The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Have we forgotten ‘never again’? > Comments

Have we forgotten ‘never again’? : Comments

By Dvir Abramovich, published 29/12/2006

The silence about the bloodshed in Darfur - the first genocide of the 21st century - is deafening.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I deplore the "savagery" and world’s idleness about the bloodshed in Darfur.

The UN is made up of National Representatives!

As civilians this includes each and everyone of US!

Australians must feel outraged and learn to raise their voices about this kind of neglectful inaction.

What happened to “never again” that oft-quoted promise made after the 2nd world war and the Holocaust?

We need to revisit the "Marshall Plan"!

A NEW developmental plan to work towards "sustainable ecological and economic social development" in Africa and especially for DARFUR. A plan with the same line of committment as occurred through the assistance of the Marshall Plan, where world governments constructed a joint strategy for rebuilding and integrating the war-torn economies of Western Europe.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=marshall+plan+rebuild+&meta=

If we directed the same energy and mindfulness towards the strategy of PEACE and WELLBEING through TRADE as we do to CONFLICT and WAR........ we would have a far SAFER WORLD.

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Friday, 29 December 2006 12:17:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article that hits the mark exactly. In Rwanda the international community claimed that events unfolded to quickly for them to react in time. In Darfur, we don't have even this lame excuse.

We seem to suffer selective moral outrage - depending on our ideological bent we'll expound the sins or virtues of Israel, Palestinians, North Korea, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan or Cuba. But nothing in sub-Saharan Africa seems bad enough to spur us to serious attention, let alone action
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 29 December 2006 2:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is silence and inaction on Darfur because "the plight of the Palestinians" (how sick am I of this overworked phrase) has sucked all the oxygen from every other cause in the world.

Don't forget, Arabs can only ever be victims, and their suffering is more worthy than any other. So when Arabs rape, pillage and slaughter black Africans - Christian, animist or even Muslim - the brigades of professional protesters in the West just ignore it, whitewash it or blame the Jews somehow. Obviously in the eyes of Western lefty protesters one Palestinian is worth more than a thousand black Africans. We never hear the end of it when Israel "cruelly tears up Palestinian olive groves" yet when Arabs in Darfur raze villages and rape women we hear nothing. The sooner we stop wasting air-time on Palestinians the better. There are hundreds of causes so much more worthy than the Palestinians and their olive groves and it's time their voice was heard.
Posted by Kvasir, Friday, 29 December 2006 3:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Naturally I agree with the outrage expressed. Who could not?
But we need cool heads to analyse the causes of inaction. It is not the lack of humanitarian spirit. It is not merely economic considerations. The questions are fundamentally the ones of (1) who do you believe - impartial information (2) the rules of intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state (3) the problems of getting consensual action in the UN when votes are determined by national interest (4) the problem of condemnation of a particular nation when it decides to go-it-alone in an intervention.
Naturally, I want something to happen for the people of Darfur before these issues are resolved, but until they are I think the people of the world are doomed to a succession of genocides stretching well into the future and numbering millions of victims rather than hundreds of thousands. It is time to supplement the cries of outrage with positive suggestions about how to design systems that work better.
Posted by Fencepost, Friday, 29 December 2006 6:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These genocides will cease the day after the victims are trained, armed and sent back to combat their oppressors with superior weaponry.

-Stingers
-Rpg's
-Assault rifles.

(footnote- worked for Afghanistan)

Until then, the various wanna be Hitlers will just keep their stalling while killing methods going and the rest of us will be doing number crunching about how much this is likely to effect 'our interests'.

Dafur is ARAB Muslims ethnically cleansing NEGRO Muslims. I'm not sure how the breakdown is between the various rebel groups, but the West needs to wake up to that fact that its more likely just a part of the Arabization and Islamization going on around the world.

The LAST thing we need is an influx of culturally incompatable people on our doorstep.

They are being hunted down by weapons.... let them fight back with weapons. The idea that 'human conflict cannot be solved by violence' is just another rediculous and shallow mantras the left have used with considerable effectiveness against our increasingly washed minds.
Violence/War DOES solve conflict and the peace we now enjoy has as its foundation WAR and a damn brutal one at that.
Chamberlain tried the 'lets talk about it' approach and we all know the outcome.
All those Chamberlain wanna-be's can line up to walk the plank.

Aside from all that. Happy new year to all.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 29 December 2006 10:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a consumer-driven society, the masses are only concerned with the food the hand is offering them. If in this society, our attentions are deflected by myopic introspection, fed by a bombardment of intellectual "fast food", then the plastic hamburger is where the the appetite will gravitate towards. Our concern over the such important topics as cricket and Paris Hilton, will always take precedence over real issues, which don't even register a blip on the radar of the average and apathetic Australian. Having said this, where and how does a concerned working class Aussie start to make a difference? Stuff that happens "over there" will always be "over there" until, horror of horrors, it ever happens here.
Posted by CAVALIER, Saturday, 30 December 2006 7:10:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a self proclaimed devout Christian BOAZ_David, you are a hypocrite.
Was it not Jesus that said “Love thy Neighbor?”

As for the Palestinians, was it not Israel which approved delivery of an arms shipment of 2,000 automatic rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips and two million bullets to the Fatah Party 3 days ago?
Is this not inciting violence against the democratically elected government of Hamas?
Posted by Chad, Saturday, 30 December 2006 9:57:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chad, thankyou for that timely reminder.

Please realize, this is a discussion forum so it should not surprise you that people use indirect devices to get a point across or to open minds.

You call me a hypocrite. Ok.. I'll guarantee one thing, you are absolutely correct. The thought of my remaining 100% (as opposed to 99.9%) in total harmony between faith, thought and action is a big ask. So, hypocrite it is.

Love thy neighbour ? Ur right. So, now that the ball is rolling, what is love ? Do you only understand this concept in terms of a mother nurturing her children ? i.e. in the 'warm fuzzy' way ?

Can I suggest you review Romans 13:1-7 to see the responsiblities of the State in regard to the 'evildoer'. You will note I presume (as I have done) that the terminology is clearly of a military nature.
Then, please see Romans 12:9-17 but see the interesting points in verses
9 "hate what is evil"
14 "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse"
17 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil"

Then compare this with Galatians 1:9
[As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!]

Its the same person writing all of those thoughts. Now.. the important point is, can we understand his obvious condemnation of false teaching in Galatians in relation to 'Bless and do not curse" ?

Yes..I think we can, and quite easily. But the point I'm making here is that there is a lot more to the Biblical idea of 'Loving your neighbour' than you simplistically try to assert.

I conclude that to urge the 'Emperor' to carryout his governmental responsibilities in regard to international conflict is not without scriptural support.
How is 'arming and training oppressed people to defend themselves' "not" Loving my neighbour".
Perhaps I could urge the emperor to

a) Write a strongly worded letter to the oppressors.
b) Warn them, if they persist, military options will ensue.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 30 December 2006 12:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Chad.

I thought it would be almost impossible to connect the Israelis with the Dafur tragedy but you have done it. You have almost tried to blame them for it but stopped short.

We all know it was the international Zionists with their control on the press that orchestrated it together with the CIA, Micky Mouse and the Klu Klux Klan. That is logical is it not?
Posted by logic, Saturday, 30 December 2006 5:26:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fencepost notes that we must consider the rules of intervention in the affairs of sovereign states as a cause of international inaction over Darfur. This is a valid argument only up to a point.

Since the NATO intervention in Kosovo, which breached Serbian sovereignty and was not endorsed by the Security Council because of Russian and Chinese threats to veto (they have their own minorities to oppress), there has existed in customary international law a right to collective intervention on humanitarian grounds where a crime against humanity is in commission and there is no other way of realistically stopping it continuing.

A similar situation was the enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq to protect Kurds and Shiites against Saddam's retribution.

NATO's intervention in Kosovo provides the international law precedent for lawful humanitarian intervention in breach of Sudanese sovereignty by a collective of other states willing (obliged?) to act to stop a continuing crime against humanity (genocide).

This is so even in the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising force so long as there is a Security Council resolution identifying the crisis as a threat to world peace and sanctions have been imposed and ignored. At present no such sanctions imposing resolution has been passed. This must be the next step before lawful humanitarian invention.

The development of strongly enforceable international law norms is the way to stop genocides and other crimes against humanity in the long run. David BOAZ's solution, to arm the oppressed with superior weapons, will only incite a cyclical round of high crime. BOAZ needs to get off the rhetorical swipes at the "Left" (a lazy device to use when your own argument is specious) and make a reasoned point instead of railing against "incompatible migrants" and invoking Jesus as justification for violence.
Posted by travellingnorth, Sunday, 31 December 2006 11:16:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Northy.....

Kosovo was a disaster which has unquestionably sown the seeds of future opportunistic race/religion based animosity which has a high likelihood of being a genocide or a mass ethnic cleansing exercise.

All Nato did, was keep the people who hate each others guts close enough to see, hate, despise each other, yet not actually wipe each other out. Nothing has actually changed except the immediate capability of mass expulsions or killings.

There are historic reasons for this, and in my opinion there would be incremental contemporary ones.

1/ Historically, the Ottoman invasion, and the dispersion of Muslim Albanians into 'Nonimally Christian Serb Orthodox HEARTland'.
2/ Contempary reasons would be the continual pressure of expanding Muslim population seeking land for homes and clans, and this would be the incremental aspect. As this process continues, suddenly the Serbs wake up one morning realizing they have been dispossessed by stealth.

Shock horror the Serbs decide to reverse this tide of history by the same means it was initially dumped on them by the Turks.. "invasion".
Sadly, the worst aspects of de-humanized people (exemplified by the infamous "Arkan" ) allying themselves to otherwise understandable causes found outlet under the general umbrella of the Serb Military effort.

It would have been far better for the Serbs to just make the plan "Expel all Muslims" and carry it out in a Military manner without the sneaky death squads of Arkan and ilk.

"Never Again"...is a myth. It is only 60 yrs since the last massive so called 'world' conflict and we have had longer, numerically more deadly conflicts since then (Chinese Cultural Revolution to name one, Stalins purges another)

The most we can hope for, is that wherever the ultimate power resides, the 'Emporer' will be a benevolent one.

I promise you one thing though, as sure as night follows day, unless something is done to stop (not slowdown...stop)Muslim immigration/(Invasion by stealth) to Europe, and unless Europe rediscovers its own spritual soul, we are doomed.
-Political Correctness
-MultiCulturalism
-Human Rights (so called)
...Are impediments to survival.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 31 December 2006 12:50:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This process of history and race, of idealism and reality can be shown clearly from the events in Yugoslavia as it took shape over some centuries.

[In 1529, following the defeat of the Hungarians by the Ottoman Turks, the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires divided Hungary’s territories, thereby creating a militarised border in Croatia between the Islamic and Christian worlds, running roughly along the present border between Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Serbs settled in areas of Croatia known as Krajina (border lands), the source of much Croat-Serb conflict thereafter.]

QUESTION... why...did the Serbs settle in Krajina ?
ANSWER..... Dispossession by the Ottomans !

SEED of future conflict is found in the last sentence of the quote.

Now.. the Outside Powers get involved and:

[after the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I, a new ‘Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes’ was created in 1918, later renamed ‘Yugoslavia’ in 1929.]

Well there you have it.. UTOPIA... Serbs,Croats and Slovenes all living happily together....right ? WRONG !

[During the inter-war period, however, a highly unitary Serb-dominated state was created, worsening Croat-Serb conflict, which was exploited by the Nazis, after the Axis dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941]

and there of course we see the wonderful workings of MULTICULTURALISM and how simple it is for outside forces (Nazi's) to EXPLOIT diverse cultural groups. (Nationalistic Croats)

and... the Balkans war was the result.

OBSERVATIONS.
1/ Human nature has not changed
2/ No amount of warm fuzzy UN Conventions will change the human heart.
3/ MultiCulturalists are totally ignorant of history. (willfully?)
4/ In the light of History, MultiCulturalism could be viewed as SEDITION. (in my opinion)

Final Point: The Shepharton Iraqi Association is RACIST. (As are all 'ethnic' associations, including British)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 31 December 2006 1:10:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David...

Ask the Albanian Kosovars if the Kosovo intervention was a disaster. Thousands returned home to bombed out buildings and, according to you, the prospect of renewed ethnic cleansing. Many even left countries as prosperous and secure as Australia to return voluntarily. They have faith in the future.

There is an increased probability of future "Emperors" being benevolent if they have the real prospect of being hauled before the ICC and tried for their crimes, as was Milosevic. Karadzic (who is a fugitive) and Mladic (whose daughter suicided when she read the Hague Tribunal's indictment against him) hardly live worthwhile lives thanks to the prospect of justice for their crimes against humanity.

Such a real prospect would deter at least some would-be criminal leaders and gives pause to their henchmen who would also face charges that cannot be defended with the "I was only following orders" argument. This is why a strong international law regime is necessary.

Law is the universal key to civilised behaviour, not "might is right" or superior religion (an oxymoron) or culture. Imagine life in a society without the rule of law. The world will be better off when the rule of law extends to sovereign heads of states and their minions.
Posted by travellingnorth, Sunday, 31 December 2006 2:32:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do hope the author of this article about Darfur took note of the Kofi Annan “concern” meter. I noticed that the needle on his meter went from ‘concerned’ to ‘very concerned’ in a matter of days.
Posted by Sage, Sunday, 31 December 2006 3:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The call to march in the streets to protest the genocide sounds reasonable, but that assumes Australians have some kind of power that we can exercise. We don't.
Like the refugees in Dafur, we too are powerless, just under different masters.
Posted by roama, Sunday, 31 December 2006 8:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little pessimistic, roama. You live in in one of the world's most stable and developed democracies. You can protest and, if there are sufficient like-minded people, you'll make a difference in pressuring our government to do something about Darfur. That something may be limited because of the size and influence of Australia, but Australia does puch well above its weight in the world and can influence very powerful nations that can do something more concrete.

It was the collective outrage of the Australian public that led the Howard Government to risk war with Indonesia over East Timor. A decision that they'd unlikely have taken on the basis of a cost/benefit political/diplomatic calculation.

Don't be so cynical.
Posted by travellingnorth, Monday, 1 January 2007 4:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Northy
Law...yes. But international law ? c'mon mate.. winners are grinners you know that. I shudder at the thought of some far off remote tribunal or court which might put our prime minister on trial... perish the thought.

I think I could have argued well for Mr Milosovic, specially regarding the massacre at Srebreniza, where I would have shown that he simply carried out the same genocide perpetrated by Mohammed against the Jews. How many are brave enough to put Mohammed and Islam on trial today ? Its all about power and numbers mate.

While we recoil in stunned disbelief over such things, we should remember that Islam is actually BUILT on such things. Christianity is not. Many horrible things were done under the 'banner' of the Church but a careful student of history and the Scriptures will clearly see they had no correlation with Christs teaching.

I hold as notable exceptions, the battle of Tours in 732 and Vienna in 1643 where the 'Emporer' in terms of Romans 13:1-5 took the sword to deter the evildoer (the Moors and Ottomans)

I still come back to the fact that our present period of world history is little different from how its always been. We only SEE our UN/Human rights/UN convention stream of history as being significant when in reality it just does not come onto the radar of Islamic states (apart from temporary accomodation till they can take power)

Honestly, I have no real earthly solution. But I know one thing, I don't want 'International' law to rule Australia. It would be the product of lobbying and special interest forces alien to values I cherish.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 1 January 2007 11:37:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't we see any protesters on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne? Well, the reason is as simple as it is cynical: Even though some (like the Green Left Weekly) try very hard to shift the blame for this genocide to the US, it is very hard to blame the US and Israel. And for the world's left leaning protesters, the US and Israel are the only two countries that can be blamed for any abomination in the world. If it was not China but the US vetoing any actions against Sudan, you wouldn't hear the end of it. Sudan is Muslims killing Muslims, and as Muslims are by definition victims, it is too hard for the protesters to take sides in this conflict. Cynical, but true.
Posted by KeesB, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 9:59:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh, but where's the economic benefit in intervening? Even East Timor had a carrot stick to encourage Australia to aid their transition to independence - gas.

The author mentions China's oil interests. More information on this would be interesting - there's your lynchpin. If China's oil interests were to be threatened, I bet they'd be much more keen on an interventionist force.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 4 January 2007 3:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL - I accept the reality you are trying to portray where there is a lack of haste with which governments act when there is no benefit to be made either economically or via political strategy. What I am unclear about however is whether or not you support this apparent global stance that economy rather than society makes the world go round. As a society it is our expanding craving to consume beyond our means (and way beyond our needs) that is inspiring our governments to often ruthlessly scour the world for resources with which to expand our economies to foster such reckless demands.

Sadly, governments won’t intervene until its own citizens find more benefit in the protection of human rights than the acquisition of a plasma tv or the latest “news” on TomKat or Paris Hilton. Somehow I think that at such a suggestion I know exactly where most people would tell me to stick such a carrot (and you’d have thought the Darfuri have suffered enough torture).

As for China’s oil interests in Sudan, they are a major factor in them not wanting to support a decisive international intervention. I believe they are concerned that there may be an overthrowing of the Sudanese government which could very well result in existing oil contracts being torn up (from memory, 60% of Sudanese oil goes to China, making up 6% of the latter’s intake). Once again a selfish reaction to the problems of others, yet inspired by their desire to meet their citizens’ ever-expanding “needs.”
Posted by meliorator, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 7:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David - Although I find myself disagreeing perhaps just as much as I agree with things you have written, I cannot help but appreciate the blunt honesty with which you deliver your opinions. I do feel you have a very rational (although maybe a little too clinical) outlook on the world which tells you that the law of the jungle will always abide: the survival of the strongest. This is something I certainly wouldn’t disagree with, and your points regarding cause and effect are most valid.

However to judge the world we live in today in the same light as events which occurred in times of colonising may be misleading I feel. Some aspects of those times may not rear their ugly heads again, although you may be correct in believing it’d just be a case of same excrement, different odour.

My concern is witnessing people analysing conflicts such as Darfur entirely in the black and white with which history paints. I fear that we find it way too easy to be colour-blind to the graphic colours which are painted by the blood and lost sanity of people deemed acceptable losses in the shaping of our jungle.

As I am sure you know, there are people being butchered, raped, tortured and dying of famine and disease in manners which I do not have the talent to describe adequately. The disguising of this crucial aspect cannot be tolerated. This is the kind of war on terror that should be fought, one where the privileged stick up for the less fortunate. This is the opportunity to reshape the world and change history.

Sadly though, the world powers concentrate entirely on their own war on terror which is another example of how cause and effect can have drastic and complex outcomes. It must be hard for them to feel entirely righteous when they just cannot resist the urge to keep their hand in the cookie jar!
Posted by meliorator, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 7:10:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meliorator:

Were the UN to intervene in the Darfur crisis, I would be very happy, though until China decides it's a good idea it won't happen.

China has a policy of being a 'non-judgemental friend' to a wide variety of nations. You need look no further than the editorials in the China Daily to see that.

Now here's the rub. China and the US have two very different international policies.
China has an 'it's none of our business' approach, while the US has an 'it's all our business, especially if there's oil or Al-Qaeda'.

Here we can witness two very different superpowers in action.

Now clearly the Chinese Government isn't best practice. It's essentially a communist executive presiding over a capitalist economy. On the domestic front, it is flawed in the extreme.

I haven't yet made up my mind about their international relations policies. I can't help but wonder what the world would be like if the US had maintained isolationist tendencies. Many will shriek that the muslim caliphate would be out of control, but then again, I tend to think they wouldn't be so hostile to the US if the US hadn't had such an interventionist history. Al Qaeda certainly isn't so pissed off with China.

So would I like China to allow intervention in Darfur? absolutely. Do I think they will? No. Would I like China to behave more like the US on the international stage?

Hmm... I don't think the world is big enough for two superpowers that behave like America.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 12 January 2007 4:51:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR

The Chinese have the attitude that its "none of our business" because they want to make sure that no precedents are created that can come back to haunt them.

With their record on human rights they have every reason to fear critical opinion elsewhere in the world, especially if that opinion can be converted into humanitarian-justified action (sanctions or intervention) because of the development of international law permitting nations to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations on humanitarian grounds.

Such international law may develop if "state practice" becomes cemented into precedent. Every time intervention occurs it increasingly becomes state practice. This is why the Chinese use their Security Council veto to stymie every attempt to intervene in humanitarian cases.

Its about covering themselves.
Posted by travellingnorth, Friday, 12 January 2007 5:02:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry TRTL, I misaddressed you as TLTR.

I hope I haven't committed some terrible political slur on you!
Posted by travellingnorth, Friday, 12 January 2007 5:04:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No particular slur... as long as both are present it's all good.

Your post is of course correct, but I can't help but wonder if China's isolationist habits are more a product of history.

For a country as large and powerful as China, they have been remarkably insular throughout history.
Japan for instance, has made the occasional foray into aggressive policies, but China has remained silent - consider this: in World War two, Russia and Japan played large roles in the conflict... yet China, one of the world's largest nations, remained mute.

Much of this can be chalked up to their way of life. Until recently, China has largely been seen as a country of peasants, however this wasn't the case. Consider ancient history when China was far more advanced than the emerging European powers. Again, there was little interference.

No doubt what you say about precedent and the desire to avoid the spotlight is true... though I suspect it's also a part of the Chinese psyche at large.

I'm somewhat curious as to whether or not this isolationist habit can see them emerge as the new world superpower. Will the US meekly accept their own economic decline?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 15 January 2007 10:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoops. I meant to say this wasn't 'always' the case.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 15 January 2007 10:29:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL

China has an interesting history in terms of engagement with the rest of the world. There have certainly been long periods of isolationism. However, there have also been times of engagement with the world at large. From 1405 to 1433 the Chinese navigator Zheng He made 7 voyages to 30 countries in ships over 400 ft long (Columbus' ship was 84ft) http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html. I do agree with though that the overall trend has been towards isolationism - look at the Great Wall!

I've just read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse". He makes the interesting point that Chinese history is characterised by what he calls "lurching" - that is large scale changes of direction. Such events as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are recent examples, the sudden explorations of Zheng He and the equally sudden cessation of the expeditions is another.

I don't agree with your argument that the Chinese were quiescent during the War. The Japanese ran a war in China from 1937 to 1945, parallel to the Pacific War against the allies. The Chinese Communists and Nationalists were united against the common Japanese enemy, only to resume their conflict with each other after Japanese defeat and withdrawl. I would argue that the perception of Chinese "muteness" is an artefact of a Euro/Americo-centric writing of the history of WW2.

As to American passivity towards their own relative decline; I wouldn't count on it.
Posted by travellingnorth, Monday, 15 January 2007 1:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is merit in your suggestion of a western-centric recording of World War two... One of my pet peeves is American war films which give the indication that US action was the be all and end all decider of the war... This ignores the fact that approximately two thirds of the entire german war effort was directed against Russia, with the remainder devoted to Britain and the US.

Similar stories when I hear people trying to tell me Mussolini was a brilliant war general... when Hitler had to bail him out of his petty war with Greece, he cost himself crucial time, and wound up entering Russia late and not reaching Moscow (now abandoned) until winter had set in. Of course, this was a good thing for the west, but Mussolini was supposed to be on Hitler's side at the time... but I digress...

Granted, China has lurched about throughout history, much like the other major superpowers... most of their quarrels have been with their asian neighbours however, which tended to be due to long standing animosities.

Though you are right. Watching the strangely low-key (at present)relationship between China and the US will be fascinating over the next decade.

I'm quite convinced that if China does decide to adopt interventionist foreign policy, Taiwan will be our guinea pig. Should be interesting anyhow.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:26:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy