RSS订阅 加入收藏  设为首页


时间:2018/2/24 22:14:12  作者:  来源:  浏览:0  评论:0
内容摘要:China Isn't America's Enemy, at Least Not YetWhile we play checkers, they play a 200-year game of Go.中国不是美国的敌人,至少目前还不是——当我们在玩跳棋的时候,他们在下一场长达2...

China Isn't America's Enemy, at Least Not Yet
While we play checkers, they play a 200-year game of Go.

James Stavridis
(a Bloomberg columnist. He is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former military commander of NATO, and dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. )

作者:詹姆斯•斯塔夫里迪斯(James Stavridis)


In HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” the most impressive single force on a very complex battlefield is the trio of dragons mastered by Queen Daenerys Targaryen. As she says, “We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground!” The symbol of China, of course, is the dragon. The U.S., whose symbol is the eagle, will need to learn to fly in uneasy company of the dragon in the decades ahead. These metaphors can fly independently, but they are going to have to deconflict the airspace.

在HBO电视网播出的《权力的游戏》中,丹妮莉丝•坦格利安(Daenerys Targaryen)所掌握的三只龙成为了某个非常复杂的战场上最令人印象深刻的单一力量。就像她说的,“它们会吞噬军队,将城市化为一片焦土!”当然,中国的象征是龙。美国的象征是鹰,在未来的几十年里,它需要学会与不安的龙一起飞翔。它们可以独立飞行,但它们将必须消除发生在天空中的冲突。

Let’s begin with a hopeful disclaimer: I do not believe we are headed toward a war with China. Our interests are far more likely to converge than to diverge overall, and our economies are deeply intertwined. Yet the competition, assuming we can avoid outright conflict, will be fierce. A recent cover of the Economist talked about Chinese “sharp power,” meaning the combination of traditional “soft power” (hospitals, medical diplomacy, humanitarian operations) with more coercive tools (trade, economic domination, cyber piracy). The U.S. needs a strategy to deal with a China that is increasingly comfortable engaging aggressively in the world.


A good primer on this is Graham Allison’s recent book, “Destined for War: Can America and China Avoid the Thucydides Trap?” Allison, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, tells the story of China’s truly meteoric rise over the past three decades, and makes the point that while we are playing checkers, the Chinese are not simply playing chess -- they are playing a different game altogether: Go. It is a complex, multi-move, long-dwell game of strategy. While we craft a strategy for the next decade or so (see the Donald Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy), China is planning the 200-year future. They are playing a long, long game.

关于这个话题,有一本很好的入门书——格雷厄姆•艾利森(Graham Allison)最近出版的《注定一战:美国和中国能否避开修西底德陷阱?》。哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院的教授艾利森讲述了中国在过去30年里飞速崛起的故事,并指出,当我们在玩跳棋的时候,中国人并不仅仅在下棋——他们在玩一种完全不同的游戏:围棋。这是一个复杂的、棋路多变的、长期的策略游戏。当我们制定未来十年左右的战略时(参见唐纳德•特朗普政府的新版《国家安全战略》),中国正在规划200年的未来。他们在进行一场时间跨度很长很长的博弈。

So what should America do? Where are there zones of cooperation, and where must we confront? Is there a sensible strategy we can pursue to ensure we are not incinerated in the dragon’s fire?


Let’s start with confrontation. At the top of the tactical watch list is the controversial set of Chinese claims over the South China Sea. A body of water roughly the size of the Gulf of Mexico, it has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under its normally placid waves. Acquisition of this rich trove of hydrocarbons would complete China’s strategic suite of cards in the 21st century. The U.S. rightfully opposes such an appropriation, and will continue to fly planes overhead and drive ships through what Beijing insists are its “territorial seas.”


Similarly, we are in conflict in another dimension of time and space altogether: the cyber world. The Chinese habit of stealing intellectual property and pressuring U.S. companies in the cyber sphere is accelerating, despite assurances from President Xi Jinping to former President Barack Obama and President Trump that he would rein in Chinese activities.


Finally, the U.S. will continue to fight with China over what constitutes “free and fair trade,” and find ways to bring its trade deficit more into balance. There will be confrontation and hard negotiations (and hopefully not a full-blown trade war) ahead.


Here’s the good news: We do have a set of shared interests, starting with perhaps the most important one, Kim Jong Un. China wants to continue to see a divided Korean peninsula (fearing the creation of a powerful juggernaut in the form of a unified, Western-aligned democracy post-Kim). Beijing also wants to avoid a full-blown refugee crisis on the border. There is room to work together in crafting a compromise to solve the potentially catastrophic possibility of a war between the U.S. and North Korea.


The two nations can also work together on a wide range of global problems from climate change (the Trump administration is even talking about re-entering the Paris accords) to peacekeeping (perhaps on the turbulent Horn of Africa, where China is building a military base and has real interests). China and the U.S. could conduct medical diplomacy together (both nations operate hospital ships) and humanitarian operations in Africa and Latin America. There is the possibility of working together to reduce tensions in South Asia, where the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan and China holds great influence over Pakistan. None of these will be easy, but all are at least possible.


The goal, then, is to craft a sensible strategic approach that confronts China where we must, but cooperates where we can. It should be developed together by the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury and Homeland Security (for the cyber piece), and led by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The working group should take input from outside experts and strategists including Allison, former ambassador to China and retired Navy 4-star Admiral Joe Prueher, current head of the U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Harry Harris (nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Australia), and Henry Kissinger. It should feature six key elements:

因此,我们的目标是制定一种明智的战略方针,在我们必须对抗中国的领域开展对抗,但在我们能够合作的领域开展合作。该战略应当由国防部门、国家、财政部和国土安全部门(网络安全部门)共同制定,由国家安全顾问麦克马斯特(H.R. McMaster)领导。工作组应接受外部专家和战略家的建议,包括前驻中国大使艾利森(Allison),退役海军四星海军上将、现任美国太平洋司令部司令亨利•哈里斯(Harry Harris)(他被提名为下一任美国驻澳大利亚大使)以及亨利•基辛格。它应该体现6个关键要素:

Use True Long-Term Thinking. Like China, the U.S. must stop thinking year-to-year or even over the current decade -- where do we see the U.S.-China relationship in a century? Two centuries? We are a Pacific nation, but sensible accommodations that can be made that reflect the power and reach of China. We need to think about long-term strategies and the resources necessary to execute them.


Conduct International Coalition-Building. The strategy needs to leave behind the mode of “China versus the U.S.” and into a truly integrated Asian coalition. We must not appear to encircle, contain, or intimidate China; we must avoid creating a stark choice between Washington and Beijing for our partners in the region. Rather, we want to build stronger coordinated approaches with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other allies, friends and partners. Above all, we must work with India, the other emerging superpower of the 21st century and a fellow democracy.


Retain a Values-Based Approach. We must not surrender the importance of democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, gender equality, racial equality and other human rights. The U.S. executes these values imperfectly, but they are the right ones and must be part of our strategic approach. Sometimes we think of this as a “war of ideas,” but that is not quite right. We are in a marketplace of ideas, and must compete with the alternate vision for structuring a society offered by China.


Enhance our Geo-Economic Posture. As the U.S. becomes an energy superpower, revitalizes its infrastructure (both physical and cyber), improves its global balance of trade, renegotiates important trade agreements, and uses Bretton Woods institutions -- the World Bank, International Monetary Fund -- aggressively, it will have a more robust set of economic tools. We should use them with confidence in dealing with China, starting with returning to the idea of a multistate Pacific trade agreement (a follow-on to the torpedoed Trans-Pacific Partnership) about which even Trump has mused. Energizing the private sector by defending its interests in China and our markets here can provide leverage.


Integrate the Interagency. Today, various parts of the government are not well-coordinated in terms of an approach to China. The Defense Department is pursuing an aggressive strategy that names China (correctly) as a potentially dangerous peer-competitor; the State Department has a much softer approach. Treasury is hard-edged on currency manipulation, but the Department of Homeland Security is not aggressive enough in working on cyber defenses. We don’t have a two-speed approach -- we are more like a ten-speed bicycle.


Maintain a Qualitative Military Edge. While the U.S. still enjoys an overall military advantage over China, the margin is shrinking. It will require smart investments -- especially in cyber, unmanned vehicles, advanced maritime platforms and fifth-generation fighters -- to ensure we can succeed if forced into combat.


Above all, we need to move from a reactive China “policy” to a real strategy that connects ends, ways and means. We could easily take a page from Sun Tzu, the legendary Chinese strategist, who was known for his sophisticated blend of hard and soft power to win complex battles. Yet even he ultimately said, “In death ground, fight.” We are not yet on a death ground with China, but we will need a new approach to ensure we don’t stumble onto one.


AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +8
When you realize that North Korea speaks for China, it gives you some perspective on how their government really feels about the west and their neighbors.


David  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +4
Do they?


AustrianSchool  @David • 5 days ago +3
Yup, they never left after the war with the UN in the 50's. There is long history with China and that part of Korea. Haven't you noticed that Korea seems to threaten all the traditional adversaries of China? They act all crazy but never threaten to nuke China.


Joseph Siew  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +5
North Korea only threatens the hegemony cos the hegemony threatens her. I’m surprised you didn’t notice that.


AustrianSchool  @joseph Siew • 5 days ago +5
Only China would see nearby western friendly democracies and the west as "hegemony". And stop saying "North Korea", there is no such place. Its heretofor to be refered to as "China's security zone".


Joseph Siew  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +3 ... ess-whos-number-one
A new poll says these nations are the top 4 threats to world peace. Guess who's number one.
“Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” was asked to people of several countries, their answers are represented here.
A picture is worth a 1000 words. ... ess-whos-number-one


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China made number 3 in that poll. I actually agree with the poll right now, but I suspect China might become number 1 after a while. It’s an ambitious country and I have a high degree of confidence it’s very interested in harnessing genetic engineering and AI for weapons. Smart but perhaps dangerous. Of course, I don’t doubt the US is doing the same, just maybe with a little more secrecy. Deepmind technology is winning the AI race right now, but China knows that and is basing the massive new AI investment on what they know about it.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago +1
You must understand China is no. 3 because the western propaganda have been bombarding her. For eg, which country has the most outposts in SCS? The western propaganda wouldn't tell you that. Everything that China has is to keep herself abreast with the developments of US military, especially the MAD.


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
What evidence to you have to support this claim? It sounds like you think western propaganda is so powerful in can brainwash people across the world. I don't think people are that dumb...


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
Western propaganda even was responsible for the separation of the world into "the iron curtain" and "land of the free". Western propaganda worked hard to bring down Saddam, worked hard trying to bring down Al Assad, responsible for the smearing of China during Mao, during TAM Sq Incident, and SCS disputes. Kishore Mahbubani, former Ambassador to UN, Dean of LKY School of Policy called the American media brainwashing, that feed on each other's fake news and misread the world.

西方的宣传甚至是将世界划分为“铁幕”和“自由国度”。西方的宣传全力运转让萨达姆下台,努力试图推翻阿萨德,抹黑毛爷爷时代的中国,天an门事件和南海纠纷。前驻联合国大使,李光耀政策学院的院长马凯硕(Kishore Mahbubani),称美国媒体洗脑,向大众报道假新闻,并误读世界。

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
The iron curtain was a result of a huge ideological difference between capitalism and Marxism. Given you can’t get basic history right, I can’t take you seriously at all. I’m very familiar with Western propaganda, and it’s easy to see through if you are paying attention. The free press has huge value because dissenting opinions can be heard. I agree with you about Saddam and Assad to a certain extent and plenty of American outlets have said as much, you just have to know where to look. You seem to accept Chinese propaganda uncritically when there is even more reason to be skeptical of it. The atrocities of Mao are well documented by people who escaped China. They obviously fled China for a reason, how many fled the US unless they committed espionage. You can’t cover this kind of stuff up here because of free expression and critical thinking. I’m going to point to US outlets being critical of our own government. Now point to Chinese outlets being critical of the Chinese government. You can’t because ALL you have is propaganda. We have the truth mixed with propaganda.
I honestly don’t trust the CIA very much. You have to trust your government because you don’t have a choice. I bet you have to be careful how you respond.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago
The Iron Curtain separated the 2 ideologies, but the chief cause of the segregation was the Marshall Plan. The western propaganda was spreading half-truths about Soviet-Nazis agreement. People who subscribe to the western propaganda of course would disagree with me.
Theoretically, a free press is useful because dissenting opinions could be heard. But it can also lead to fake news, and free press are not free. They toe the official line depending on what is official.
We trust our government as long as they are doing good. You obviously don't trust your government. You don't have good leaders to start with.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
We are human beings first, and ideologies come second. You were manipulated by the politicians and the media to segregate human beings into "good" and "bad". For you to break the spell, you must first accept that both sides engage in propaganda. Otherwise, your views are always one-sided.


life form  @Joseph Siew • 2 days ago
A "straw man argument" from word one to the end.


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
I just talked about how the west engaged in propaganda. Did you not understand what I wrote or are you playing games.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
My bad ;) will get back to you after dinner


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
No problem and no rush. I tend to be consistently skeptical and expect most everyone to be out to manipulate me. I've actually studied the philosophical origins of Marxism and Capitalism, and have even read "Das Kapital", and "The Wealth of Nations". Das Kapital made good critiques of Captialism, but it historically required so much tyranny that it wasn't stable at all. Note Russia and China don't even try to be completely communistic anymore at all, it didn't work. This doesn't mean Capitalism doesn't require regulation and government intervention to keep it stable. Capitalism is also flawed in that it always gives customers what they want, and that often isn't what they need. Capitalism needs wise, knowledgeable, and virtuous individuals to function properly, and we are seeing a decline of those attributes in the west. If we continue to slack, and China continues to put serious effort into progress, it certainly has an advantage. I really do try to look at things from all sides, even though no one can do that perfectly. Everyone's knowledge is limited, even if you try to learn as much as you can.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago +1
Agree that pure Capitalism, like Democracy and Communism, are bound to fail. Be practical....the idea is to give the best to the people, that's the democracy that China is practising.


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
Incredible! China does not practice Democracy!!! They are a one party state, devoted to ‘Harmony’ assured by State control.


Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
Depending on your definition of democracy


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
If you define democracy as a one party state which decides who gets to vote, who the candidates are, and dissent is criminalized, you are delusional.


Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
I define democracy as governance of a country with the people’s best interests at heart, with people’s input directly and indirectly, by a group technocrats who do it for a living. This is the closest to the true democracy that was practiced by the Greeks thousands of years ago.


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
Democracy is already defined. You don’t get to have your own definition.
Here is a common definition:
‘a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives‘


Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
This a simplified definition of Liberal Democracy.


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 2 days ago
This is Orwellian, without redeeming irony.


Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 2 days ago +1
What is liberal democracy? Do you actually choose your leader? Who nominated the candidates? You don’t really have a choice; the political parties have. They give you 2 apples and you choose one. Can you choose an orange? No. Why do you do when both are rotten? You have no choice.
The Chinese takes away the political parties, and goes directly to the people. With the advancement of big data, what people need and want are taken into consideration for policy making. Without political parties and vote buying, interests groups cannot control the election. Long term plans can also be implemented.
Liberal democracy is degenerating into populism, and it’s a dangerous trend cos the extremists are taking over.


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • a day ago
Joseph, please, for the sake of your vote, stop ranting and start thinking.
Trump and Hillary were as identical as two apples? Really? The extremists populists are taking over but voters don’t matter? Huh?
Self/contradiction is not a good look. Make up your own mind. Make a choice. Then vote.
This is a democracy, after all.


Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • a day ago
I have voted enough to realize all the candidates are not up to par. And I definitely did not nominate any of them. FGS, they have no relevant credentials to run for office.
Trump and Hillary are 2 equally bad apples. I don't think they are trained to lead the country. That is the problem with liberal democracy. In the end, interests groups that sponsored these people get rewarded, the people remain lost. So they become disgruntled and support extremists. This is populism, not democracy. The Chinese system is the closest to ancient greek democracy. All other countries should emulate them.


dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 20 hours ago
Time to go.
Hope you are happy there.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.


cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Don't forget the influence of Russia on N. Korea. PRC has the primary influence. N. Korea serves the foreign policy goals of their northern neighbors. The PRC even said that they would not support N. Korea if they attacked the US or others. Xi wants peaceful understandings with the Pacific Rim neighbors.
The Dutch reclaimed land from the sea, and Xi was very impressed with their work and is copying it in the South China Sea by building islands. Islands can be very useful, such as resorts. You need runways to fly in the tourists, I am told.


Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
PRC has very little influence on NK, much was through economic. After China split with Soviet Union, NK was loyal to the Kremlin. It was only after the collapse of SU that NK begged for aid from China.
Obama gave Xi the reason to build the islands.


cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Can you elaborate on "Obama gave Xi the reason to build the islands."

你能详细描述一下“奥黑子给了中国造岛的理由” 吗?

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +2
Heard of “Pivot to Asia”?


cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Obama was all talk, little action. You didn't know him well.


Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
Obama was all talk, but it was HRC that took action. No strategist worth his salt would rest on his laurels and let the PTA happen.


cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +4
Yes, Hillary threw her lot in with the Neocons, as you know the Neocons want war or a war time environment. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, those who like a war time environment to make money. Gen. Smedly Butler's famous book, "War is a Racket" shows that WWI was all about the money.
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes. "

是的,希拉里和新保守主义者们在一起,正如你们所知道的,新保守主义者想要发动战争或营造战争时期的环境。艾森豪威尔警告我们,军工联合体是那些热衷于营造战争时期环境来赚钱的人。斯梅德莱•巴特勒(Smedly Butler)将军的著作《战争是一场骗局》,表明一战完全是关于钱的。

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
What is PTA?


Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
Pivot to Asia, my friend...


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
my friend...
as long as you think you can provide Fake News you will call "friend" on the internet of someone you have no regard for.


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago +1
Bob is so much more knowledgeable than you. I have great respect for him.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
You respect those you can manipulate? Not very honorable.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China will invent - and you as a Chinese propagandist will defend - any reason for military expansion in the South China Sea area. There was never a reason to build and militarize small coral reefs where Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen went to earn their living. Now they are chased away by Chinese gunboats!


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China's plans to exert control over the SCS was long before the Pivot to Asia - and was, in fact, the reason for the need to Pivot To Asia. China is an international criminal - though you deny it - since it lost it's case at the hague Tribunal (PCA case number 2013–19) . China refuses to negotiate with ASEAN so it can divide and conquer.


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago +1
China started fortifying the islands in 2013. The PTA was announced in 2009.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
> The PTA was announced in 2009. FALSE!
Care to try again.
"In 2014 China claimed they were developing the islands for navigational purposes." We now know that was a lie. China has updated lies for today.
Fortification started in late 2016 - 2017.


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 4 days ago
No mistake.
China’s large-scale island-building in the South China Sea since late 2013


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
"The Obama administration’s overall posture toward Asia has in fact evolved considerably over the course of the past couple of years.
The U.S. media portrayed this message as directed solely at confronting China in Asia, but it is in fact much more complex than that. How realistic is the strategy the president articulated, and how is it likely to affect U.S.-China relations and the roles of both countries in Asia? Does America have the resources to make good on the rhetoric concerning this historic "pivot"?
In this connection, it may be significant that Obama never uttered the term "pivot" during his Asia trip, and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon speaks in terms of "re-balancing" rather than making a "pivot." Clinton, by contrast, has repeatedly termed America’s policy a "pivot to Asia."
In fact, the pivot was not fully implemented until ISIS was defeated. It was not until near the end of the Obama Admin that this occurred. Additionally, the US military, specifically the Navy, needed to revamp its forces from an Atlantic/Mediterranean focus to the Pacific.
Your "No mistake" is highly questionable though surely not supported by your lone resource.

在这种关联中,奥巴马在亚洲之行中从来没有说过‘重返’这个词,而国家安全顾问汤姆•多尼隆(Tom Donilon)则以‘再平衡’而不是‘重返’为中心。相比之下,希拉里一再将美国的政策称为‘重返亚洲’。”

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 3 days ago
ISIS was created by US and defeated by the Russians.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
ha ha ha.


cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
If NK begged for aid from the PRC and they got it, then the PRC does control the life and death of the NK regime. Russia also may be averse to crossing the border into North Korea, should the regime in Pyongyang become destabilized, the analyst said.
"I don't see Russia invading somebody there," or going into North Korea, Kireeva said. "In the event of regime collapse, I don't think Russia would deploy troops or do anything about that."
The analyst also suggested Russia would not welcome the presence of North Korean refugees, should they attempt to flee their country at a time of crisis.
The countries share an 11-mile border.


Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
“...then the PRC does control the life and death of the NK regime”
That’s where the flaw is. US values “human rights” but is willing to see the North Koreans go hungry or die of hunger just to see Kim go. Reminds me of all the sanctions US imposed over several decades of hegemony.
Anyway, China will impose sanctions per the UN resolution, not to annihilate the North Koreans.


Tyler2012  @cowboybob • 5 days ago
This guy is a Chinese propagandist who is giving you false info. He's here for China just as the Russian Trolls are for Putin.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
PRC has tremendous influence as evidenced by the dire economic situation in NK since PRC implemented the UN sanctions.
More PRC propaganda?


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago
I said China will impose sanctions per the UN resolution. That will affect NK economically. But it won't kill NK, and it will fail just like it failed on China, Cuba, Iran etc.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
If you think sanctions fail go to those countries. A sanction doesn't eliminate a country it makes life harder. Cuba has suffered as has Iran. To say otherwise is pure propaganda. The info is on the internet for you to read if you think otherwise.


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 4 days ago
It made their life harder and then what? Human rights.....LOL


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
Iran came to the bargaining table. Cuba laid out the welcome mat. Putin is begging for sanctions to be lifted. You don't accept reality. I'll be stopping soon because after debunking your false claims you resort to idiocy.


Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 3 days ago
Iran didn't come running....neither did Cuba. It was Obama who said sanctions didn't work...and called it off.


Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
If you don't think sanctions worked then you haven't read about what happened in Iran after the sanctions were lifted. Look at the condition of Cuba. Trump reversed Obama's position. Cuba continues to suffer. Russia, the same. NK speaks for itself. It asked for fuel from SK for the ship that brought the NK contingent to SK for the Olympics. That's sad and embarrassing.
You continue to demonstrate either a lack of knowledge or good judgement.


Valence  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +2
Why do you think NK speaks for China?


AustrianSchool  @Valence • 4 days ago
When you put all the parts together, understand the history, its the only rational explanation. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Its the Wizard of Oz , the great leader of NK is the Great Oz, and the little man behind the curtain, the one you're supposed to not notice, is China.


Ultimate187  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +4
While China does exert a large degree of influence on them, North Korea is still its own sovereign nation, and makes its own decisions. They don't speak for China.


AustrianSchool  @Ultimate187 • 4 days ago
That's just the official narrative, not the reality on the ground. It allows China to look civilized while NK does its dirty work.And it makes people think they need to placate China to get their help with their waywrd neighbor. That's why North Korea is the secretive "Hermet Kingdom", to hide the fact that they're just the military buffer zone against the west on the Korean peninsula.
We might as well just claim the Guam is an independent country that needs a huge navy and air base, that for some strange reason hates China and threatens to nuke it if it makes a wrong move.


GrumpyOldMan10  @AustrianSchool • 4 days ago
China rarely speaks directly and NK is not its mouthpiece. But the state has ultimate power over most media. The film industry is pedaling highly nationalistic films while blocking films western films viewed as anti-party (nice article in the Economist a month ago.) It actions speak for themselves. Its island building and naval build up certainly point to it having no intention other than to be the big dog in both the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. But it is a long term strategy -- it is a minimum of 10 to 15 years for China's navy to rival the US in terms of equally capable assets -- and China realizes that no one will challenge it if restricts it bullying to a few targets that nobody is going to run to the rescue of.


reaganite88 • 5 days ago +2
While I agree that a war with China is pretty unlikely... to quote Henry Kissinger, "China can be rich by selling us their stuff, or militarily powerful by opposing us... but they can't be both"... nonetheless the Chinese need to be put in their place. For a quarter century they have been allowed to "be both" by feckless US administrations that don't seem to understand that the Cold War is over... as is the need to ignore Chinese perfidy in trade relations.
That said, I also think people make too much of the Chinese "200 year strategy" thing. Last time I heard that was when the Japanese were "running rings around us" in the late 90s. The truth is that the Communist Party leadership of China is in a perpetual quandary... how to maintain a hold on a nation using a method of government that was outdated 200 years ago while moving that nation forward into the next 200 years. As it stands now it is an ancient autocracy surrounded by more and more democratically ruled nations... even Putin's Russia allows more citizen participation in civic affairs. Where will China be 200 years from now when all of its Asian neighbors and other trading partners are democratically run? While it may not be easy to see, China's leadership is always one misstep away from China becoming Cuba... a pariah nation whose economy is in ruins for generations.


Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +5
You mean leaving the fate of a country to chance is better than good governance? Good governance is outdated?
China simply wanted to grow economically but was forced to militarize itself cos US was containing her for no reason.


Taishanese  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +5
Well, you're partly right. China began looking seriously at military modernization back in the 90's because of two aircraft carriers Clinton sent in to intervene between China and Taiwan.
Also, China was surprised at the efficiencies of the US military during the First Gulf War.
With that said, it was not necessarily a militarization as one would think of, i.e., a massive build up. But rather, it was simply military modernization and one that reflected, in tandem, China's growing economy and rising technological prowess.
China's declared military budget never exceeded 2% of GDP. This portion is normal for most countries. And even when China's declared military budget was and is in doubt, Pentagon's higher estimate still put her figures only slightly above 2% of GDP as opposed to China's declared budget which is slightly less than 2% of GDP.
So even without the real or perceived containment of the US, China's military expenditures and modernization over the last two 2+ decades is not an extreme undertaking by a country that is rapidly modernizing. Even if China develops a submarine fleet that is eventually twice as many as the US in total numbers, we need to keep in mind that China, after all, has four times the population of the US.


reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Yeah right. China is militarizing because it wants to dominate its neighbors and because American politicians have NOT been paying attention. If America had any intention of "containing" China we simply could have denied her Most Favored Nation trading status.


Taishanese  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +4
Well, the terminology "Most Favored Nation" trading status was a misnomer and was eventually changed to "Normal Trade Relationship" (NTR), which is something most of the world's 200 nations enjoyed.
Prior to China's WTO entry, it was an annual debate in Congress in which the opponents of renewing China's NTR lost by a slim margin.
So those who regularly opposed China's trade status could not simply have denied China simply because they wanted to. They were up against other Americans who didn't feel that way.
So the anti-China's cannot willy nilly say that "we could do this and that to China if we wanted to". The reason why is because they are up against more powerful Americans (i.e., business interests) who want to profit from China's economic rise.
So there always were and still are people who do want to contain China. Thus far, they have not been successful.


reaganite88  @Taishanese • 5 days ago
I pretty much agree with what you have written. The question becomes has the pendulum shifted again so that China is on the verge of losing its trade status with America. If so then China will only have itself to blame... refusing to abide by the norms of Free Trade while using the wealth created by open access to America's markets to create a military problem for the U.S. and our other allies in Asia.


Taishanese  @reaganite88 • 4 days ago +2
I don't agree that China is creating a military problem for the US as it is China is merely modernizing her economy and the military along with it. And given China's size (pop. 1.4 billion) the military will naturally be one that will have significant leverage.
As far as the US turning on China in regards to trade, it probably has more to do with those who never liked China now have a voice in the White House. I personally believe most Americans in general have less animosity towards China today that in the 1990's. That's not to say it doesn't still exist, it's just less severe today than 20 years ago. But those who are anti-China are finding ways to step up their rhetoric and political position, e.g., Breitbart News, Trump in the White House, etc.

就美国对华贸易而言,这可能与那些从不喜欢中国的人有更多的关系,他们现在在白宫有了发言权。我个人认为,在1990年代,大多数美国人对中国的敌意都没有那么大。这并不是说敌意不存在,只是比20年前要好一些。但那些反华者正在设法提高他们的言论和政治地位,例如,布赖特巴特新闻网(Breitbart News),白宫里的特朗普等等。

Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +3
China doesn’t need to dominate its neighbors. She was big compared to the neighbors for centuries.
America couldn’t make up its mind; China was a potential market that shouldn’t be left out of WTO. So, on the one hand, US wooed China with the MFN, on the other hand, US tried to contain China.


reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Actually, for the past three centuries, China has been of little importance in Asia. Her militarization is to reestablish a dominance she lost centuries ago.
I don't disagree with you that America's politicians in the 1980s and 90s thought of China as a potential market and welcomed her into the WTO. But the illusion that China was actually going to abide by the rules of the WTO should have been shattered for our politicians every single year since she entered. But they did nothing... far from containing China as you now claim. In fact, China's "rise" was predicated on their doing nothing.
Now with a different President in power... one who is likely to do a lot more than merely "pivot" in response to Chinese malfeasance... it is the Chinese leadership that is unsure of what to do next. Do they continue their rapid military buildup and other aggressions in Asia and risk losing access to the American markets... or do they moderate their buildup, abide by the WTO rules, and hope for a more pliable President to replace Trump?


Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago
I disagree with your first sentence. More like one century, the 100 years of shame. Her military prowess commensurates with the size of her economy, she doesn’t look bloated militarily.
I can’t disagree with your view about the US politicians doing nothing to China with regards to WTO. China was smart enough to not violate any WTO regulations as a developing country. As a result, US could sue China for violations, but China won most cases.
I agree Trump has the balls to do a lot more than the previous administrations. I’m also excited to see what US and China would do next. My prediction is, Trump will die of heart attack during his term.


reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
LOL... China has been violating the WTO rules on a DAILY basis. But because companies and politicians in the West continue to see her as nothing more than a large market they choose not to call her out on it. Their CHOICE to not bring her before the WTO you then turn around and use as a claim that she never violates the WTO rules.
You crack me up!
Let me guess... when the Trump Administration starts bringing these cases you are going to accuse them of aggression against China. I mean, if none of his predecessors did it (because according to you there were no cases to be brought) then it must mean that he has chosen to bring false cases in the WTO in order to clip China's wings.


Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +1
I respect your opinions, but they are opinions. Ultimately, the WTO rulings are final. And if you google the WTO website, you would find US being sued more often than any other country.
Now that China has become the world factory / market, I think it’s too late to engage China in an economic warfare.


reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
Because we are the biggest economic power... and the one most likely to play by the rules... it wouldn't surprise me at all if we had the most claims filed against us. A nation can get a lot of leverage even with a specious claim against a nation that wants to be seen as playing by the rules. For a very long time now it has been fashionable in American policy circles to think of defending our own trading rights as unnecessary because even if our trading partners don't allow us free access to their markets in exchange for free access to ours, at least we are still getting their stuff for cheap. Those ideas died on November 8th, 2016.
As to your "opinion" that it is too late for China to lose its status as the world's factory... that is obviously not shared by China's leaders who are groping for a strategy to avoid Trump punishing Chinese companies that play fast and loose. They are well aware (unlike you) that there are a lot of poor people in the world who would love to take away the jobs that the poor in China have been doing for the past couple of decades. China's plan to dominate Asia will come to a quick and unpleasant end if her economy shrinks even a little.


Bob • 5 days ago +5
The capitalists ate America's seed corn while China was planning for the future.


Jasper_in_Boston  @Bob • 5 days ago +5
China enjoyed a roughly 11 point advantage over the US in average GDP growth during the 80s. That shrank to about nine points in the 90s. And perhaps 5.5 points in this decade. And it's now down to about 4 points.
If we were to graph the growth advantage of China vs the US, that graph would point to a convergence by the end of the next decade. That's right -- the US is likely to be growing faster than the PRC by the 2030s. China's demographics are awful for a would-be global dominator. (Most projections suggest China will have a smaller population at century's end than it does today and likewise suggest the US will grow to at least 500 million in that same span).
Chinese policy makers get a lot of things right. But they also get quite a few things wrong. And they're not superhuman. Nor have they repealed the laws of economics: they're not going to be doing 5 or 6 point annual GDP growth when they're dealing with a shrinking workforce any more than Italy or Japan are. And they're not going to be able to make up the difference via immigration, either.
I remain a "China optimist" mainly because I think it's likely that slowing economic growth in the near future will force a rethink of the Party's monopoly on political power.


Joseph Siew  @Jasper_in_Boston • 5 days ago +2
You are a US optimist, not China optimist. While China is constantly reforming, US has been stagnant for at least 20 years. The Trump Administration is the first Administration that has balls to carry out reforms and for that Trump deserves some credit. But, the political infighting will see that further reforms being resisted. China still has many more years of growth cos there are so many regions that require development. In addition, the BRI will keep the engine going for another 100 years or so. Just when people thought that China would hit the middle income trap, China bulldozers over the trap by upgrading to high tech manufacturing, and internet plus. In order to understand what is going on with China, you have to discard the western belief system. This dragon doesn’t leave things to chance, unlike Capitalism. For US, Detroit and Puerto Rico will be left to rot until money from the Chinese starts trickling in. China will simply create opportunities for provinces like Guizhou to bloom.


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Capitalism doesn’t leave things to chance. Centralization has advantages and disadvantages, and one advantage of our decentralized system is innovative. Even recently, most of the big innovations have come from western countries. The company that created the AI that shocked China with the Go AI is from the UK. The discovery of CRISPR from the US. I think China has advantages from centralization, but there seem to be disadvantages, too.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 5 days ago
Capitalism dictates that money(capital) goes to opportunities to make more money. Detroit will fail for a long time cos no decent money will go there till perhaps decades later. That's bad governance as far as I am concerned. I would expect the federal government to do something to boost Detroit's economy. Leaving to chance for Detroit is unthinkable for a great country like USA. But, that's a fact. Likewise for Puerto Rico......


Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
It's not chance. Conditions are bad in Detroit for a variety of reasons. Demographics and local laws and regulations are problematic. It's like a big experiment. Capitalism invested heavily in China and played a huge role (foreign investment) in getting it to where it is today. Your country is a weird capitalist/state run hybrid, but it makes no sense for the chinese to dismiss Capitalism. You might be right that the US should guide the economy more, but that can have some bad consequences. Some of your government spending is highly wasteful (like ours) and more is certainly not always better.
If you are typing from China, I realize you can't be critical because you are being monitored. I don't doubt having Big Brother watching you can encourage people to be more productive, but I bet it has a side effect on creativity and free thinking (you should be afraid of some thoughts because they could have seriously negative consequences for you if voiced) and thus innovation. It's really hard to know how to balance the pros and cons between the two countries. I'm extremely skeptical of censorship and this kind of surveillance, however.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
US can never be run like China cos you are ruled by Capital. And the elections destroy any policy continuity. And interest groups make governance an impossibility.
China is into censorship, not monitoring. So, people say what they want but if they touch on sensitive topics, the comments are censored. It is different from your NSA.


Valence  Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
Oh, I’m in tech, and I’m familiar with the architecture of China’s surveillance state. It’s pretty new and it did borrow from our NSA. The Great Firewall of China is impressive, though disturbing.


Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago
Exactly. The GFW is to censor fake news, it is not used to monitor comments. If you go to Chinese based forum, you would see anti-govt comments aplenty. You obviously don't know much about China.


所有信息均来自:百度一下 (一万期验证时时彩心得)