China, the biggest threat to world peace?

Kama

As Thirdfox rightly said, morality has a strong relative-subjective component; while state aggression usually hides behind a moral facade, the underlying motivations are usually more self-interested.

Secondly, much like in our personal relationships, its much more practical to change ones own behaviour than that of others. Mote and beam and all that. If anyone wants to claim a 'moral right' to interefere in anothers business or household, make sure to tend your own garden first. Its that, or hypocrisy.

A level up, for world peace to be threatened, you'd need to have it first.
Reversing the question, what states appear to be threatening the hegemonic balance of world warfare? This usually seems to be what a 'threat to world peace' amounts to, in realpolitik terms. And that, imho, accounts for a great deal of the return of the 'Yellow Peril' rhetoric thats current in regard to China.

On a reflexive note, if you want a country as an enemy, you should treat them as one. The converse also holds.

Thirdfox

RexMundi wrote: »

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.

Like I said previously - would the Chinese be justified in taking economic (or even military) action against Ireland for the perceived immorality of not allowing abortions? We judge others, but do not let them judge us... Should the Chinese (or even English) just sit back and let this grave injustice be done?

We in Ireland see it differently and prefer for our sovereignty to be respected. Other countries allow us to be different - why would we even be separate states if everyone had the same "morals" and same opinions on everything? The ability to work through this conflict without fighting is an essential skill. See the North Korean saga - the 6 party talks (chaired by China) *seems* to have brought about some benefits... more so than the 20 years of US sanctions. And what if they hadn't built the bomb? Would the US have invaded them too (as the last "axis of evil") instead of trying dialogue?

Kama wrote: »

As Thirdfox rightly said, morality has a strong relative-subjective component; while state aggression usually hides behind a moral facade, the underlying motivations are usually more self-interested.

Secondly, much like in our personal relationships, its much more practical to change ones own behaviour than that of others. Mote and beam and all that. If anyone wants to claim a 'moral right' to interefere in anothers business or household, make sure to tend your own garden first. Its that, or hypocrisy.

A level up, for world peace to be threatened, you'd need to have it first.
Reversing the question, what states appear to be threatening the hegemonic balance of world warfare? This usually seems to be what a 'threat to world peace' amounts to, in realpolitik terms. And that, imho, accounts for a great deal of the return of the 'Yellow Peril' rhetoric thats current in regard to China.

On a reflexive note, if you want a country as an enemy, you should treat them as one. The converse also holds.

I agree very much so with the above statement - in the end, we can talk about high morals all we want but it ultimately comes down to "does this action/inaction benefit me?" - strong EU = good for Ireland. Competition for natural resources from China = bad for Ireland.

For example, people criticise China for pollution... how dare the peasants of China want to drive a car and have electricity?!? Pollution is definitely a problem in China but it is worse in the developed countries. We still pollute way more per capita than any Chinese person. Like Kama said above - let's get our own mess sorted out before lecturing others (and in my ideal world, we should all lead by example...but this is an imperfect world.)

edit:
Just to add - the North Korean missile issue was when N.K. test fired a missile that flew over Japan (no love lost there). Shooting a missile over China would be like stabbing your last remaining ally in the back...

eoin5

Kama wrote: »

A level up, for world peace to be threatened, you'd need to have it first.
Reversing the question, what states appear to be threatening the hegemonic balance of world warfare? This usually seems to be what a 'threat to world peace' amounts to, in realpolitik terms. And that, imho, accounts for a great deal of the return of the 'Yellow Peril' rhetoric thats current in regard to China.

In realpolitik terms Iran is obviously the top of the danger list to whatever balance there currently is, but the China/US balance features because of Chinas increased control over the world economy as the US superpower fades. The 'Yellow Peril' banter is usually about Asian immigrants into western society causing job losses for the would-be natives but for a long time now its the jobs themselves that are emmigrating to Free Trade Zones around the globe. Most of the blame for this lies with the large corperations who sacrifice their countries jobs to turn a better profit. Its essentially the free market itself thats failed and created this massive reliance that the first world has on China.

Jim_Are_Great

About halfway through this episode of the Daily Show is a segment about Chinese control of the severe air pollution in Beijing before the games. It involves high-powered cannons firing moisture-control cylinders into the atmosphere, allowing precipitation levels to be altered and, more or less, controlled.

I just found it funny that when China has a climate problem, its solution is basically to shoot the sky.

Black Swan

To sum it up... everyone is getting a piece of China (PRC imports & exports), so why would China want to threaten to world peace?

Star_Buck

The biggest threat to world peace is the western powers that be. They need oil to survive and the means to take it. Which nation since its creation has been at war with someone or something consistently? I agree with Blue Lagoon, China is becoming the worlds largest economy, why would they want to rock the boat now? With a third of the world living within China's boarders its investment in the military is understandable.

eoin5

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

To sum it up... everyone is getting a piece of China (PRC imports & exports), so why would China want to threaten to world peace?

Because these uprisings and civil wars and independance battles and population control forces etc are very profitable and dont affect their other trade all that much. Theyre not going to get involved in any large scale war but they dont seem to mind supplying little tempests around the globe.

brianthebard

Star_Buck wrote: »

With a third of the world living within China's boarders its investment in the military is understandable.

wtf? I think you mean a sixth.

monosharp

Is that a joke ?

China is a hell of a lot more mature and sensible then the US.

The biggest threat to world peace in the past 50 years has always been the USA.