Chinese government.
We get the trading partners, and all that goes with it, that we deserve.
We get the trading partners, and all that goes with it, that we deserve.
1
Both nations are in the midst of mutually unsustainable paradigms based on unsustainable 'growth' models, with neither side willing to evolve. So conflict is inevitable.
Do we need to end up on hell's doorstep before we cooperate? Or, will this all get resolved in the time-honored and regrettable way of mutually (and world-wide) destructive war?
Where's Shakespeare, that unsurpassed chronicler of human folly, when we need him?
Do we need to end up on hell's doorstep before we cooperate? Or, will this all get resolved in the time-honored and regrettable way of mutually (and world-wide) destructive war?
Where's Shakespeare, that unsurpassed chronicler of human folly, when we need him?
2
<
"Can the U.S. and China Get Along?"
NO
"Can the U.S. and China Get Along?"
NO
1
This editorial has all the foresight of a Wall Street earnings estimate for the current quarter.
1
NO, not as long as China owns so much of our sovereign debt, and real assets. That has been a big mistake and should stop, right now.
3
Ha, ha, ha.
It should stop right now?
How?
It should stop right now?
How?
Interesting that so many Americans still see "us" as a democracy and China as a military dictatorship. Global corporations care little for these political distinctions, as the leaders of all countries grovel to attract their investments. Oligarchies predominate here and there. The distinction between corporate owners and the rest of us is more significant. When we all work -- if we can find work -- for the same employers, it matters less and less where the particular facility is located. On the plus side, major nations can no longer afford to bomb each other's facilities, since the owners are everywhere the same.
34
Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.
"The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands." (Fukuyama, p. 17).
Welcome to Post-History, which is for the most part post-ideological since most ideologies have, for the most part, converged into one global ideology based strictly on economics.
"The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands." (Fukuyama, p. 17).
Welcome to Post-History, which is for the most part post-ideological since most ideologies have, for the most part, converged into one global ideology based strictly on economics.
2
"Interesting that so many Americans still see "us" as a democracy and China as a military dictatorship..."
Most Americans don't think of China as a military dictatorship. They think of China as the country which fills our stores with cheap, low-quality goods.
In fact, on the nightly news China's dictator is referred to as the "president" of China, a term most Americans associate with democracy.
Most Americans don't think of China as a military dictatorship. They think of China as the country which fills our stores with cheap, low-quality goods.
In fact, on the nightly news China's dictator is referred to as the "president" of China, a term most Americans associate with democracy.
It might seem strange us but the Soviet Union's Military was it's own state within that country which the political leadership did not fully control, and I suspect that the PLA has a similar relationship to the Communist Party leadership of China. Despite all the corruption in our country from wealthy corporations we have a country which is governed by laws, which even corporations need to survive, but law is what the Communist Party says it is in China. The Communists do make an oligarchy but it's an oligarchy serving an ideal future rather than the particular individuals running it which makes it a lot different that what we normally can expect from such a political arrangement.
1
Any country that countanences the barbaric treatment of animals and wanton destruction of the environment as does China is not a civilized nation no matter how many widgets it produces. Yeah, I know: I am a cultural imperialist imposing my Western values on the mystical Chinese, but as terrible as some of the practices still tolerated in the U.S. are, they are nothing compared to China. Bear bile, shark finning, ivory trade, Yulin are not examples of civilized conduct in the 21st century.
1
In many points Orville Schell is right about China under current leadership is a "counterintuitive and unpredictable player".
In order for the US and China to "get along", both countries need to understand the psyche of each nation. According to the rule of seniority, China expects the US to understand its history, especially its humiliation at the hands of Western interlopers in the hundred years before the proclamation of the PR of China.
To welcome China's rise is one thing, but to acknowledge its spurious territorial claims, based on ancient maps, is another. Its self-assertiveness has alarmed its regional neighbours, who admire China's economic strength, but have little compassion for the country and its people.
With growth, China expects to be treated as an equal partner by the US. There are justified reasons, why it felt snubbed, when its current standing hasn't been taken into account in policy-making processes.
But economic power alone doesn't make a great country. In terms of popularity, China is certainly not on the top of the list! It has a lot of homework to do, if it wants to match Germany, seen as the world's most popular country.
In order for the US and China to "get along", both countries need to understand the psyche of each nation. According to the rule of seniority, China expects the US to understand its history, especially its humiliation at the hands of Western interlopers in the hundred years before the proclamation of the PR of China.
To welcome China's rise is one thing, but to acknowledge its spurious territorial claims, based on ancient maps, is another. Its self-assertiveness has alarmed its regional neighbours, who admire China's economic strength, but have little compassion for the country and its people.
With growth, China expects to be treated as an equal partner by the US. There are justified reasons, why it felt snubbed, when its current standing hasn't been taken into account in policy-making processes.
But economic power alone doesn't make a great country. In terms of popularity, China is certainly not on the top of the list! It has a lot of homework to do, if it wants to match Germany, seen as the world's most popular country.
1
Consider these facts:
There are more Chinese school children in China studying English...than there are English-speaking children in the entire world studying English.
However, there are almost NO English-speaking children studying Chinese anywhere in the world.
When it comes to cultural adaptation the Chinese are kind of amazing. I have known many Chinese immigrant families, and in every case their U.S. or Canadian-born children speak English perfectly but also speak Mandarin (I don't so I can't judge their ability) because being monolingual is NOT considered a viable option.
On the other hand, most Americans, and most Britons, I know, think that being monolingual is the ONLY way to go because the English language and the culture its represents is simply superficial to all other languages and cultures, because they say so.
There are more Chinese school children in China studying English...than there are English-speaking children in the entire world studying English.
However, there are almost NO English-speaking children studying Chinese anywhere in the world.
When it comes to cultural adaptation the Chinese are kind of amazing. I have known many Chinese immigrant families, and in every case their U.S. or Canadian-born children speak English perfectly but also speak Mandarin (I don't so I can't judge their ability) because being monolingual is NOT considered a viable option.
On the other hand, most Americans, and most Britons, I know, think that being monolingual is the ONLY way to go because the English language and the culture its represents is simply superficial to all other languages and cultures, because they say so.
3
There is one major problem no one wants to talk about.
China's growing military might will be perceived by the Japanese as a threat.
If the Japanese lose faith in American protection, they may decide to develop nuclear weapons. They are a very high-tech nation and you'd be amazed at how quickly they could produce nuclear bombs and ICBM's.
Does anyone really want to see Japan become a nuclear power?
China's growing military might will be perceived by the Japanese as a threat.
If the Japanese lose faith in American protection, they may decide to develop nuclear weapons. They are a very high-tech nation and you'd be amazed at how quickly they could produce nuclear bombs and ICBM's.
Does anyone really want to see Japan become a nuclear power?
3
When democracies try to work with military dictatorships, things are never easy. Believing itself to be bullied, China bullies its neighbors, steals technology, brutally silences domestic dissent, cultivates paranoid delusions and tries at every opportunity to poke its finger in the eye of the US. This is all in the service of the idea that anything can be excused in the name of the mighty Middle Kingdom that has been unjustly excluded from world leadership.
Nothing productive can come of this stance. The country has to replace its leadership first. Not much chance of that happening.
Nothing productive can come of this stance. The country has to replace its leadership first. Not much chance of that happening.
"When democracies try to work with military dictatorships..."
Why limit this statement to "military dictatorships?"
The U.S. supported dictatorships across the Americas for more than a century.
And the U.S. is the leading supporting of dictatorship in the Islamic world with allies that make China look soft in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
We even supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in his unprovoked war against Iran, which killed millions.
How many have been killed in wars supported by China in the last 50 years?
Why limit this statement to "military dictatorships?"
The U.S. supported dictatorships across the Americas for more than a century.
And the U.S. is the leading supporting of dictatorship in the Islamic world with allies that make China look soft in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
We even supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in his unprovoked war against Iran, which killed millions.
How many have been killed in wars supported by China in the last 50 years?
1
I couldn't disagree more with this article. China bought any little respect it has by manipulating its currency, supplying slave labor and demanding access to our technology. And if it wasn't provided, they hacked it.
The US corporations greed for oil put us in a hot mess in the Middle East which we have been in for decades. Now, the US greed for $6.00 tee shirts is putting us in a hot mess in China.
If we really want to make our country the strongest ever, encourage companies to come home. Set up a "beer summit" between labor and owners. Don't hack the unions into bits but don't let owners get away with highway robbery either. Making our middle class the strongest in the world. It's a lot of nonsense that we don't have skilled American workers. We have plenty. Let's make more. And then we can afford to buy a $10 tee shirt made right here.
Henry Ford had the most genius model and probably did more for the working class at the time. Germany has good pensions and they make stuff right there. They're not fighting in the Middle East, they are using renewables. Last I looked no Americans were itching to migrate but plenty all ov
The US corporations greed for oil put us in a hot mess in the Middle East which we have been in for decades. Now, the US greed for $6.00 tee shirts is putting us in a hot mess in China.
If we really want to make our country the strongest ever, encourage companies to come home. Set up a "beer summit" between labor and owners. Don't hack the unions into bits but don't let owners get away with highway robbery either. Making our middle class the strongest in the world. It's a lot of nonsense that we don't have skilled American workers. We have plenty. Let's make more. And then we can afford to buy a $10 tee shirt made right here.
Henry Ford had the most genius model and probably did more for the working class at the time. Germany has good pensions and they make stuff right there. They're not fighting in the Middle East, they are using renewables. Last I looked no Americans were itching to migrate but plenty all ov
3
According to U.S. Republicans, who will probably win the White House and both houses of Congress in 2016, the Chinese are 100% right when it comes to unions: There are no unions in China. Or NGOs. Or citizens' groups (other than the business cronies of the rulers). Or those obnoxious environmental and health safety laws that protect people for corporate crimes.
Eventually, as the educated Chinese middle class reaches critical mass, China will follow Taiwan and North Korea and become democratic, since it is the middle class that demands democracy -- the rural poor are too ignorant (think our own Tea Party). But we an expect that process to take a few generations.
In the meantime, the main problem is Xi. Like Putin and Netanyahu, Xi is a classic conservative -- greedy, power hungry, bellicose, paranoid, and rejecting even beneficial change and reform. But China, like the Catholic Church, will eventually have a more liberal, reformist leader; conservative and liberal leadership change in cycles, the consequence, perhaps, of some ancient utiltarian instinct.
All of this says to me that what we need most is patience, combined with more firmness on the part of the democracies -- why do we trade with a country that manipulates its currency and steals our intellectual property?
At the same time, we have to beware of the arrogant American swagger that Mark Thomason mentioned. I wouldn't go so far as to blame American for China's current behavior but we are sometimes curiously tone deaf, and I'm not just talking about Bush's idiotic axis of evil.
In the meantime, the main problem is Xi. Like Putin and Netanyahu, Xi is a classic conservative -- greedy, power hungry, bellicose, paranoid, and rejecting even beneficial change and reform. But China, like the Catholic Church, will eventually have a more liberal, reformist leader; conservative and liberal leadership change in cycles, the consequence, perhaps, of some ancient utiltarian instinct.
All of this says to me that what we need most is patience, combined with more firmness on the part of the democracies -- why do we trade with a country that manipulates its currency and steals our intellectual property?
At the same time, we have to beware of the arrogant American swagger that Mark Thomason mentioned. I wouldn't go so far as to blame American for China's current behavior but we are sometimes curiously tone deaf, and I'm not just talking about Bush's idiotic axis of evil.
4
"Eventually, as the educated Chinese middle class reaches critical mass, China will follow Taiwan and North Korea and become democratic, since it is the middle class that demands democracy."
Wow!
That's exactly what Francis Fukuyama predicted in "The End of History?" (1989).
Exactly North Korea doesn't have any middle class, so I'm guessing you mean South Korea.
Wow!
That's exactly what Francis Fukuyama predicted in "The End of History?" (1989).
Exactly North Korea doesn't have any middle class, so I'm guessing you mean South Korea.
1
What do you and I know about the 'ignorant' rural poor of China? They are at last hearing coming to the big cities of China and working extremely hard in an industrious way.
The ignorant political tea-party politicians and their followers are growing more isolated by day, living in a bubble, a big one which is about to burst at the seams. How do you know there are not financial manipulators in America and that our banks are being hacked?
While our tendency to swagger at the moment seems to have been placed on hold, this might be the time to tend to our own garden, while building a trade door to enable us to go in search of more understanding of the culture of the Chinese.
The ignorant political tea-party politicians and their followers are growing more isolated by day, living in a bubble, a big one which is about to burst at the seams. How do you know there are not financial manipulators in America and that our banks are being hacked?
While our tendency to swagger at the moment seems to have been placed on hold, this might be the time to tend to our own garden, while building a trade door to enable us to go in search of more understanding of the culture of the Chinese.
The US has been dealing with China in the hope that engagement would bring about democratic reforms. This is reflected in our reestablished aid to the Chinese shortly after Tiananmen. They have only strengthened their grip on the population becoming increasingly restrictive.
There is no way! With a long history of genocide, enslavement, discrimination against minorities, exploitation, wars of oppression, and lies how can anyone expect to get along with China. Oh, I forgot, that's both the United States and China.
I guess they should get along perfectly.
I guess they should get along perfectly.
19
Chinese governments, including the present one, have a lot of history, much of it not very nice.
But to which "wars of oppression" are you referring when you compare China to the U.S.? The U.S. economy has been based on the adage, "War for the sake of war" since the invasion of Mexico in 1846.
And one of the reasons that the Communist Party came to power in 1949 was that CHINA has been invaded and oppressed by smaller countries like Great Britain and Japan because China didn't have an effective government.
Great Britain even invaded China...because the Chinese government suppressed the production of opium.
But to which "wars of oppression" are you referring when you compare China to the U.S.? The U.S. economy has been based on the adage, "War for the sake of war" since the invasion of Mexico in 1846.
And one of the reasons that the Communist Party came to power in 1949 was that CHINA has been invaded and oppressed by smaller countries like Great Britain and Japan because China didn't have an effective government.
Great Britain even invaded China...because the Chinese government suppressed the production of opium.
The author is mistaken to recommend China's appeasement. Communist China is the ideological enemy of the U.S. Not only China will not convert through appeasement, it is naive to believe that the U.S. will convert China through engagement. The best approach is a revival of some modified Cold War strategy to limit China's negative and destructive influence on the world. Over time, the intrinsic weaknesses of the Chinese system will show through, its political deficiencies will become self-evident to all and bring about political reform if not revolution. This is the way forward. China will convert not through engagement that strengthens its system of internal repression and external aggression but rather through a Cool War that will result in China eventually cracking. This crisis will bring about the conversion of China to greater political freedom. Currently, the U.S. is strengthening China's iron hand. Bad idea, failing strategy.
1
"The author is mistaken to recommend China's appeasement. Communist China is the ideological enemy of the U.S."
Perhaps that was true in the past.
However, the ideology of the U.S. Republican Party is more similar to that of the Chinese Communist Party than it is different. Meet the old U.S. boss, same as the old Chinese boss.
And most members of the U.S. Democratic Party has no ideology and stand for nothing but self-interest and ego, like Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps that was true in the past.
However, the ideology of the U.S. Republican Party is more similar to that of the Chinese Communist Party than it is different. Meet the old U.S. boss, same as the old Chinese boss.
And most members of the U.S. Democratic Party has no ideology and stand for nothing but self-interest and ego, like Hillary Clinton.
1
Correction: Not only will China not convert through appeasement,...
When the Party comes first, ahead of country and people, whether Communist or Republican, it is a recipe for disaster.
3
But it's also a problem with the opposing parties, be they are Democrat or Socialist or Liberal.
Communists Fascists and U.S. Republicans thrive for a purpose, to enrich themselves.
The groups that oppose Communism, Fascism and U.S. Republicanism generally don't stand for anything...except to oppose the Communists, Fascists and U.S. Republicans.
Communists Fascists and U.S. Republicans thrive for a purpose, to enrich themselves.
The groups that oppose Communism, Fascism and U.S. Republicanism generally don't stand for anything...except to oppose the Communists, Fascists and U.S. Republicans.
China sounds more democratic than we do, since they are a Republic with public owned businesses. Their government is buying more stocks in businesses, according to what I read in this paper, to keep their prices from going down. In my opinion, the volatility of stock markets is due to the rules. They are allowed to sell stocks for prices other than the face value of those stocks, which causes mutual fund to try to buy and sell stocks to make money from the changes in the prices. No changes in their prices should be allowed. The volume of trading is currently insane. Stockholders are supposed to be interested in the firms. I'm particularly annoyed by the capital gains caused by fund managers playing the market with other people's money.
4
The entire Chinese economy is owned directly or indirectly by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, which was not elected by anyone. And while the party claims to rule in the interest of the proletariat, this is like saying the Wall Street and the free market rule in favor of the consumer, which they often do not.
I like your Chinese containment policy: capitulate, sell out Taiwan, sell out our Pacific allies, forget human rights abuses, because after all, human freedom and carbon are exchangeable, and back legal flights in open water.
Now if anything sends a message that we are serious about their bad behavior, cowering certainly does it.
Thank goodness you didn't go for the obvious stuff. Like strengthen our defences, confer with and reassure allies, reorient the military to look west rather than east. Because after all, Obama's timid approach has actually worked quite well with Russia and Iran. Nothing preserves peace like weakness
Now if anything sends a message that we are serious about their bad behavior, cowering certainly does it.
Thank goodness you didn't go for the obvious stuff. Like strengthen our defences, confer with and reassure allies, reorient the military to look west rather than east. Because after all, Obama's timid approach has actually worked quite well with Russia and Iran. Nothing preserves peace like weakness
9
On the same page - chinese hackers steal personal data of 20 million americans. And the only entities in china with this capacity are those run by the chinese military. They are really great friends aren't they? They treat us like we treat iran.
1
If the US follows your suggestions, the China-US relationship will make a big step forward! Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister and China expert, once said that the West should afford China some basic respect. Perhaps that will lead to more trust, and less antagonism between the two countries.
6
Kevin Rudds party was paid 300 million (only) and a lot of bribes (the politician up for corruption) but its too late. The Chinese Government has been granted to open cut mine coal in the center of the food basket of Australia, destroying the water table and destroying some of the best farm land on earth. Its the biggest scandal of them all.
Kevin Rudds party is as corrupt as the Chinese he deals with.
Kevin Rudds party is as corrupt as the Chinese he deals with.
More then anything, the US/China relationship echoes the years before WW1, when a young and united Germany began to challenge British dominance of the seas. That experience is long forgotten, or even unknown by the majority of today's politicians.
Reading Barbara Tuchman's THE GUNS OF AUGUST would be helpful, as President Kennedy found at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.
Reading Barbara Tuchman's THE GUNS OF AUGUST would be helpful, as President Kennedy found at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.
9
China should lend out equity to the troubled economies.
Mr. Schell, thank you for your third paragraph. That paragraph is entirely accurate. The rest of your Op-Ed article has zero foundation in truth or reality.
China's track record stinks, to put it mildly. Let me count the ways, as you did in your 3rd paragraph. What Mao did to Tibet in 1959 was Genocide, and the theft of an entire non-violent, non-aggressive Country. The fact that Nixon and his goon Kissenger were in China making deals a decade later speaks volumes to their greed and insensitivity to human rights.
One cannot reason with a thief, or a murderer. One can't bargin with a government that claims ownership of land and water that is not even remotely their's. One can't trust a Country that happily kills it citizens when they are peacefully protesting for democratic reform, and freedon of speech.
There is NOTHING in China to trust. I feel sorry for the good-hearted people there, keeping silent, under the CCP's boot heel. And to give America an extra slap in the face, thanks to the obscene debt Bush the 2nd created in his & Halliburton's phony War in Iraq, Bush 2 made China our Banker.
Jinping's policies are a return to the days of Mao, or worse. China's cruelty is only matched by it's false smile. China will happily cut our throats, when they get the chance. And, they will wait, and calculate, for when the time is right.
I don't care if China is "the most populous country". That's not status, Mr. Schell - that's a sewar, and a filthy one at that.
China's track record stinks, to put it mildly. Let me count the ways, as you did in your 3rd paragraph. What Mao did to Tibet in 1959 was Genocide, and the theft of an entire non-violent, non-aggressive Country. The fact that Nixon and his goon Kissenger were in China making deals a decade later speaks volumes to their greed and insensitivity to human rights.
One cannot reason with a thief, or a murderer. One can't bargin with a government that claims ownership of land and water that is not even remotely their's. One can't trust a Country that happily kills it citizens when they are peacefully protesting for democratic reform, and freedon of speech.
There is NOTHING in China to trust. I feel sorry for the good-hearted people there, keeping silent, under the CCP's boot heel. And to give America an extra slap in the face, thanks to the obscene debt Bush the 2nd created in his & Halliburton's phony War in Iraq, Bush 2 made China our Banker.
Jinping's policies are a return to the days of Mao, or worse. China's cruelty is only matched by it's false smile. China will happily cut our throats, when they get the chance. And, they will wait, and calculate, for when the time is right.
I don't care if China is "the most populous country". That's not status, Mr. Schell - that's a sewar, and a filthy one at that.
40
It is interesting that American Indians regard the US government in similar ways as Tibetans regard the Chinese government. So I wouldn't want to go all self-righteous here.
I completely agree with you on that one. The American Flag of 1868 is covered in continuous broken treaties, blood, theft and genocide. I sincerely hope that America has learned something from that, and can stand in support of the People of Tibet.
A disappointing and truculent piece of China-bashing that adds to the one sided reporting while posing as an "Old China Hand." One could compile a similar list of domestic and foreign failures by the US.
But the underlying motive behind all the panic is a genuine fear among the 1% and its media that in the foreseeable future our stagnant economy will be unable to withstand China's economic challenge to US hegemony.
But the underlying motive behind all the panic is a genuine fear among the 1% and its media that in the foreseeable future our stagnant economy will be unable to withstand China's economic challenge to US hegemony.
15
China bashing?
Hegemony?
How about self caricature? Have you met today's China? Or its feudal communist party?
Or, looked at the U.S. economy in today's world? Nah, wouldn't go with the china bashing and hegemony fellow traveler rhetoric. I look forward to the piece on where these fellow travelers come from these days as it is now a very odd ideology. Certainly they don't come from Vietnam.
Hegemony?
How about self caricature? Have you met today's China? Or its feudal communist party?
Or, looked at the U.S. economy in today's world? Nah, wouldn't go with the china bashing and hegemony fellow traveler rhetoric. I look forward to the piece on where these fellow travelers come from these days as it is now a very odd ideology. Certainly they don't come from Vietnam.
6
In defense of China, China is merely adopting the same ideology as the Western capitalist countries, as described by Edward Abbey, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
China is getting huge and may need a change soon. China is looking for an Israel of its own to assume political power. Problem is emotional dependence on the rest of the world. China and Japan are responsible for initiating debate on socialism which had spread in Europe and Latin America between the times of the two Big World Wars. Since the end of War on Terror that ended in stabilizing Afghanistan for the first time in history. China is soon to enter war with the USA through Gawadar port in Balochistan , Pakistan . Silk can be a deadner sometimes. The conflict is inevitable. China has ideas for Afghanistan. It has even taken over the energy sector in Pakistan. Maybe talks on NPT and CTBT could help Japan and China with the USA . Proceed through talks. Socialism is back in the swing , the economies could go beyond the size of 10 in the future . I think the US military wishes to tame the Chinese military as is the case with the military of India and Pakistan.
1
Is it not time to begin to begin with the lens that we were given by the astronaut who said, "What struck me when I looked back at our planet Earth from space is that there aren't any lines on it!"
We aren't Americans or Chinese -- we're earthlings on a tiny fragile planet aka mote in an inconceivably vast swirl of stars. Sisters and brothers -- one family -- *that's* the lens we should use.
I know it's a long time til we get to the Beloved Community, the Beloved Village notion as our default, but it is where we're going.
We aren't Americans or Chinese -- we're earthlings on a tiny fragile planet aka mote in an inconceivably vast swirl of stars. Sisters and brothers -- one family -- *that's* the lens we should use.
I know it's a long time til we get to the Beloved Community, the Beloved Village notion as our default, but it is where we're going.
5
While Mr. Schell mentions hacking and cyber attacks originating in China in the op-ed piece, his suggestions do not relate to this worrisome phenomenon discussed in today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hack...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
For the millions of people whose social security numbers and other vital data are now floating around China, agreement on Korea or giving China a role in the IMF is not much consolation. In fact it is pretty much a slap in the face.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hack...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
For the millions of people whose social security numbers and other vital data are now floating around China, agreement on Korea or giving China a role in the IMF is not much consolation. In fact it is pretty much a slap in the face.
14
I want to know where Henry Kissinger is with all this repression. U.S. Corporations were happy to make billions from low paid Chinese workers and cheap imports and the American political class praised China's capitalism while ignoring their fascism. So why don't you Dr Kissinger convert your Kissinger Associates into a institute dedicated to bringing some democracy to China as opposed to your current model of reaping huge profits and ignoring years and years of repression which is clearly getting worse.
4
China has spent nearly the last fifty years playing a helpless victim seeking the help of the benevolent Americans. Mao sought to portray China as a less developed country in need of support against the evil Soviets. The US, seeking to steal China’s favor from the Russians happily obliged locking the Americans into a relationship that has been one sided almost completely in China’s favor. China received full diplomatic recognition from the US, over Taiwan, in 1979. The US has granted an unprecedented transfer of technological knowledge to Chinese beginning in the 1980s. The US hosts the largest population of Chinese students studying abroad. The Clinton administration granted China “Most Favored Nation” status in terms of international trade in the early 1990s, and made it permanent in 2000. The US advocated for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, which came with several conditions China has never complied with. The events were substantially beneficial to the growth of the Chinese economy. China continues operating its state owned enterprises and currency manipulation going against the fair practices of the WTO. Further, virtually all attempts by US companies to gain a competitive foothold on the Chinese market is scuttled by state backed competition from these state owned enterprises.
32
Not even the Wild Swans of China wish to be portrayed as victims. Let us see if America and China can engage in Fair Trade, while India emerges as the leading Power of the Third World.
Pointing out the how China played the victim is simply putting a fine point on the behavior. The actual events were an elaborate political dance allowing China to save face along the way.
When some other power acts like it owns the world, U.S. pundits always pounce on the uncertainty. After all, don't _we_ own the world?
You can talk about China's flaws. You can also talk about America's, which has a ruling elite whose power and exclusivity grows daily.
China is fighting not the last war, but the last peace. They are doing what we did, directly through invasion and indirectly through international institutions.
What they don't understand, like our own elite, is that this model is fast becoming obsolete. And the future of power lies not in mercantile dominance of markets and resources but in the ability to great and mobilize alliances that will fight the very great social, cultural and environmental problems that are bearing down on us all. China may finally win the game at a time when no one in their right mind wishes to continue to play it.
You can talk about China's flaws. You can also talk about America's, which has a ruling elite whose power and exclusivity grows daily.
China is fighting not the last war, but the last peace. They are doing what we did, directly through invasion and indirectly through international institutions.
What they don't understand, like our own elite, is that this model is fast becoming obsolete. And the future of power lies not in mercantile dominance of markets and resources but in the ability to great and mobilize alliances that will fight the very great social, cultural and environmental problems that are bearing down on us all. China may finally win the game at a time when no one in their right mind wishes to continue to play it.
15
There is indeed a clear contradistinction between America & China; each side perhaps believing the other to be a bit of a stinkaroo, and indeed both sides full of animadversions with regard to national & foreign policy.
Having read this article, one feels compelled to extol the virtues of Confucius' latent words of wisdom, thus:
Five things constitute perfect virtue: gravity, magnanimity, earnestness, sincerity and kindness & have no friends not equal to yourself.
Having read this article, one feels compelled to extol the virtues of Confucius' latent words of wisdom, thus:
Five things constitute perfect virtue: gravity, magnanimity, earnestness, sincerity and kindness & have no friends not equal to yourself.
5
This sounds true and the wisdom of Confucius reminds me of a brilliant American water engineer who is working at the moment in both America and China.
Can the US accommodate its values and security to the largest and richest totalitarian society in the history of mankind? Is this really rocket science?
3
U.S. Republicans and Wall Street and IMF bankers are green with envy when they at China.
Is the reason that relation is deteriorating solely to actions of the PRC ?
Reading this article, one is inclined to believe so.
But could in not be be that to the PRC, the US policy looks increasingly as one of "containment", surrounding the PRC with a chain of allied States bound to the US by varies treaties, from commerce to defense ?
To the PRC, the US policy appears disturbingly akin the policy of Britain, prior to WW I, when Britain settled century old conflicts with France and Russia to convert them into allies bordering Germany, whose rise was threatening Britain's commercial and military interest. Estabilised, a killing in an obscure small country, Serbia, set off the conflagration.
Dr. Kissinger has made this point repeatedly. He must have been disturbed to read , 2 days ago, the President Obama welcomed the leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam, formerly a bitter enemy of the United States to give the Party leader with " the rare honor of an Oval Office meeting - usually reserved to heads of States and Governments" (Reuters)
Would we like if President Xi would receive head of Mexican's RPI with honors of a head of State, and discuss with him a trade pact, involving Mexico as well as the US's northern neighour, Canada, that pointedly excludes the US ?
I think not.
Nor would we be amused if PRC military aircrafts would routinely patrol along the shores of the US, just outside the 12 mile limit.
Reading this article, one is inclined to believe so.
But could in not be be that to the PRC, the US policy looks increasingly as one of "containment", surrounding the PRC with a chain of allied States bound to the US by varies treaties, from commerce to defense ?
To the PRC, the US policy appears disturbingly akin the policy of Britain, prior to WW I, when Britain settled century old conflicts with France and Russia to convert them into allies bordering Germany, whose rise was threatening Britain's commercial and military interest. Estabilised, a killing in an obscure small country, Serbia, set off the conflagration.
Dr. Kissinger has made this point repeatedly. He must have been disturbed to read , 2 days ago, the President Obama welcomed the leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam, formerly a bitter enemy of the United States to give the Party leader with " the rare honor of an Oval Office meeting - usually reserved to heads of States and Governments" (Reuters)
Would we like if President Xi would receive head of Mexican's RPI with honors of a head of State, and discuss with him a trade pact, involving Mexico as well as the US's northern neighour, Canada, that pointedly excludes the US ?
I think not.
Nor would we be amused if PRC military aircrafts would routinely patrol along the shores of the US, just outside the 12 mile limit.
2
That (the Mexico and China relationship) has happened before, with Cuba and Russia and the US tolerated it. I think the people of the US would be happy if China took an interest in Mexico and they helped each other. The elite I'm unclear about. The BRIC alliance is similar and it has happened. I think the problem has to do with the nature of alliance, in economic, political, and military terms.
People in the US rail against the elite (or 1%) but it's not easy to do so in China. I think this is the main issue, and even in the US, the 99% feel like they are losing but know they can fight a bit.
People in the US rail against the elite (or 1%) but it's not easy to do so in China. I think this is the main issue, and even in the US, the 99% feel like they are losing but know they can fight a bit.
I cannot see how China can displace the US as top dog without recourse to violent confrontation, specially in the South China Sea and the Pacific. China has made its debut long after the ball ended: allies, military bases, and essential resources have all been parceled out to the West and its allies. Unless the US self-immolates (think Iraq) or the China model catches on, the basic contours of international relations will not change.
China's frantic efforts to change the balance of power in its favor remind me of something the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei once said in an interview to the Financial Times (http://tinyurl.com/2a6uhdz):
“China is like a runner sprinting very fast but it has a heart condition.”
China's frantic efforts to change the balance of power in its favor remind me of something the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei once said in an interview to the Financial Times (http://tinyurl.com/2a6uhdz):
“China is like a runner sprinting very fast but it has a heart condition.”
No one likes a bully and the US is allowing us to pulled around by our cyber ears by Xi. When is someone going to stand up to him with economic sanctions.
CEO's from Ikea and Walmart may have a better chance of negotiation with degrading morality of China than our government, Which is why we are in such a canundrum with the likes of these modern day Communist thieves.
CEO's from Ikea and Walmart may have a better chance of negotiation with degrading morality of China than our government, Which is why we are in such a canundrum with the likes of these modern day Communist thieves.
2
The U.S. has been the bully of the Americas for more than 100 years.
There are few American countries that have not been beat up by the U.S.
No wonder we have no real allies in our own hemisphere.
There are few American countries that have not been beat up by the U.S.
No wonder we have no real allies in our own hemisphere.
It would appear to me that our relationship with China is inevitably going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever does. For one thing, we are committed allies to Japan, which is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with China's new military assertiveness.
1
In checking Orville Schell's biography on Wikipedia, I find that he is laden with so many awards that it is hard to imagine how he is still able to stand upright. Expert as he may be, the list he provides of concessions that the US might make in order to nourish our relationship with China is fatuous in the extreme. For the last seven years, the US has sent a clear message that we are withdrawing from the world as a power to be reckoned with. The latest draw-down of our army is just an exclamation point. The Chinese leadership fully understands this, even if the American people do not. The only leverage we retain is the hoard of dollars they hold as a result of their mercantile economic policy and the enormous trade imbalance over many years. Should this trade be interrupted, China would face serious internal problems. What we certainly do not need is any more China experts conducting our policies.
4
America has been described as 'The Gentle Giant' in retreat. A dire forecast, perhaps we can still turn this around with the TPP.
From 1983 to 1996, the U.S. under Ronald Reagan armed and trained the Guatemalan Army as it committed the largest genocide in the Americas during the 20th century: The killing of about 200,000 Maya Indians. What is "gentle" about that?
China sees themselves as our enemy. We need to protect ourselves.
We should turn down Chinese applications for work and student visas.
We've been giving away the store for far too long.
We should turn down Chinese applications for work and student visas.
We've been giving away the store for far too long.
If one assume we are the defenders of liberal democracy, we are the ideological enemies of China's communist leaders.
However, economics is much more important that politics, and as Francis Fukuyama correctly predicted in "The End of History?", Capitalism is thriving in all sorts of contexts, including in countries ruled by communist politicians.
Where Fukuyama got it wrong is he thought the Chinese and Russians would become liberal democrats. Instead, American politicians have become more fascist...like the Chinese and the Russians.
Fukuyama also underestimated the future power of Islamic fascist groups (such as ISIS).
Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.
However, economics is much more important that politics, and as Francis Fukuyama correctly predicted in "The End of History?", Capitalism is thriving in all sorts of contexts, including in countries ruled by communist politicians.
Where Fukuyama got it wrong is he thought the Chinese and Russians would become liberal democrats. Instead, American politicians have become more fascist...like the Chinese and the Russians.
Fukuyama also underestimated the future power of Islamic fascist groups (such as ISIS).
Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.
The $3.5 Trillion haircut China has just faced with it's stock market suggests it needs more "Regulatory Reform."
The massive air and water pollution assaulting it's air and water suggests it needs more "Fegulatory Reform."
The issues with Hong Kong and the still lingering hegemony of the Community Party suggest it needs "Political Reform."
To their benefit, China is learning quickly and catching up quickly - I actually give them more credit than Europe - they "invaded" Africa, the last untouched third world, offering roads and bridges and electricity, not arms.
The massive air and water pollution assaulting it's air and water suggests it needs more "Fegulatory Reform."
The issues with Hong Kong and the still lingering hegemony of the Community Party suggest it needs "Political Reform."
To their benefit, China is learning quickly and catching up quickly - I actually give them more credit than Europe - they "invaded" Africa, the last untouched third world, offering roads and bridges and electricity, not arms.
1
Bridges, roads and electricity are needed before arms.
Schell writes: 'we will not accommodate unreasonable claims around the world and, if necessary, are even prepared for a latter-day strategy of “containment,”
If the Chinese demand to have 850 military bases all over the globe the way the US does, is that "unreasonable"?
If the Chinese demand to have 850 military bases all over the globe the way the US does, is that "unreasonable"?
1
Some things to consider: The Chinese civilization is at least 3,000 years old. During most of that time they considered themselves to be the center of the world. They still want to be. The Chinese do not think in terms of this quarter or next quarter, they think in terms of 20 - 50 years (see 1st point). The idea that trade and cultural ties will moderate behavior works only up to the point that national interest becomes a factor. If a country has to chose between perceived national interest and trade, trade loses every time.
We are funding China's emergence as a world power. We send them billions and they ship us cheap junk. They use those billions to build up their military, which in turn harasses our friends in Asia. They also use those billions to fund state sponsored hackers who attack our corporations and government. In the not too distant future we could find ourselves facing Chinese aircraft carriers that we paid for.
I believe we need to continue to engage the Chinese, but let's not be foolish. Shift our business to someone who wants to be our friend. At a minimum this will decrease the funds they have to cause problems in the world. Do not for a minute think that because we do business with them they will alter there long term plan to become the major country in the world. They have been dealing with uppity barbarians for thousands of years and have been mostly successful.
We are funding China's emergence as a world power. We send them billions and they ship us cheap junk. They use those billions to build up their military, which in turn harasses our friends in Asia. They also use those billions to fund state sponsored hackers who attack our corporations and government. In the not too distant future we could find ourselves facing Chinese aircraft carriers that we paid for.
I believe we need to continue to engage the Chinese, but let's not be foolish. Shift our business to someone who wants to be our friend. At a minimum this will decrease the funds they have to cause problems in the world. Do not for a minute think that because we do business with them they will alter there long term plan to become the major country in the world. They have been dealing with uppity barbarians for thousands of years and have been mostly successful.
51
China has been a socioeconomic political educational technological scientific superpower for most of the past 2200 years. The Han ethnic majority did so primarily by ignoring any entangling imperial, colonial, military, socioeconomic and political alliances. The 500 year rise of European empires was the only major challenge until the rise of imperial Japan that cost more lives and injured Chinese during World War than any other nation. Now China stands at a crossroads with a term limited collective leadership wrestling with a rising middle class that has left a majority of Chinese still dreaming of better life. While China has the nominal 2nd world economy on a per capita basis with 4x as many people as America it lags behind America and even more so Japan. Moreover, the one-child policy plus a preference for males has an aging and shrinking population with a gender imbalance in favor of males creating a looming demographic nightmare. About 23% of the human race is Han Chinese.
You make some excellent points, but I have a question. You recommend that we "Shift our business to someone who wants to be our friend." With the possible exception of Greece, I can't actually think of anyone who might want to be our friend. Who do you have in mind?
Proverbial nail hit on the head (by a hammer made in China sadly). The Chinese are laughing at us all for allowing our manufacturing to move to them. Today I went shopping for a quality trash can to replace the 7 year old, heavily used and finally worn out one in place. Have so far been to 4 stores-- can't find a thing. Everything is made-in China JUNK(pun intended) that would last a year if I were very lucky.
China see a US that have been pursuing an aggressive and unsuccessful foreign policy in much of the world. Perhaps China simply wants to assure its neighbors that it won't let the US play its failed game in the region. Even if the Chinese weren't a bit Xenophobic, they would be right to be suspicious of US interests.
2
One of the great mistakes one can make in thinking about history, is to too easily allow a government to stand in for a nation.
"China" is a nation, a people, a culture, a long story.
The Chinese government is a totalitarian and oppressive regime.
We should not allow the latter any fraudulent legitimacy, by allowing it to stand in for the former. The key historical point is, the latter is a usurper of the former, as are all tyrannies.
The Chinese government is not legitimate. I fail to see what is gained by sweeping that fact under some rug of convenience.
"China" is a nation, a people, a culture, a long story.
The Chinese government is a totalitarian and oppressive regime.
We should not allow the latter any fraudulent legitimacy, by allowing it to stand in for the former. The key historical point is, the latter is a usurper of the former, as are all tyrannies.
The Chinese government is not legitimate. I fail to see what is gained by sweeping that fact under some rug of convenience.
9
Which government is more legit? Pew research documents over 85% support of the Beijing govt. by the Chinese citizenry. Same shows low teens support for the U.S. Congress by Americans.
Q1 2015 China 7% America -ve 0.2%.
Legitimacy is in the delivery.
Q1 2015 China 7% America -ve 0.2%.
Legitimacy is in the delivery.
How can you even mention the capable and dedicated leadership of modern day China, in the same sentence as the bankster hijacked American political system??
Q1 2015 China 7% America -ve 0.2%.
Stock market dropped 30% in 2 weeks?? So what? That was after it rose 150% nonstop over 8 months!! Even a parabolic curve has to take a breather. In the last 2 days, under the capable guidance of Beijing, the market already came back 10% (My CHAU was up 40% today!!! Best stock I have owned in the last 10 years).
Even as the stock market dropped 30%, there is peace and calm in Chinese society - life goes on and there's work to be done and money to be made. For the last 10 years, Pew Research's annual survey in China continues to show over 85% optimistic favorable view of the direction the country is taking. What is American favorable view of Congress? It is in the low double digits I believe.
Charity starts at home. If you know how to fix societal problems, instead of sitting on your fat tush wagging your fingers at the Chinese, do something about America's problems first. Once you have fixed all that (Ferguson and nonstop racial violence, $25 Billion election seasons, Dodd Frank neutered, TPP the neutering, etc.), you are welcome to come tell China how it should be done.
Q1 2015 China 7% America -ve 0.2%.
Stock market dropped 30% in 2 weeks?? So what? That was after it rose 150% nonstop over 8 months!! Even a parabolic curve has to take a breather. In the last 2 days, under the capable guidance of Beijing, the market already came back 10% (My CHAU was up 40% today!!! Best stock I have owned in the last 10 years).
Even as the stock market dropped 30%, there is peace and calm in Chinese society - life goes on and there's work to be done and money to be made. For the last 10 years, Pew Research's annual survey in China continues to show over 85% optimistic favorable view of the direction the country is taking. What is American favorable view of Congress? It is in the low double digits I believe.
Charity starts at home. If you know how to fix societal problems, instead of sitting on your fat tush wagging your fingers at the Chinese, do something about America's problems first. Once you have fixed all that (Ferguson and nonstop racial violence, $25 Billion election seasons, Dodd Frank neutered, TPP the neutering, etc.), you are welcome to come tell China how it should be done.
1
It seems to me when China makes an move to advance its claims, so-called China experts like Mr. Schell, would suggest that America, and the rest of the world to make more room for China. I don't know if Mr. Schell really knows China and Chinese that well. Chinese proverb says "Gain and inch, go for the next foot". Mr. Schell subtly suggests that we sacrifice Taiwan by not selling them defense weapons. What will we get from that? Pacific will be wide-open to the Chinese Navy, using Taiwan as a base. Guam and Hawaii will not be that far from Chinese shore then (remember attack on Pearl Harbor?) Japan will be greatly threatened and begin to arm itself, even with nuclear. There certainly will be war if China gets its wish to enter the Pacific without any roadblocks. While trying to have a dialogue with China, "containment" for its military power and territorial ambitions, but not its economic rise, has to be maintained.
1
Yes, China and the US can get along. It is a two way street for which Mr. Schell's suggestions offer one way in addition to the 100 plus dialogues and work by those such as the Paulson Institute. But both countries are frought with hostile internal politics. Until local politicians grow up, both countries face formidable challenges. Climate change is more about greed and inertia than reasoned answers. Climate change may bring the entire world to its knees with human suffering; we may be in the middle of adaptation before we mitigate. It may be too little too late. 2030 for two countries buys time for them, but more harm for everyone. It is a pity because the world's economically given and politically self anointed could have done so much more. But let's let Rome burn so they say. Finally, I don't believe we need more emissaries as much as a very big plan with many, many more people working side by side.
2
Relentlessly pursuing Government and economic goals while infringing the rights of citizens and pursuing a culture of conformance.
Yes, and....?
Yes, and....?
1
Great article. But with the current climate on both sides, the chance of bold actions is slim.
Hidden Dragon, Pouncing Tiger, they may come to an understanding because they are dependent on each other.
In 1971 the idea was that the United States could do business with China. Mao said to Nixon when he met him, "I voted for you in the last election."
Certainly the United States and China can get along peacefully, as we have for the past 43 years. There is no need to compromise such issues as the existence of international waters or freedom of navigation. World prosperity has depended for many years on freedom of the seas, protected by American power. China's rise could not have happened if the Pacific was infested by pirates.
No one can put toll booths on international waters or prevent freedom of navigation. No one can claim international waters as their sovereign territory. No one, including China.
Russia is a poor example. Aggression and the annexation of the territory of another sovereign member of the United Nations is against the law.
Certainly the United States and China can get along peacefully, as we have for the past 43 years. There is no need to compromise such issues as the existence of international waters or freedom of navigation. World prosperity has depended for many years on freedom of the seas, protected by American power. China's rise could not have happened if the Pacific was infested by pirates.
No one can put toll booths on international waters or prevent freedom of navigation. No one can claim international waters as their sovereign territory. No one, including China.
Russia is a poor example. Aggression and the annexation of the territory of another sovereign member of the United Nations is against the law.
2
By 2050 China and India will have the world's largest and second largest economies. They will also be number one and two in science and technology. I suggest the author get used to the fact that soon it will "The United States who?". Since Great Britain joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, it is clear that the United States is Norma Desmond.
1
It is clear that the 21st century will belong to the BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India and China (some people include South Africa and write BRICS).
How about inviting China to stop supporting the most toxic - if not outright genocidal - regimes in the world (Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Syria) especially when it votes in the UN Security Council. China could be a major contributor to the well-being of the planet, putting aside short-term economic gains and automatic siding with Putin's Russia. A new sense of interdependence should prevail, since in fact, China's stability is closely linked to that of the rest of the world. An pragmatic alliance between China and the West would be the best way of avoiding looming catastrophes.
18
China is not allied with the Sunni Muslim Arab secular military dictatorships like Egypt nor theocratic royal fossil fuel autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. China has no alliance with Sunni Muslim Arab royal theocracies like Jordan. China is not allied with Zionist Jewish Israel. China did not invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. China has not been engaged in 60+ years of overt and covert regime change war against Iran. China did not "pivot" toward the Americas. China is not in thrall to a domestic Mexican or Canadian Lobby comparable to the American Taiwan, Cuban and Israel Lobbies.
They learned "laissez faire" from us! When we and the EU and Japan rewarded China with trillion$ in FDI after Tiananmen Square they understood that all our talk about human rights, political pluralism, etc. was just an act for public consumption. Now, they, in turn, are doing the same with the regimes you rightly list.
Most of Mr. Schell's suggestions are policies the United State should pursue
in any negotiations with China. Bur bols action is not something to expect from the last months of the Obama prseidency. But on other matters it is time for the United States to get real: Tibet is none of our concern as Chinese control does not affect in any way our interests and security. Democracy and Human Rights in China is none of our business. Oh yes, we may make high sounding comments but things like UN condemnation or boycotts, etc. are not in our interest. China's actions regarding global
warning are two faced. While promising some progress, China is currrently building and planning to build large scale energy projects using coal.
Obama and his staff have not shown themselves to be adept negotiators.
The issues should be limited to our mutual interests especially security interests.
in any negotiations with China. Bur bols action is not something to expect from the last months of the Obama prseidency. But on other matters it is time for the United States to get real: Tibet is none of our concern as Chinese control does not affect in any way our interests and security. Democracy and Human Rights in China is none of our business. Oh yes, we may make high sounding comments but things like UN condemnation or boycotts, etc. are not in our interest. China's actions regarding global
warning are two faced. While promising some progress, China is currrently building and planning to build large scale energy projects using coal.
Obama and his staff have not shown themselves to be adept negotiators.
The issues should be limited to our mutual interests especially security interests.
You dont understand
They want to be worlds number 1.
They will achieve that goal.
They can throw 1.3 of the 1.4 billion at the problem, leaving the ruling mobsters to enjoy the proceeds
They will and are doing that
All the window dressing is just that
They have no sense of balance - that is what communism and propaganda do to them
We MUST use tariffs. We must suffer the higher cost of stuff and reduced standard of living.
If we dont it will be war. WW3. They dont care. THey know they will win if it comes to that.
They want to be worlds number 1.
They will achieve that goal.
They can throw 1.3 of the 1.4 billion at the problem, leaving the ruling mobsters to enjoy the proceeds
They will and are doing that
All the window dressing is just that
They have no sense of balance - that is what communism and propaganda do to them
We MUST use tariffs. We must suffer the higher cost of stuff and reduced standard of living.
If we dont it will be war. WW3. They dont care. THey know they will win if it comes to that.
4
Those with no knowledge of history have "forgotten" how the Chinese stopped the U.S. in Korea.
U.S. forces had pushed North Korea's army all the way back to China.
Then China threw waves of soldiers at the U.S. forces.
Mao didn't even bother to give the soldiers guns because he knew they would be killed.
But he also knew that the U.S. forces would have to use up their ammunition killing his unarmed Chinese soldiers.
China almost drove the U.S. off the Korean Peninsula.
U.S. forces had pushed North Korea's army all the way back to China.
Then China threw waves of soldiers at the U.S. forces.
Mao didn't even bother to give the soldiers guns because he knew they would be killed.
But he also knew that the U.S. forces would have to use up their ammunition killing his unarmed Chinese soldiers.
China almost drove the U.S. off the Korean Peninsula.
"It is this inchoate hope that has now been arrested by Mr. Xi’s 'Chinese Dream,' an indigenous reverie confected to rally his people not to the promise of greater openness and constitutionalism, but greater wealth, power, national unity and global clout."
"Ouch."
The American Dream has for many decades now, if not perhaps nearly always, tended more toward wealth, power and clout than openness and constitutionalism.
If only the energy and funds spent on lecturing on--and intervening in--other countries' behavior were harnessed towards ensuring all our own people's livelihood, education, and health, then maybe the USA would actually have some credence when its leaders and pundits venture to lecture to other civilizations.
"Ouch."
The American Dream has for many decades now, if not perhaps nearly always, tended more toward wealth, power and clout than openness and constitutionalism.
If only the energy and funds spent on lecturing on--and intervening in--other countries' behavior were harnessed towards ensuring all our own people's livelihood, education, and health, then maybe the USA would actually have some credence when its leaders and pundits venture to lecture to other civilizations.
Our leaders, both political and corporate decided to engage China. I can't see one single area that benefitted the American citizen other than the rich. We gutted our manufacturing base and utterly destroyed the middle class. Someone please explain to me how enriching China really benefits the world. I for one try to avoid Chinese products at all costs.
2
The writer would have USA to once again lead with its chin. Some opponents get a better understanding of one's intent if perspective of the hound is projected rather then that of the fox.
The Chinese will be confronting some major, somewhat intractable issues, in the coming decades--namely the demographic economic disaster of a declining population that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse, coupled with environmental and public health catastrophes from years of unregulated industrialization, none of which can be solved in the near future without outside help. Hence the industrial and state espionage writ large of the last few years; however, they won't be able to spy themselves out of these issues. They will need cooperation, innovation and change--not exactly their strong suit. A lot will need to go wrong before it goes right.
For us? Stay the course and wait. Ignore and contain the belligerence. Invest heavily in cyber security and military naval architecture.
There really is nothing we can do constructively until they are ready to proceed openly and honestly, in a spirit of good will and cooperation.
For us? Stay the course and wait. Ignore and contain the belligerence. Invest heavily in cyber security and military naval architecture.
There really is nothing we can do constructively until they are ready to proceed openly and honestly, in a spirit of good will and cooperation.
20
Two mighty Superpowers of the World are facing each other, one the most ancient of civilizations, the other a young one. When Julius Caesar was murdered, his young grand nephew Octavius became the first Emperor of Rome. Rome was to rise under his rule, and China was still mysterious and little known by the Western World.
As an American, I see a surge of Chinese businessmen and tourists walking in our streets, and young couples of each nationality holding hands. I believe it is our young generation on whom it will depend to show both America and China their vision of the future, one of power, prosperity and culture. With the contribution of other countries, we may see the Dragon and Great Giant work and walk together in amity and respect.
As an American, I see a surge of Chinese businessmen and tourists walking in our streets, and young couples of each nationality holding hands. I believe it is our young generation on whom it will depend to show both America and China their vision of the future, one of power, prosperity and culture. With the contribution of other countries, we may see the Dragon and Great Giant work and walk together in amity and respect.
7
Unfortunately for China, it is the hawks, or nationalists if you prefer, that are in control of China and consequently shaping China’s younger generation. We have been showing China amity and respect for decades and it has only resulted in placing us on the losing end of a terrible relationship. China currently teaches its population that the US is constantly stifling its growth and standing in the way of the Chinese destiny. It disseminates this propaganda in literature usually restricted from the eyes of foreigners. I think that China has a wonderful history that continues to influence the government. However, China’s communist party presides over the nation and they are much younger and inexperienced form of government. China wants the prestige of ancient China under the control of an oppressive and ambitious communist ideology. You can call me an alarmist, but everything I have said is a fact and can be verified.
1
Rogers Johnson
It was helpful to read what you had to say, and I believe what you have to say is true in this increasing complicated business of living. Working in the international humanitarian community, it was a bit crushing when a Chinese colleague and friend of mine returned to her country in her 50s. Highly sophisticated and industrious, she was to set a fine example of work ethics.
China remains a complex enigma for this American, but I believe if we continue to extend a sensitive hand in a gesture of amity, understanding that we will be at odds on many occasion over many issues, we may develop what is known as an 'unlikely friendship'.
There will always be in my mind, the vision of years ago of a young man alone in a square facing an army tank, which came to a halt in view of the entire world. Perhaps a beginning for leniency in China, while we tend to our multiple political diversions here in America.
Here's to the Dragon with the powerful Tiger crouching at its side. A difficult if formidable alliance in the making.
It was helpful to read what you had to say, and I believe what you have to say is true in this increasing complicated business of living. Working in the international humanitarian community, it was a bit crushing when a Chinese colleague and friend of mine returned to her country in her 50s. Highly sophisticated and industrious, she was to set a fine example of work ethics.
China remains a complex enigma for this American, but I believe if we continue to extend a sensitive hand in a gesture of amity, understanding that we will be at odds on many occasion over many issues, we may develop what is known as an 'unlikely friendship'.
There will always be in my mind, the vision of years ago of a young man alone in a square facing an army tank, which came to a halt in view of the entire world. Perhaps a beginning for leniency in China, while we tend to our multiple political diversions here in America.
Here's to the Dragon with the powerful Tiger crouching at its side. A difficult if formidable alliance in the making.
When did the dark side of Chinese Communism disappear?
Whenever that was it has never ceased to exist.
It is that dark side that runs China.
Diplomacy only dampens the raw conflict that will always exist between totalitarianism and the free society's of the world
It is better to strengthen the hand of Chinese peaceniks while defending our right to sail and fly over the waters of the South China sea (a right won with the deaths of thousands of US and ally soldiers in WW II) than to play footsie with a political party that the NY Times has well documented how corrupt they are - its similar to the Mafia.
Can we get along?
With the Chinese people? - yes.
With the dark side of the Chinese Communist Party? - no.
Whenever that was it has never ceased to exist.
It is that dark side that runs China.
Diplomacy only dampens the raw conflict that will always exist between totalitarianism and the free society's of the world
It is better to strengthen the hand of Chinese peaceniks while defending our right to sail and fly over the waters of the South China sea (a right won with the deaths of thousands of US and ally soldiers in WW II) than to play footsie with a political party that the NY Times has well documented how corrupt they are - its similar to the Mafia.
Can we get along?
With the Chinese people? - yes.
With the dark side of the Chinese Communist Party? - no.
2
Unfortunately it is mostly the "dark side" that runs the U.S.
Most U.S. Republicans agree with the Chinese model for governance, even as they denounce China.
And most U.S. Democrats stand for nothing and are cowards.
Most U.S. Republicans agree with the Chinese model for governance, even as they denounce China.
And most U.S. Democrats stand for nothing and are cowards.
"Can the U.S. and China Get Along?"
Only when peace is attainable and right now it's not. Either in the Middle East or anywhere in Africa ISIL will not relent. It is a long process of communication where no common ground is met. It is where communism is strong in one country and the 1st Amedment is strong in America. When we can't agree socially, morally or with hindsight to know better then we will fail in commerce and buisness in capitalism. Even if other countries are not capitalistic the bottom dollar makes governments more powerful than the citizens that live there either in the U.S. or Chian.
Only when peace is attainable and right now it's not. Either in the Middle East or anywhere in Africa ISIL will not relent. It is a long process of communication where no common ground is met. It is where communism is strong in one country and the 1st Amedment is strong in America. When we can't agree socially, morally or with hindsight to know better then we will fail in commerce and buisness in capitalism. Even if other countries are not capitalistic the bottom dollar makes governments more powerful than the citizens that live there either in the U.S. or Chian.
If our policy towards China is one of containment, which we'd be a fool not having done so, then to keep Taiwan at arm's length would be a good place to start.
CCP views resolving the Taiwan issue as their top priority for three reasons. 1. Settle old score and make CCP the sole legitimate political entity of all Chinese (Historic) 2. Terminate any possibility of China emulating the Taiwanese political shift from authoritarian to democratic (Political) 3. Make conquering the island nation the first step of Communist (Uniquely Chinese) Expansionism, thus breaking out of US containment in the western pacific (Geopolitical).
All the more reason to make Taiwan the crown jewel of US "pivot to Asia."
CCP views resolving the Taiwan issue as their top priority for three reasons. 1. Settle old score and make CCP the sole legitimate political entity of all Chinese (Historic) 2. Terminate any possibility of China emulating the Taiwanese political shift from authoritarian to democratic (Political) 3. Make conquering the island nation the first step of Communist (Uniquely Chinese) Expansionism, thus breaking out of US containment in the western pacific (Geopolitical).
All the more reason to make Taiwan the crown jewel of US "pivot to Asia."
American business must diversify production. We need to spread our wealth and goodwill around the world, and not concentrate imports from China.
1
We made China by exporting our machines, jobs, investment money, and "intellectual property".
Imagine that. The American industrialists, long time avid Capitalists, are now located in Communist China.
The excuse of "Globalization" is a lie that means a lack of Patriotism.
Return manufacturing to America before the rift widens between China and America. It's a matter of national security.
That is my concern bigger than you're desire for warm relations. All relationships change over time and America should have known that.
Imagine that. The American industrialists, long time avid Capitalists, are now located in Communist China.
The excuse of "Globalization" is a lie that means a lack of Patriotism.
Return manufacturing to America before the rift widens between China and America. It's a matter of national security.
That is my concern bigger than you're desire for warm relations. All relationships change over time and America should have known that.
2
Han Chinese have a superiority complex and think their race is supposed to dominate others, which can become extremely dangerous to the World, not just the USA. I recommend to re-read '''Clash of Civilizations'' by Samuel P. Huntington to get an idea what this could lead to, and other potential complications with a rising China. Tibet was just the start.
Most of the South-East Asian economies are controlled by Han Chinese and their ''Bamboo network''..... ''The Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra, writing in The New York Review of Books, dubbed the bamboo network as "the greatest Asian economic power outside of Japan."
''Seeking to reduce its reliance on United States Treasury securities, the Chinese government shifted its focus to foreign investments. Protectionism in the United States has made it difficult for Chinese companies to acquire American assets, strengthening the role of the bamboo network as one of the major recipients of Chinese investments.''
Is TPP really a good idea? I am all for TTIP, but against TPP.
Most of the South-East Asian economies are controlled by Han Chinese and their ''Bamboo network''..... ''The Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra, writing in The New York Review of Books, dubbed the bamboo network as "the greatest Asian economic power outside of Japan."
''Seeking to reduce its reliance on United States Treasury securities, the Chinese government shifted its focus to foreign investments. Protectionism in the United States has made it difficult for Chinese companies to acquire American assets, strengthening the role of the bamboo network as one of the major recipients of Chinese investments.''
Is TPP really a good idea? I am all for TTIP, but against TPP.
The answer is no. They cannot breath the same air. The US is a global empire, half of Americans don't know that and the other half are fine with it, and the Communists want to have a global empire, and the Chinese people are mostly okay with that even though most of them don't like Communists. The two cannot get along. But let's try to remember this. Let's just try to remember something. If America suddenly becomes Canada, would everything be solved? No. The Chinese political regime is still a homicidal fascist expansionary engine of exploitation and domination. It cannot, by definition, coexist with any rational system. It must become democratic and the Communists must be brought to justice. America, on the other hand, can coexist with many systems, and often does anyway. So let's not fool ourselves that this can be solved by "everyone calm down" kind of talk. No, the Communists have to go. That's the end.
1
FOR SURE, PRESIDENT OBAMA, in comparison, has been a peace-maker, compared to his Republican alternatives we could have elected. But considering that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (not because he did anything to deserve it), Obama has been a heart-rending and disappointing war-monger, under whose administration, great swathes of the world -- from China to the Middle East to Russia -- are either conflagrations of deadly fighting and maiming and wounding OR are wastelands with tens and tens of millions of refugees starving and willing to do just about anything to survive OR are bubbling cauldrons of imminent war that Obama has lit.
With large parts of the world already in flames, and with other large parts being pushed and goaded to war-footing by the Obama administration, the whole world is feeling a heightened sense of danger... including Communist China.
With Obama goading the Southeast Asian countries to act tough with Communist China (go ahead, knock that chip off my shoulder!), and with Obama doing provocative things like flying warcraft along the coast of Communist China, why is there any surprise that Communist China is responding... toughly?
America is broke, our economy is bad for most Americans, there already is warring over so much of the world that we've cause... why can Obama slow down, consider that he's going too fast, and give peace a chance?
With large parts of the world already in flames, and with other large parts being pushed and goaded to war-footing by the Obama administration, the whole world is feeling a heightened sense of danger... including Communist China.
With Obama goading the Southeast Asian countries to act tough with Communist China (go ahead, knock that chip off my shoulder!), and with Obama doing provocative things like flying warcraft along the coast of Communist China, why is there any surprise that Communist China is responding... toughly?
America is broke, our economy is bad for most Americans, there already is warring over so much of the world that we've cause... why can Obama slow down, consider that he's going too fast, and give peace a chance?
The United States and China have been "Enemies" for a good while and the tension just keeps rising. Concerning that America is a Democracy, yet China is an Communist country could very well effect the way our "treaty" stands. If Mr. Obama can create a "think tank" during their meetings then our "cold war" could potentially end. China's president Ping challenged Obama by reaffirming the public way while china rises. That is my simple opinion on the matter that in a ways China and the United States could get along.
This is an excellent analysis; I hope that it is widely read.
"Beijing’s new assertiveness has inflamed disputes in the East and South China Seas"
China is asserting things that were first asserted by our friends now in Taiwan when they ran China, and back then we agreed with these assertions.
China is claiming islands that had been occupied during WW2 by the Japanese, and which the US gave to China. It was China (the other one) that disarmed and removed the Japanese troops, and then replaced them. The US specifically said at the time those islands did not belong to our claims of the Philippines, which we then owned. Now we are objecting to what we said and did before.
Of course there are more reefs and shoals than occupied by Japan or addressed at the time, but the "Nine Dash Line" was drawn then, and with US agreement. The islets that were given to China by the US back then are very far forward into the disputed area.
I'm not saying China is 100% right and should get everything. I am saying they are not 100% wrong, making it all up, and purely aggressive in all this.
Both sides have good points. Our outrage and presumption of Chinese aggression are unreasonable and partisan. We have no need to get all hostile and partisan with China over this. That does not serve our interests.
The same is true of cyberwar. Yes, China has done some. We've done some too, maybe more (it's all secret). Only we used it in an attack that killed people (in Iran). This needs international agreement, and that is not all China's fault.
China is asserting things that were first asserted by our friends now in Taiwan when they ran China, and back then we agreed with these assertions.
China is claiming islands that had been occupied during WW2 by the Japanese, and which the US gave to China. It was China (the other one) that disarmed and removed the Japanese troops, and then replaced them. The US specifically said at the time those islands did not belong to our claims of the Philippines, which we then owned. Now we are objecting to what we said and did before.
Of course there are more reefs and shoals than occupied by Japan or addressed at the time, but the "Nine Dash Line" was drawn then, and with US agreement. The islets that were given to China by the US back then are very far forward into the disputed area.
I'm not saying China is 100% right and should get everything. I am saying they are not 100% wrong, making it all up, and purely aggressive in all this.
Both sides have good points. Our outrage and presumption of Chinese aggression are unreasonable and partisan. We have no need to get all hostile and partisan with China over this. That does not serve our interests.
The same is true of cyberwar. Yes, China has done some. We've done some too, maybe more (it's all secret). Only we used it in an attack that killed people (in Iran). This needs international agreement, and that is not all China's fault.
25
Those islands they just built used to be coral reefs!
"Beijing has served up a neo-Maoist cocktail of autocracy within and truculence without."
The US has served up its own neocon cocktail of hostility and presumed threats.
Which was first? Which was cause and which effect? Some of both?
The answers are unclear, but it is clear that someone has got to start, and if China hasn't started, neither have we.
So far, our idea of cooperation and international rules is they do as we say according to the rules we make but don't follow ourselves. Didn't work.
The US has served up its own neocon cocktail of hostility and presumed threats.
Which was first? Which was cause and which effect? Some of both?
The answers are unclear, but it is clear that someone has got to start, and if China hasn't started, neither have we.
So far, our idea of cooperation and international rules is they do as we say according to the rules we make but don't follow ourselves. Didn't work.
50
Me, I don't feel that Both Sides Do It Guilt, not from RW nuts, not from left apologists. It is jst an excuse for refusing to think.
1
Sure. We are massively flawed. But these false equivalencies with horrendous China are unfair.
1
China today looks a little like Imperial Japan prior to WWII in one important way. They are a Great Power but without key internal resources. In addition to energy dependence on the Middle East and Russia and mineral dependence on South America, Australia and Africa, they potentially have a much more serious concern for their population of 1.4 billion... food.
Recent satellite technology that can measure groundwater changes has revealed rapid depletion in important areas of food production in China. This vulnerability is likely to accelerate a trend in militarization and foreign assertiveness by China.
While there is great opportunity for trade given China's growing middle class and push for consumption, the US and its allies will also have growing leverage with China.
And just as Putin has proved to be the wrong guy for Russia, Xi Jinping may be the wrong guy for China, playing a dangerous game with the West.
China has experienced massive fsmine in which 30 million or so died during the five year plans of Chairman Mao. Even small miscalculations can be costly in a country of 1.4 billion.
Recent satellite technology that can measure groundwater changes has revealed rapid depletion in important areas of food production in China. This vulnerability is likely to accelerate a trend in militarization and foreign assertiveness by China.
While there is great opportunity for trade given China's growing middle class and push for consumption, the US and its allies will also have growing leverage with China.
And just as Putin has proved to be the wrong guy for Russia, Xi Jinping may be the wrong guy for China, playing a dangerous game with the West.
China has experienced massive fsmine in which 30 million or so died during the five year plans of Chairman Mao. Even small miscalculations can be costly in a country of 1.4 billion.
5
Ah, you have the great advantage of not knowing any history.
Prior to Mao (1949), China regularly experienced mass famine and deaths associated with flooding.
If the communists have done anything right, it is that they have limited China's population growth, although it has come at great cost.
And China, like the U.S. and the rest of the world, is waging a war on the environment, which is the only really important war any of us are fighting, but it's also a war that most people either are unaware of or which is deliberately denied.
The Chinese Empire, like the U.S. Empire, and all previous empires, will one day fall. But not anytime soon.
Prior to Mao (1949), China regularly experienced mass famine and deaths associated with flooding.
If the communists have done anything right, it is that they have limited China's population growth, although it has come at great cost.
And China, like the U.S. and the rest of the world, is waging a war on the environment, which is the only really important war any of us are fighting, but it's also a war that most people either are unaware of or which is deliberately denied.
The Chinese Empire, like the U.S. Empire, and all previous empires, will one day fall. But not anytime soon.
Not "can"get along, but we must,
Conflict would reduce all to dust!
Joint efforts must range
To curb climate change,
It's dėtente with China or bust!
Conflict would reduce all to dust!
Joint efforts must range
To curb climate change,
It's dėtente with China or bust!
2
Larry,
China is stretching its arms.
Its neighbors watch with alarm.
Islands built out of sand.
Not a good place to stand.
To "get along" takes trust.
We have it, we buy their stuff.
They need to get it or go bust.
We can't be the only ones who trust.
China is stretching its arms.
Its neighbors watch with alarm.
Islands built out of sand.
Not a good place to stand.
To "get along" takes trust.
We have it, we buy their stuff.
They need to get it or go bust.
We can't be the only ones who trust.
however, when someone wants your home, wants to steal your technologies, want to steal your personal information, can you still get along with the thief?
Teaching China a lesson should be done, not getting along with China.
Teaching China a lesson should be done, not getting along with China.
Orville Schell, who knows infinitely more about China than I who have learned much from his writing, wrote, "As far as Mr. Xi is concerned, history is now on China’s side, as it returns to a central role befitting its ancient civilization and its status as the most populous country."
Yet, he wrote nothing about the role of the Chinese Communist Party, which is the non "ancient civilization" foreign influence driving these issue while it looks for a reason to exist and justify and hold power. Watch those nouns. He knows better.
Shame shame shame.
Yet, he wrote nothing about the role of the Chinese Communist Party, which is the non "ancient civilization" foreign influence driving these issue while it looks for a reason to exist and justify and hold power. Watch those nouns. He knows better.
Shame shame shame.
26
The chinese communist party isn't communist. It feeds off capitalism, very much like a mafia.
We can learn all that we need to know about China by looking at the source of the clothing on our bodies, the computers and iPhones with which we connect, the dishes from which we eat and most of the artifacts in our homes. Most say Made in China. What more is there to know? Well, perhaps we could visit some of our more "elite" colleges and see who makes up a large portion of the current student body -- the ones who can afford full tuition.
of the NYT and the American media have done to paint China as an enemy.
Not only our Pentagon needs it (otherwise why are we going to sink so much
money into it?), the administration needs it, the so-called pivot is nothing but
an containment: we supplies the weapons and our allies builds the bases,
Japan and South Korea are building naval ports for our carriers, we are re-building our bases in Philippines, and we are renting bases from Vietnam and
Singapore. We have China surrounded already!