China calls for "new order" in Asia and World

[MellowDrama]

Would you ever hear of such a speech coming out of China just even 5 years ago? Hey, it might just be all hot air he's blowing, but it appears China is gradually exerting or at least attempting to exert its influence in the region.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...1_123505.shtml

[Emperor_Mike]

A worrisome state of affairs at this juncture. As much as I am for China (since it is my primary homeland) the prospect of Beijing going after "spheres of influence" is deeply troubling.

[MellowDrama]

Why? Everyone else is doing it.

[Emperor_Mike]

It's troubling because with China we're dealing with a power than can seriously destabilise the Pacific region. Given these trying times (in international affairs) any moves that have the potential to alter the balance of power should be viewed warily. Having Beijing come of age as the next superpower is good and all, but if it's being done in such a manner that other regional powers have cause to worry and react negatively, things may get difficult for everyone.

This, of course, is a bad thing.

[MellowDrama]

One nation's view of destabilization is another's view of order.

[Ogumo]

"Let us Work Together for a Century of Peace and Sustainable Development in Asia,"

I like this statement.

[SunWuKong]

basically they want to counter American influence in the region. the Bush administration has made it clear that it sees China as a competitor.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally Posted by MellowDrama

One nation's view of destabilization is another's view of order.

If my memory serves me correctly (and it does) I think that was Napoleon Bonaparte's exact sentiment before he embarked on his wars that set Europe ablaze for a quarter of a century. Destabilisation of international politics and the status quo always brings about consequences of a disastrous nature. The current set of ongoing events in the Middle East demonstrates that quite well, I should think.

However, seeking to hold American influence at bay is a logical course of action. I just hope that what China terms as "influence" and a "new order" doesn't incorporate bellicose words and actions in the tradition of Realpolitik. If, God forbid, it comes to that, we can expect to see in our lifetime a second Cold War.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Mike

If my memory serves me correctly (and it does) I think that was Napoleon Bonaparte's exact sentiment before he embarked on his wars that set Europe ablaze for a quarter of a century. Destabilisation of international politics and the status quo always brings about consequences of a disastrous nature. The current set of ongoing events in the Middle East demonstrates that quite well, I should think.

However, seeking to hold American influence at bay is a logical course of action. I just hope that what China terms as "influence" and a "new order" doesn't incorporate bellicose words and actions in the tradition of Realpolitik. If, God forbid, it comes to that, we can expect to see in our lifetime a second Cold War.

more likely it will be economic warfare.

[Duke of Mt. Deer]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Mike

It's troubling because with China we're dealing with a power than can seriously destabilise the Pacific region. This, of course, is a bad thing.

ehhh...hasn't the U.S. been doing that ever since Bush came into power? declaring N. Korea as axis of evil, thereby alienating it even more --> destabilization. And isn't the U.S. destabilizing the Middle East as we speak (as well as shattering alliances with the "Old" Europe)?

[Duke of Mt. Deer]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Mike

If my memory serves me correctly (and it does) I think that was Napoleon Bonaparte's exact sentiment before he embarked on his wars that set Europe ablaze for a quarter of a century. Destabilisation of international politics and the status quo always brings about consequences of a disastrous nature.

If the status quo was kept in France in the late 1700s, there would never have been French Revolution, and the peasant class would still be suffering under the French aristocracy. While years of war followed the Revolution, France eventually settled at a new staus quo, under which a more democratic government was established (of course, this did not happen until years later as leaders like to proclaim themself monarch (aka, Napoleon III).

Disruption of status quo may not always be a bad thing.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally Posted by SunWuKung

more likely it will be economic warfare.

Which is preferable to old fashioned power plays involving escalations of crises. We can hope that this is what Beijing meant by "influence" but we must not discount other, more troubling developments that may come to pass. However, many a trade war has escalated into shooting ones. Perhaps I'm just a bit on the paranoid side, but I believe that there are merits in my concerns. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. I'd hate to see China involve herself in conflicts she has no hope of winning. It'd be so very un-Sun Tzu-like.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally Posted by Duke of Mt. Deer

ehhh...hasn't the U.S. been doing that ever since Bush came into power? declaring N. Korea as axis of evil, thereby alienating it even more --> destabilization. And isn't the U.S. destabilizing the Middle East as we speak (as well as shattering alliances with the "Old" Europe)?

If your friend jumped off a bridge would you do the same? Likewise, if the US participates in wholesale destabilisation of nation states ought China travel the same path? There's no reason behind adopting stances that will make the international climate more hostile to Chinese economic and political activities by following ill-advised foreign policies. The current administration in Washington can do what it whats. There is no wisdom behind current American adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and look how these two situations have turned out and are developing. Point being, one stupid course of action certainly does not deserve another.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally Posted by Duke of Mt. Deer

If the status quo was kept in France in the late 1700s, there would never have been French Revolution, and the peasant class would still be suffering under the French aristocracy. While years of war followed the Revolution, France eventually settled at a new staus quo, under which a more democratic government was established (of course, this did not happen until years later as leaders like to proclaim themself monarch (aka, Napoleon III).

Disruption of status quo may not always be a bad thing.

It all depends on the status quo that's being disrupted, of course. The initial stages of the Revolution were likely a god-send to the oppressed Third Estate of the ancien regime. The Revolution was then usurped first by Robespierre and the Committee for Public Safety, which turned into an extremist governing body of the most abhorrent nature, the Directory which was just as corrupt as the Bourbon monarchy, and finally the Consulate and the Imperial Governments under Bonaparte, which actually overturned the Revolution and set up a hereditary monarchy. Many of the old Revolution's values were swept away and one can argue that democracy never really saw the light of day until the advent of Thier's Republic and even that is debatable. The Revolution was fought in the name of "Liberte, Equalite, et Fraternite" but to the detriment of those who had shed rivers of blood in the name of the three aforementioned values, it turned out to be a hollow sacrifice indeed. The old Bourbons were restored after 1815 and the monarchy lived on until Louis Phillippe of the Orleans branch was deposed. Democratic values during this time were there, but were rarely practised, if ever.

The French Revolution is, perhaps, not the best example of the overthrow of a negative status quo. Mind the word "negative" of course. Now we must ask ourselves if China's actions are geared toward undermining a positive or negative state of affairs. If negative, then I hope that Beijing will proceed with caution and hope for the best possible outcome. If positive, then I'm afraid I must disagree with any measures by the Chinese government to upset the balance of power in the Pacific region. We're not dealing with blind nationalism here. The consequences, if fraught with the horrific shadow of possible war, will be dire for the rest of humanity indeed.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Mike

If your friend jumped off a bridge would you do the same? Likewise, if the US participates in wholesale destabilisation of nation states ought China travel the same path? There's no reason behind adopting stances that will make the international climate more hostile to Chinese economic and political activities by following ill-advised foreign policies. The current administration in Washington can do what it whats. There is no wisdom behind current American adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and look how these two situations have turned out and are developing. Point being, one stupid course of action certainly does not deserve another.

the only problem is that the US is seeking to expand its influence in Asia in the hope of "containing" China. if China doesn't counter with its own efforts to gain influence, it'll be quite literally physically surrounded on nearly all sides by US forces.