China, the biggest threat to world peace?

PH01

With it's quite support of regimes in North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe and many more, is China fast becoming the biggest threat to world peace?

I reckon it is.

diddley

me too.. I'm interested to see how all the 'anti-Americans' react when Chinas threat becomes apparent to all.

bartholomewbinn

China is a threat to world peace, but the biggest threat to world peace is Israel, if they attack Iran, then we will see real fireworks.

Duiske

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

China is a threat to world peace, but the biggest threat to world peace is Israel, if they attack Iran, then we will see real fireworks.

Totally agree. And I'm going to upset Diddley by lumping America in with them. If (or more to the point, when) Israel attack Iran it will only be at America's behest. I can't recall exactly the number of UN resolutions condemning both Israel and China, but if memory serves, China have in the region of 25, while Israel have over 80, all of which the US has vetoed.
So China gives tacit support to the likes of N. Korea ? So what ? When was the last time N. Korea invaded another country ? When did N. Korea last send a missile across its borders into a neighbouring state, killing civilians ?
Its not China we have to fear, its the US/Israeli Alliance.

brianthebard

imperialism is the biggest threat to world peace,wherever it is found.however while the US,UK and others presume to lecture China on internal affairs,chinese aggression will continue grow.

ChocolateSauce

I don't think China is a threat at all.

In 5000 years of history, how many times has China tried to expand beyond its present day boarders?

They're not perfect, and need to be pressured to improve their treatment of citizens, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt on the world conquest question.

Cannibal Ox

Not really. Every major power supports different regimes, some of those regimes involve homicidal dictators, some of them involve military juntas and some of them involve Brian Cowen. I don't think you can condemn one power for supporting a regime without condemning all of the major powers, because they all support/have supported regimes that most of us would consider immoral.

I also think Chinese foreign policy is a little more subtle then US foreign policy. I don't think China are as likely to intervene militarily in states like the US are.

ejmaztec

The US and the UK criticise China for consorting with African dictators and having little regard for the rights of the workers in those countries. What they seem to forget is that they've been consorting with them for a lot longer than China.

I read somewhere that Chinese loans to the US have bankrolled the US's military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears to be a very confusing relationship.

Thirdfox

theozster wrote: »

I don't think China is a threat at all.

In 5000 years of history, how many times has China tried to expand beyond its present day boarders?

They're not perfect, and need to be pressured to improve their treatment of citizens, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt on the world conquest question.

emphasis added.

We would argue 7000 years... and someone could make the case that the Mongols' empire was "Chinese" in a sense too (largest land area empire in the entire history of human civilisation.)

But dealing with the OP's question (I was Chinese, Irish most of my life so please don't try to use this "he's just a brainwashed ignorant communist" argument I see more and more often on the net as English speaking Chinese people start posting their views). I am a law student who considers myself as intelligent and well aware of global issues (more so than many Irish in regards to China I imagine) and I really do not see China as a "danger" to world peace, or at least in the same way that "active" countries like the US or UK are.

The government's philosophy to foreign policy is we won't interfere with domestic matters and try to "pressure" you to make changes that we feel is "right". It may regarded by some as lipservice or a nice way to get around "moral" issues like trading with countries who I undoubtedly would not to like to live in. But on the other hand speaking from a legal point of view what right do we have to try and change the internal matters of a sovereign country? China itself was subject to "interference" by the big colonial powers in the recent past and remembers the humiliation it suffered when other countries can just enforce unilateral demands on you at the point of a gun (take a look at the Opium War when the British disregarded international law and went to war in order to sell narcotics to the Chinese). Thus, it's policy of non-interference can be understood (if not agreed with) in many ways I would think.

But is non-interference a danger to world peace? Certainly it was nice of the Americans to stop Hitler but that could hardly be called a domestic affair of Germany could it? If it is dangerous, it is only dangerous to the extent that the natives of a country that is "despotic" or whatever the catchphrase is nowadays suffer. The extent to which internal suffering affects world peace can be debated though.

Maybe it's a problem with us law students is that we do look at the "big" picture. The ideals of "democracy" and "freedoms" are often debated within our groups and it often reveals uncomfortable insights (to my Western educated mind anyway).

So in many ways, China is the polar opposite of the US (or at least the idealised US who "brings" democracy to countries it "liberates"). China says, our aid has no conditions - develop at your own pace. This means that corruption is more likely and "bad" governments may remain in power longer but is it better/worse than a foreign policy of direct intervention like in Iraq?

These aren't questions that can be answered in a short piece like this one, and the study of international law is fascinating (as my German law friend recently said to me her law professor laughed at the idea that Kosovo could declare independence legally and be accepted...until it actually happened.)

So question yourself and ask not whether China is dangerous to world peace or not... but is a strong China something to be desired in a personal sense? Because world peace has different notions to different people (and us law students can twist words around until black seems white or at least a muddy grey) but you can answer the question of whether China affects you positively or negatively. Similarly the question can be posed for the US/EU etc. it's totally selfish/self-centred but I believe it is one certain way of being honest with yourself.

Sorry for this long-winded post, it does touch upon a point that I feel strongly about (and many of my legal friends do too) but to give a quick short answer: No, I don't see China as a threat - they don't try to conquer people and impose ideologies on others. And that conforms with my notion of world peace (though perhaps not with yours).

Thirdfox

^ In relation to the above post - it was rather rushed (and I spot quite a few grammatical errors) and straight from the brain onto the keyboard. I would like to spend some time and write something up properly but the internet has proved itself to be a place where people come looking for a fight rather than enlightenment/different perspectives.

I suppose I have lost faith in most of the online community (for deeper political/philosophical discussions) and would be surprised if many will give an informed opinion about what I wrote (negatively or positively - I welcome both).

berliner

China is run by a gangster regime.They're corrupt beyond belief.Gangster regimes exist in many countries,mainly the third world.Basically it's a form of mafia taking over a whole country i.e Burma.They pose no threat to peace,they are only in business for power and money.

eoin5

PH01 wrote: »

With it's quite support of regimes in North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe and many more, is China fast becoming the biggest threat to world peace?

I reckon it is.

Could you elaborate as to why they are the biggest threat to world peace? Did you know that the Russians transport nuclear weapons from one border to the other. How safe is that?!

Thirdfox, my personal view is that youre correct in that China arent as bad as the UK and the US, but it certainly doesnt make them good. I believe youre responsible for the predictible results of your actions and China doesnt need to sell guns to Zimbabwe. Its the same as Ireland who supports the war in Iraq by acting as a gas station.

wes

While the PRC, aren't the nicest people in the world (hell who is), I would hardly consider them a threat to world peace. World stability is good for business and with China's expanding economy, I would think they would want a stable world for them to do business with.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

While the PRC, aren't the nicest people in the world (hell who is), I would hardly consider them a threat to world peace. World stability is good for business and with China's expanding economy, I would think they would want a stable world for them to do business with.

a good point

in any case, Chinese 'soft power' is a hell of a lot more effective than its 'hard power'. Give it 50 years and China will be able to do whatever it wants merely by using the threat of its economic muscle...no guns or bombs required

eoin5

wes wrote: »

While the PRC, aren't the nicest people in the world (hell who is), I would hardly consider them a threat to world peace. World stability is good for business and with China's expanding economy, I would think they would want a stable world for them to do business with.

Instability creates markets for oil, weapons and ammunition among other things. These problem areas that they supply spend much more on weapons than they would on general goods in peacetime and China are laughing all the way to the bank.

PH01

Thirdfox wrote: »

emphasis added.

We would argue 7000 years... and someone could make the case that the Mongols' empire was "Chinese" in a sense too (largest land area empire in the entire history of human civilisation.)...

Excellent post Thirdfox. More please.

On China (whether it's communist, capitalist or imperialist) and being a world power, I don't think it's correct to say China won't interfere in the internal affairs of another country if it suited them. It's what empires being doing since they were invented.
And if we look back at China's history, even as far back to its first emperor, we have plenty of examples from history of where China have used its military power to bring influence and subject other nations or territories.
And we all know that foreign policy can change on a 5 cents, so what will China do to maintain, and increase, its position as a world power.

PH01

eoin5 wrote: »

...Did you know that the Russians transport nuclear weapons from one border to the other. How safe is that?!...

Don't get me started on Russia
Russia is the bear in the China Shop (sorry for the pun) - and it's hard to predict how they'll spend they're oil money.

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

Instability creates markets for oil, weapons and ammunition among other things. These problem areas that they supply spend much more on weapons than they would on general goods in peacetime and China are laughing all the way to the bank.

There taking advantage of conflicts to make money, which is nothing new, but hardly see China trying to destabilize nations to make money.

eoin5

wes wrote: »

There taking advantage of conflicts to make money, which is nothing new, but hardly see China trying to destabilize nations to make money.

I never said anything different, but to say that world stability is in their interest is not entirely true.

How is it that every pro-chinese argument I hear is in a sort-of "not perfect but not as bad as those guys" format. Is there anything wrong with just saying that they shouldnt sell weapons to regimes that are obviously going to be used against the citizens of the country and that they should stop?

gandalf

diddley wrote: »

me too.. I'm interested to see how all the 'anti-Americans' react when Chinas threat becomes apparent to all.

Well I guess the Americans can't see that threat either as they trade with them so much :rolleyes:

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

I never said anything different, but to say that world stability is in their interest is not entirely true.

They make a ton of money from stable economy as well and there far more predictable than unstable situations, which could blow up in there faces.

I still think stability is in there best interest over all, as the situations isn't nearly as explosive.

eoin5 wrote: »

How is it that every pro-chinese argument I hear is in a sort-of "not perfect but not as bad as those guys" format. Is there anything wrong with just saying that they shouldnt sell weapons to regimes that are obviously going to be used against the citizens of the country and that they should stop?

Of course China shouldn't do that, but we are talking about this in the context of the thread, which asks the question about whether they are the biggest threat to world peace. So the kind of answers are to be expected considering what the thread is about.

Of course selling weapons to such regimes is wrong and terrible in its own right. Still its a long way from China being the world greatest threat to peace.

Also, I am not fan of the PRC or what they do and have said as much in the past, but I simple don't agree with what the OP is saying.

eoin5

wes wrote: »

They make a ton of money from stable economy as well and there far more predictable than unstable situations, which could blow up in there faces.

I still think stability is in there best interest over all, as the situations isn't nearly as explosive.

Wes I think were pretty much on the same page. In general stability is good for business but China would miss the odd order from the odd despot.

ChocolateSauce

Thirdfox wrote: »

It may regarded by some as lipservice or a nice way to get around "moral" issues like trading with countries who I undoubtedly would not to like to live in. But on the other hand speaking from a legal point of view what right do we have to try and change the internal matters of a sovereign country? China itself was subject to "interference" by the big colonial powers in the recent past and remembers the humiliation it suffered when other countries can just enforce unilateral demands on you at the point of a gun (take a look at the Opium War when the British disregarded international law and went to war in order to sell narcotics to the Chinese). Thus, it's policy of non-interference can be understood (if not agreed with) in many ways I would think.

I certainly regard it as lipservice. What right have we to interfere? Legally, none, without a UN mandate. Morally? Very little. Europe does not like to interfere these days, but pressure? Pressure is something we do often and well, and we have every right to pressure countries who abuse their citizens. We have every right to publically condemn them, and we have every right to put sanctions on them; what ever it takes for them to cease objectionable practices. It really isn't that hard to not be corrupt and power hungry.

However, China and the west are on equal levels of guilt when it comes to associating with oppressive nations; we actually recognise Saudi Arabia as a partner!

Thirdfox wrote: »

But is non-interference a danger to world peace? Certainly it was nice of the Americans to stop Hitler but that could hardly be called a domestic affair of Germany could it? If it is dangerous, it is only dangerous to the extent that the natives of a country that is "despotic" or whatever the catchphrase is nowadays suffer. The extent to which internal suffering affects world peace can be debated though.

It isn't always about world peace though. It's about the suffering of people in their own countries. If your next door neighbour was terrorising and beating his children, you'd report him to the police. You might even go and intervene yourself, if you though he was about to kill a family member.

Thirdfox wrote: »

This means that corruption is more likely and "bad" governments may remain in power longer but is it better/worse than a foreign policy of direct intervention like in Iraq?

Iraq is an isolated incident. The UK/US should not have invaded, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

Thirdfox

theozster wrote: »

I certainly regard it as lipservice. What right have we to interfere? Legally, none, without a UN mandate. Morally? Very little. Europe does not like to interfere these days, but pressure? Pressure is something we do often and well, and we have every right to pressure countries who abuse their citizens. We have every right to publically condemn them, and we have every right to put sanctions on them; what ever it takes for them to cease objectionable practices. It really isn't that hard to not be corrupt and power hungry.

But who judges what is "right" - should we have a vote on it? If the 1.3 billion people of China believes abortion should be legal and a fundamental right would they be right to "pressure" Ireland to change their horrendous beliefs/practises (in their eyes). Democracy is a double edged sword (and that's why we have laws - to protect the minority from the majority (one vein of legal belief)). Anyhow, looking back at the bigger picture what works in one country may not work in all (if all Chinese had the standard of living of the Americans we need the resources of four Earths...) So there is to be a balance struck between the Chinese "see no evil, hear no evil" and the US "eradicate evil" policies.

Because (I believe) that when we look deeply at these issues (human rights, democracy, ideas of "freedom" etc.) we see that there are wide diverging views on what these things mean. People say you have no freedom of speech in China... using a same measure you can say that Ireland has no freedom of speech either (in our constitution it's freedom of expression anyway) - can I call our Taoiseach a paedophile without any evidence? I can get sued (and in some cases criminally prosecuted). So everything has limits (and rightly so) - the argument most people here have is that the limits are too tight in China (and certainly from my western educated background I feel somewhat inclined to agree). But having spent one year in a Chinese university and interacting with Chinese friends and their viewpoints I see their argument that in a country of such massive proportions a strong central government and "social stability" is very important - the means of achieving this stability is constantly debated but it was certainly nice to hear a native Chinese person's view on it.

"It really isn't that hard to not be corrupt and power hungry." Forgive me for being a little bit trite here but certainly our own government isn't a shining example of being clean and uncorrupt. It may be that power of any scale will tend to corrupt people and many can't resist the lure of power and riches...

However, China and the west are on equal levels of guilt when it comes to associating with oppressive nations; we actually recognise Saudi Arabia as a partner!

It isn't always about world peace though. It's about the suffering of people in their own countries. If your next door neighbour was terrorising and beating his children, you'd report him to the police. You might even go and intervene yourself, if you though he was about to kill a family member.

Well an argument that some Chinese use (and I wouldn't quite agree with, but can see a point to) is that when the Chinese explorers reached Africa a few hundred years ago they didn't decide to set up colonies/take slaves away. Guilt is something not on the minds of most Chinese (and something I would argue probably shouldn't be present anyway) - if China stopped sending aid to the North Koreans the regime may topple... but would the potential disaster be worth the moral victory of saying "we got rid of a dictator"?

And I refer you back to my original point about being locked in our own way of thinking - do the Saudis think they are oppressive? Probably not... they may think we're hell bound infidels. Who is right? Should we use our guns/our money or our reasoning to convince them that we're right? Dialogue is what China seems to suggest during conflicts etc. - is this stupid or the only way underlying problems will be solved for the long term?

I realise though that it is easy for me to sit upon my legal pedestal and give these hypothetical conjectures, if I saw first hand a Zimbabwean child being murdered by political thugs I doubt the "big picture" would be on my mind at all. But as callous as it may sound, I have the luxury and fortune to live in a country that allows me to ponder past the smaller issues and look at the larger questions.

(Just like with something like rape laws, in a lecture theatre I could talk about rehabilitation and how the perpetrator is just as much a victim as the victim themselves but if someone in my family was raped, legal theory would be the last thing on my mind).

Iraq is an isolated incident. The UK/US should not have invaded, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

Iraq isn't that isolated though - throughout history major western powers have been trying to project their power around the world and stubbornly trying to hold onto that power. The US policy is to ensure the US remains number 1 (and who are we to criticise that? We wouldn't want our country to become weaker either). So if Iraq needs to be invaded well some reason can be found to do so.

This goes a lot further than the OP's question of whether China is a threat to world peace and I don't think it is. But as for other issues like "human rights" (which we get to use now that we're developed nations as a result of terrible human right abuses in the recent past) I don't think it is ever a black and white issue. And that unlike what some posters have said, can be quickly explained in a sentence or two.

edit:
Oh and thank you (and others) for responding to my post in a civil manner. I believe we probably agree on a lot more things than disagree.

eoin5

theozster wrote: »

Iraq is an isolated incident. The UK/US should not have invaded, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

Heres that list again:

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

thirdfox wrote:

.... whether China is a threat to world peace and I don't think it is.

Chinese guns are sold to regimes that will obviously be used against their citizens. You mention about North Korea, well China helped create and maintain that problem, and Sudan, and Burma etc. Each situation is different and immensely complicated but it should be clear that amoral war merchants is not what the world needs. Is China a threat to world peace? Yes. I dont see the problem with owning up to this. Ireland are also not helping world peace either by allowing those planes through shannon.

If you wanted to get a little more abstract I would say that every country is a threat to world peace, as in the whole state system is a recipe for war. I guess that might be one for the political theory board though

the_syco

PH01 wrote: »

With it's quite support of regimes in North Korea

Pretty sure NK fired a missile over China, to show that it can.

Also, countries are no longer a threat. NK does something stupid, it'll get nuked. But if a terrorist organisation does something stupid, bombing their home country is ineffective, and sometimes is what the terrorists want.

RexMundi

theozster wrote: »

I don't think China is a threat at all.

In 5000 years of history, how many times has China tried to expand beyond its present day boarders?

They're not perfect, and need to be pressured to improve their treatment of citizens, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt on the world conquest question.

TIBET?????

Have you not heard about that. What the chineese have done in Tibet amounts to genocide.http://www.meaus.com/Tibet_-_Give_Us_Liberty.html

However no one seems to care so they aren't really a threat to world peace. IMHO Zimbabwe and Mugabe are World Peace's biggest threat. His obvious contempt for democracy will seriously destabilise the region politically.

Fratton Fred

RexMundi wrote: »

TIBET?????

Have you not heard about that. What the chineese have done in Tibet amounts to genocide.http://www.meaus.com/Tibet_-_Give_Us_Liberty.html

However no one seems to care so they aren't really a threat to world peace. IMHO Zimbabwe and Mugabe are World Peace's biggest threat. His obvious contempt for democracy will seriously destabilise the region politically.

there's sod all Mugabe can do outside of his own borders though. China seems happy with what it has got, which is bad news fo Tibet I suppose but I can't see them starting WWIII.

The biggest threat to world peace is some nutter kicking things off in the middle east, be he Jew, Chiristian or Muslim.

brianthebard

theozster wrote: »

I certainly regard it as lipservice. What right have we to interfere? Legally, none, without a UN mandate. Morally? Very little. Europe does not like to interfere these days, but pressure? Pressure is something we do often and well, and we have every right to pressure countries who abuse their citizens. We have every right to publically condemn them, and we have every right to put sanctions on them; what ever it takes for them to cease objectionable practices. It really isn't that hard to not be corrupt and power hungry.

Out of interest, who gave us this "right"? Where does it come from, this right to interfere in other nations affairs?[/quote]

Iraq is an isolated incident. The UK/US should not have invaded, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye.

Isolated in what sense? Surely it and Afghanistan are similar incidents? The first gulf war, the wars in Afghanistan, North Korea, Vietnam, South America, the embargo on Cuba for the last five decades now, etc, etc, ad infinitum? Ever heard of Manifest Destiny? Do you know what Imperialism is?

Sunn

PH01 wrote: »

With it's quite support of regimes in North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe and many more, is China fast becoming the biggest threat to world peace?

I reckon it is.

Well, the US have supported many dictators. Before the iranian 'revolution' they installed a horrendous dictator and supported that brutal regime for years. They supported iraq in the iraw-iran war during the 80's.

Don't mean to be "anti-us" but it just shows you the hypocritical nature of the 'war on terror'.

RexMundi

brianthebard wrote: »

Out of interest, who gave us this "right"? Where does it come from, this right to interfere in other nations affairs?

So you think that we should just sit back and allow mass injustice be done?
I say that rather than a right we have a responsibility to get involved in other nations affairs if what they are doing is immoral.