The Forum > Article Comments > China - playing by the rules? > Comments
China - playing by the rules? : Comments
By Chris Lewis, published 11/2/2010The West must respond to Chinese mercantilism: to do nothing it is to accept the demise of Western influence and the rise of authoritarian China.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
Posted by Dr Merlyn, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 3:09:33 PM
| |
Dr Merlyn, thank you for your comment. I was not clear enough and you have misread me.
Beijing China is a ten-year-old boy, five feet tall. He is growing five inches a year. How tall will he be when he is 100 years old? How old will he be when he is a mile tall? It was as if Chris had asked the questions and have answered them. I would have wished he had not said "the demise of Western influence." The light of Hellenism shone on Europe, Arabia, and India. It did not shine on China, which was a bad thing. This is what I wanted to mean. Since China had been for a very long time a self-subsisting society, standing aloof over its petty neighbours and hardly knowing about other great civilizations, it could afford to think that everything good and best was there; the outside world needed China but it could do without it. Though its hubris has not changed, external, unsavory facts hang heavily on it; it has got to chew, savor, and take them in. Posted by Michi, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:17:54 PM
| |
Sorry to misread you Michi - easy enough to do in this media. I was picking up on that misconception of an aloof China that seems to lull so many into a false confidence that China has never fought a war outside its boundaries. Instead, the Han empire has merely extended its boundaries by subsuming weaker populations......hmmmm?
Do you really think the Chinese government is going to chew over the unsavory facts of its international dealings? These range from factory plants in Vietnam where officials were persuaded on the basis of employment, only to find Beijing brings in its own workers, to the support of the corrupt Sudanese government that is committing genocide amongst those southern peoples incorporated within State borders against their will, the insidious backing of Fiji's military leadership, growing influence in New Guinea, I could go on..... Oh, to be sure, when making such criticisms, I'm highly conscious of European colonial malpractice and similar bad behaviour. However, times have changed, we have learned to think more internationally, and are now all-too aware of the long term repercussions of such behaviours. That very Han hubris works against learning from other's mistakes, and I somehow doubt their capacity for such self-reflective chewing whilst juggling the very delicate puffball that is contemporary China. Perhaps China's primary vulnerability also lays within its borders - there are massive problems emerging from such massive, uncoordinated development, with whole towns now polluted with carcinogenic toxins and huge unemployment in regions where business has failed or land has become exhausted. Either way, I think the West has made a huge mistake hitching its star to a rising China, and we would be well advised to hedge our bets elsewhere - to mix my metaphors. Posted by Dr Merlyn, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:00:33 PM
| |
It comes to something when you are advised not to take your Blackberry
and laptop with you when you go to China. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7009749.ece Talk about looking gift horses in the mouth. My very small experience in dealing with Chinese businessmen decided me against having any dealings with Chinese. From discussions I had with someone who had had a lot of experience the best advice seems to be, cross all "t"s and all "i"s and leave nothing to trust. I was advised that they come from a different business culture to the west and consider if you leave an opening they will take even illegal advantage of it. Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:52:00 AM
| |
Dr Merlyn, I wish the Chinese government behaved differntly in Tibet, Xinjiang, China, etc. It acts freely in those parts or within its boundaries. But it has to be a little decent outside them because it needs to interact with other countries; because it is placed in international enviornments, which are not necessarily amenable to its desires. We can put up unsavory enviornmentys without at least biting and chewing which the Chinese government cannot hope to profit itself. I think it has eaten some crusty bread and sour soup; we should treat it to more of it; it will be medicinal.
Posted by Michi, Thursday, 18 February 2010 8:28:34 PM
|
And what does China want with Tibet? Its natural resources, its high places where they can locate installations away from international gaze, the water source of so many important rivers, and land, land, land for migration. They've been buying up resources all over the world, where they had to buy, and massively building up their military - China has a few million excess males, courtesy of the 1 child policy, many more than will find wives, so what do you do with all those spare males....?
I may well be spooked unnecessarily, but I don't think that GFC was entirely incidental to China's plans. It has the benefit of long-range strategies, and, whilst we know Wall St and its colleagues were living in a house of cards, the necessary draught that tipped the deck was markets overloaded with absurdly cheap money from China. There are many ways to be invaded other than physically......