Comments on Duan Xiaolin "Why the West is wrong about Beijing and Kiev", 22/09/2015
This post appears to be more balanced than those who are unduly concerned with the geopolitical development or its potential development following the Ukraine crisis. Notwithstanding that and irrespective the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine crisis, China has and will likely to continue to adopt a more neutral stance towards both Russia and Ukraine.
Undoubtedly Sino-Russia relations will be strategically more important to China due to the fact that Russia has far a greater international power status militarily, politically and economically than Ukraine and due to the fact China and Russia share a long border, while China and Ukraine does not have direct border relations. Russia is a strong military power and used to be a member of the G8 group. It has very strong military technologies and has abundant natural resources.
But that does not mean that China should forego its relations with Kiev. China can maintain a strong relation with both Russia and Ukraine. China can be friends to both countries. China’s ambiguous attitude in the wake of the Ukraine crisis reflects its balance act. This contrasts to the United States and its Western allies, imposing sanctions on Russia.
Despite the existence of some distrusts between Russia and China, a strong and good bilateral relation is important to both countries, particularly in the face of the containment of both countries by the US and some of its allies. In a mulit-polar world with the US unwilling to accept and share with another power or another rising power, that bilateral relation is likely to be cherished by both countries.
Showing posts with label International relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International relations. Show all posts
2015-07-18
China's 'one belt' - a soft approach to international affairs?
Comments on Michael Clarke "China takes its Eurasian moment", 18/07/2015
From the discussion of the current Eurasian state by the author, it is clear that China's approach will be much more beneficial to those countries involved, with its insisting on the centrality of ‘sovereign equality’ and ‘non-interference’ in ‘domestic affairs’ as the basis for interstate relations on the one hand, and real economic integration backed by its financial support on the other. As a result, they are much more likely to warm up with Beijing's initiative in comparison to others' much more conditional approaches.
There is one point, that is, that the 'one belt' initiative is not necessarily in serious competition with Russia's Eurasian Union idea. It is not too dissimilar to the current states of either bilateral or regional free trade agreements where a country may be the member of two or more free trade agreements.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether Beijing's key focus is on geopolitical or geoeconomical aspects. It seems that it is more on geoeconomical, given its stated the centrality of ‘sovereign equality’ and ‘non-interference’ in ‘domestic affairs’ as the basis for interstate relations, as opposed to the other majors' aims.
Maybe this reflect Beijing's approach to soft power, as opposed to hard power. Is it a new strategic approach by Beijing? Quite possibly.
From the discussion of the current Eurasian state by the author, it is clear that China's approach will be much more beneficial to those countries involved, with its insisting on the centrality of ‘sovereign equality’ and ‘non-interference’ in ‘domestic affairs’ as the basis for interstate relations on the one hand, and real economic integration backed by its financial support on the other. As a result, they are much more likely to warm up with Beijing's initiative in comparison to others' much more conditional approaches.
There is one point, that is, that the 'one belt' initiative is not necessarily in serious competition with Russia's Eurasian Union idea. It is not too dissimilar to the current states of either bilateral or regional free trade agreements where a country may be the member of two or more free trade agreements.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether Beijing's key focus is on geopolitical or geoeconomical aspects. It seems that it is more on geoeconomical, given its stated the centrality of ‘sovereign equality’ and ‘non-interference’ in ‘domestic affairs’ as the basis for interstate relations, as opposed to the other majors' aims.
Maybe this reflect Beijing's approach to soft power, as opposed to hard power. Is it a new strategic approach by Beijing? Quite possibly.
2015-06-21
China's rise: a threat?
Comments on James Laurenceson and Hannah Bretherton "What Australians really think about a rising China", 27 May 2015
While China is likely to be more assertive as it becomes more powerful, it is highly unlikely to be a threat to the international order, as it is not in its interest to do so.
While China is likely to be more assertive as it becomes more powerful, it is highly unlikely to be a threat to the international order, as it is not in its interest to do so.
The main reason lies in that it has more to lose than to gain if it is to become a threat. The US and it’s extensive and powerful allies will remain a powerful check to any single country for a very long time to come, no matter how powerful any other single country may reasonably be expected to be.
This, however, does not necessarily apply to the case where a country unreasonably threats China.
Major power politics: continuity and reform
Comments on Huiyun Feng "Finding common ground in major-power politics", 5/06/2015
World or international affairs, similar to domestic affairs, require both continuity and reforms. Both old and newly emerging powers must realize this fundamental point and act with it in mind to maintain what is good in the current system and to reform the part in the system to make it work better, from efficiency, equity and/or effectiveness point of view. Both worlds should seek common ground in this spirit.
World or international affairs, similar to domestic affairs, require both continuity and reforms. Both old and newly emerging powers must realize this fundamental point and act with it in mind to maintain what is good in the current system and to reform the part in the system to make it work better, from efficiency, equity and/or effectiveness point of view. Both worlds should seek common ground in this spirit.
2013-01-14
Mass emotions and government policies
Comments on Hai Hong Nguyen “Does Hanoi deal with Beijing for its people, or for itself?”, 14/01/ 2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/01/12/does-hanoi-deal-with-beijing-for-its-people-or-for-itself/
Power of masses can be more problematic than government’s cool heads.
If government acts for mass’ feeling, then who knows what the world would be.
Just have a look at some Chinese social media websites one would appreciate how mass feeling can be too emotional and cannot be relied upon to make policies.
One website is: http://www.sina.com.cn/
It has a military section.
Power of masses can be more problematic than government’s cool heads.
If government acts for mass’ feeling, then who knows what the world would be.
Just have a look at some Chinese social media websites one would appreciate how mass feeling can be too emotional and cannot be relied upon to make policies.
One website is: http://www.sina.com.cn/
It has a military section.
2011-03-28
Putin's opportunity created by the west
Comments on STRATFOR “Putin finds opportunity in Libya”, 28/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Putin-finds-opportunity-in-Libya-pd20110328-FD682?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
Although many people in the west support the military operations including bombing government ground limitary facilities, assets and troops, it may eventually turn out to be disastrous for the world as a whole including the west countries.
Libya and many other middle east and Africa countries are likely to experience much more instabilities and unrest. Civil wars as well as anarky are likely to occur in some of those countries.
World oil price will be much higher than otherwise.
Further, the influence and power of the US in the middle east and Africa is likely to diminish rapidly once those governments recognise that the US will give them away and not only switch supports to oppositions but also to facilitate military operations in support of oppositions, they will consider alternative powers for support.
Russia, China, India and Germany are likely to feel the void if the US loses its influence.
The US president was prudent in his hesitation of military actions, but eventually was hijacked by the French and the Brit leaders acted to divert their own domestic woes and overwhelmed by some US interest groups that seemed to have misjudged the situations in the middle east and the Arab world for short term gains, but at the expense of the US long term interests in the region and the world.
Interesting time lies ahead!
Although many people in the west support the military operations including bombing government ground limitary facilities, assets and troops, it may eventually turn out to be disastrous for the world as a whole including the west countries.
Libya and many other middle east and Africa countries are likely to experience much more instabilities and unrest. Civil wars as well as anarky are likely to occur in some of those countries.
World oil price will be much higher than otherwise.
Further, the influence and power of the US in the middle east and Africa is likely to diminish rapidly once those governments recognise that the US will give them away and not only switch supports to oppositions but also to facilitate military operations in support of oppositions, they will consider alternative powers for support.
Russia, China, India and Germany are likely to feel the void if the US loses its influence.
The US president was prudent in his hesitation of military actions, but eventually was hijacked by the French and the Brit leaders acted to divert their own domestic woes and overwhelmed by some US interest groups that seemed to have misjudged the situations in the middle east and the Arab world for short term gains, but at the expense of the US long term interests in the region and the world.
Interesting time lies ahead!
2011-03-16
Tensions in Aisa, unrests in Arab world and conspiracy
Comments on Paul Kelly “High food prices feed unrest in developing world”, 16/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/high-food-prices-feed-unrest-in-developing-world/story-e6frg6zo-1226022066955
It sounds like a high level conspiracy theory in working here.
The US and most western economies have been in crisis and still in deep trouble to generate significant employment growth to lower unemployment. The tension in Asia last year and the Arab unrests and revolutions now seem a nice distraction to the west's economic, budgetary and political problems.
Apart from the link of food prices and rising costs of living in developing world, is there any other factors underlying them?
The US has shown aggressiveness in Asia in the guise of re-engagement and apparent hesitation and seemingly inconsistency over the Arab unrests and revolutions.
What is really behind the scene?
It sounds like a high level conspiracy theory in working here.
The US and most western economies have been in crisis and still in deep trouble to generate significant employment growth to lower unemployment. The tension in Asia last year and the Arab unrests and revolutions now seem a nice distraction to the west's economic, budgetary and political problems.
Apart from the link of food prices and rising costs of living in developing world, is there any other factors underlying them?
The US has shown aggressiveness in Asia in the guise of re-engagement and apparent hesitation and seemingly inconsistency over the Arab unrests and revolutions.
What is really behind the scene?
2010-11-21
International relations - what is appropriate and what isn't?
Comments on Vikas Kumar “China: Condemned to repeat the mistakes of the United States?”, 20/11/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/11/20/china-condemned-to-repeat-the-mistakes-of-the-united-states/
There should be a discussion on and distinction between what is reasonable international influence and what is undue interference of sovereignty of a country.
A good example but bordered on the extreme is the invasion of Iraq by the willing of coalition.
There is a view that China's foreign policy may still be based on the five principles of non-interference and etc., that some argue is outdated.
But there should be a limit in terms of both sovereignty and external intervention, otherwise things could easily get out of hands and everything and anything may be justified in terms of either sovereignty centric or intervention centric.
There should be a discussion on and distinction between what is reasonable international influence and what is undue interference of sovereignty of a country.
A good example but bordered on the extreme is the invasion of Iraq by the willing of coalition.
There is a view that China's foreign policy may still be based on the five principles of non-interference and etc., that some argue is outdated.
But there should be a limit in terms of both sovereignty and external intervention, otherwise things could easily get out of hands and everything and anything may be justified in terms of either sovereignty centric or intervention centric.
2009-08-31
G-2 or not G-2, who can decide?
Comments on Gerald Curtis “Obama and East Asia: No Room for Complacency”, 30/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/30/obama-and-east-asia-no-room-for-complacency/
While I personally have little understanding of the so called G-2 concept and its implications, it appears that G-2 is not necessarily just any person's like or dislike of it.
Essentially, it is no different from a bilateral relation, so the two parties can discuss the issues of common interests between them. So it is better to look at the G-2 issue in the way as it should be. Otherwise, people will get frustrated by G-2 or not G-2, won't they?
While I personally have little understanding of the so called G-2 concept and its implications, it appears that G-2 is not necessarily just any person's like or dislike of it.
Essentially, it is no different from a bilateral relation, so the two parties can discuss the issues of common interests between them. So it is better to look at the G-2 issue in the way as it should be. Otherwise, people will get frustrated by G-2 or not G-2, won't they?
2009-08-25
Quite a different Rudd
Comments on Greg Rudd “Goodwill offers a rich yield”, 25/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25975429-5017272,00.html
When I saw the headline the first time, I was thinking to myself: is this guy related to Kevin Rudd, the PM somewhat? I was thinking about how our PM has handled our relations with China and his expert spin skills and his micromanaging management style.
When I was reading the text, I was totally but pleasantly surprised. Not only I realised that this is a quite different Rudd, but also was deeply impressed by his understanding of the Chinese reality and their long but sometimes often troubled history.
As you would have guessed, I don’t know this Rudd either, more so than my knowledge of the other much more famous Rudd, our PM. Even less about his background apart from the one line introduction at the end of the Australian article: “Greg Rudd is managing director of GPR Asia, based in Beijing. It advises on investment and joint ventures.”
However, I like Greg’s approach to a different people with a quite different culture and history, not to mention with the largest population in the world, AND, as most people in the west would say still having an authoritarian government under a Communist party.
In the long history of human kind, when two different races with different cultures met, it often meant wars. It often was the case that one culture conquered the other or suppressed the other as a result.
Greg’s approach is different. It is based on understanding the other side from their point of view. It is tolerance and coexistence. It is based on mutual benefits and common interests.
It is 21 first century now and yes the cold war has ended for nearly twenty years. So let’s embrace what Greg is doing, end the mentality of the cold war era and work for an inclusively prosperous world for everyone.
I salute Greg Rudd.
When I saw the headline the first time, I was thinking to myself: is this guy related to Kevin Rudd, the PM somewhat? I was thinking about how our PM has handled our relations with China and his expert spin skills and his micromanaging management style.
When I was reading the text, I was totally but pleasantly surprised. Not only I realised that this is a quite different Rudd, but also was deeply impressed by his understanding of the Chinese reality and their long but sometimes often troubled history.
As you would have guessed, I don’t know this Rudd either, more so than my knowledge of the other much more famous Rudd, our PM. Even less about his background apart from the one line introduction at the end of the Australian article: “Greg Rudd is managing director of GPR Asia, based in Beijing. It advises on investment and joint ventures.”
However, I like Greg’s approach to a different people with a quite different culture and history, not to mention with the largest population in the world, AND, as most people in the west would say still having an authoritarian government under a Communist party.
In the long history of human kind, when two different races with different cultures met, it often meant wars. It often was the case that one culture conquered the other or suppressed the other as a result.
Greg’s approach is different. It is based on understanding the other side from their point of view. It is tolerance and coexistence. It is based on mutual benefits and common interests.
It is 21 first century now and yes the cold war has ended for nearly twenty years. So let’s embrace what Greg is doing, end the mentality of the cold war era and work for an inclusively prosperous world for everyone.
I salute Greg Rudd.
2009-08-24
History cannot and shouldn't be forgotten
Comments on Dibyesh Anand “Moving beyond the Blame Game: China-India Border Relations “, 22/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/22/moving-beyond-the-blame-game-china-india-border-relations/
I am a Chinese Australian, so my views may be biased in favour of the Chinese or China. I say that upfront so not to be accused that I may mislead people by disguise.
I do not find the statement that "... they avoid a serious engagement with the domestic and international compulsions of the Chinese leadership in 1950s and 1960s" justifies any improper behaviour and actions by India that may have provoked the China-India war in the early 1960s.
At that time, the least China wanted was a war, given its domestic economic problems. So I personally don't think that war was the fault of China.
If that statement by Dibyesh Anand is correct, it was most likely that India wanted to take advantage of that situation at the expenses of China. Of course, the Chinese leadership then could not tolerate violations of its sovereignty and territory integrity – China may be economically weak, but militarily it was not that weak to accept another country’s unfair will. On that one, while I don’t think it is a matter of whether the Chinese current communist leadership allows reflection of what occurred then at the border with India, it is more likely that most Chinese have the view that it was India’s fault that has little to do with current government view or policy.
Dibyesh Anand’s argument about the sovereignty, culture and politics is hardly acceptable by international standard. It sounds like an argument to support for an independent Tibet that does not disadvantage India in any way at the expense of China to lose its territory. I don’t know whether such an argument can receive any sympathy from China. It can only make the China-India border issues unnecessarily more complicated and it is highly likely to be completely rejected by China. I suspect that that argument reflects the fact that it is in India’s but not China’s interest to do so.
To most Chinese, although the war with India may have been won, but they still remember China voluntarily retreated more than they should, either for military reasons or political reasons. While the current political leadership may compromise with India, most Chinese are unlikely to support that approach even though they may be ignored by the political leadership for now.
There have been lot strong complaints about how the border issues with Russia have been settled. Most Chinese are unlikely to forget the border issues with India, no matter how their political leaderships think.
I am a Chinese Australian, so my views may be biased in favour of the Chinese or China. I say that upfront so not to be accused that I may mislead people by disguise.
I do not find the statement that "... they avoid a serious engagement with the domestic and international compulsions of the Chinese leadership in 1950s and 1960s" justifies any improper behaviour and actions by India that may have provoked the China-India war in the early 1960s.
At that time, the least China wanted was a war, given its domestic economic problems. So I personally don't think that war was the fault of China.
If that statement by Dibyesh Anand is correct, it was most likely that India wanted to take advantage of that situation at the expenses of China. Of course, the Chinese leadership then could not tolerate violations of its sovereignty and territory integrity – China may be economically weak, but militarily it was not that weak to accept another country’s unfair will. On that one, while I don’t think it is a matter of whether the Chinese current communist leadership allows reflection of what occurred then at the border with India, it is more likely that most Chinese have the view that it was India’s fault that has little to do with current government view or policy.
Dibyesh Anand’s argument about the sovereignty, culture and politics is hardly acceptable by international standard. It sounds like an argument to support for an independent Tibet that does not disadvantage India in any way at the expense of China to lose its territory. I don’t know whether such an argument can receive any sympathy from China. It can only make the China-India border issues unnecessarily more complicated and it is highly likely to be completely rejected by China. I suspect that that argument reflects the fact that it is in India’s but not China’s interest to do so.
To most Chinese, although the war with India may have been won, but they still remember China voluntarily retreated more than they should, either for military reasons or political reasons. While the current political leadership may compromise with India, most Chinese are unlikely to support that approach even though they may be ignored by the political leadership for now.
There have been lot strong complaints about how the border issues with Russia have been settled. Most Chinese are unlikely to forget the border issues with India, no matter how their political leaderships think.
2009-08-14
An ignorant Aussie polly
Comments on Michael Danby “Let's not appease Beijing”, 14/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25925627-5015664,00.html
It is appalling to see an Australian Labor federal politician is so, arrogant, ignorant and biased on prejudice on issues related to China. It is surprising to see a person with such a view of China still exists more than thirty years after 30 years of reforms and opening in China. It seems that Mr Michael Danby has lived in a complete isolated and different world during this period.
It is true that China is a different country with quite a different system. But China has changed enormously compared to what it was more than 30 years ago. Its economy is a market economy. It is not too much different from the Australian one and certainly not too much different from most Western European ones.
Mr Danby says that China is not a normal country. What is his definition of a normal country? Is that definition normal or from a same mind? One would ask. An abnormal person may see normal things as abnormal. That appears to be the case here.
There are differences in economic structure, in the share of public enterprises and in government policies. Can Mr Danby say the Australian economy is the same as the US economy in every aspect? Every adult with a same mind would know that they are different.
Mr Danby said so many things about China, but none of them makes sense. He appears to be on the charge in leading the Rudd government's poor encounter with China, one of the most important bilateral relations to Australia.
It is appalling to see an Australian Labor federal politician is so, arrogant, ignorant and biased on prejudice on issues related to China. It is surprising to see a person with such a view of China still exists more than thirty years after 30 years of reforms and opening in China. It seems that Mr Michael Danby has lived in a complete isolated and different world during this period.
It is true that China is a different country with quite a different system. But China has changed enormously compared to what it was more than 30 years ago. Its economy is a market economy. It is not too much different from the Australian one and certainly not too much different from most Western European ones.
Mr Danby says that China is not a normal country. What is his definition of a normal country? Is that definition normal or from a same mind? One would ask. An abnormal person may see normal things as abnormal. That appears to be the case here.
There are differences in economic structure, in the share of public enterprises and in government policies. Can Mr Danby say the Australian economy is the same as the US economy in every aspect? Every adult with a same mind would know that they are different.
Mr Danby said so many things about China, but none of them makes sense. He appears to be on the charge in leading the Rudd government's poor encounter with China, one of the most important bilateral relations to Australia.
2009-07-29
Two giants see eye-to-eye on 'ideas'
Comments on the report “US-China see eye-to-eye on 'ideas'” in the Canberra Times, 29/07/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/uschina-see-eyetoeye-on-ideas/1581595.aspx
It is not a bad start. The two very different world giants are at least talking on issues of importance.
As the title implies, they see eye-to-eye on 'ideas'!
Let's hope good deeds will follow.
It is not a bad start. The two very different world giants are at least talking on issues of importance.
As the title implies, they see eye-to-eye on 'ideas'!
Let's hope good deeds will follow.
See the interesting picture here, isn't the man charmingly courting the lady there, with an interesting reply?
Is Morici's argument about China-US relations correct?
Comments on Peter Morici “China's illusory power”, 29/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Chinas-illusory-power-pd20090729-UDTEW?OpenDocument&src=sph
This is a very interesting article from a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission. No wonder the US has been in trouble economically, when one thinks about the quality of its economic professionals like this one.
It is a cooperative game between the US and China, given the current need of the US for funding of its unprecedented government deficits and debts, and China’s very large official reserves and possibly increasing. In such a game, the outcome will need to be win-win following cooperation by both sides. Otherwise both are likely losers, with the US likely to be the main one.
China should have other options or avenue to pursue for additional or new increases of its official reserves. For example, it can lend them to other nations that need US dollars, or sell them for other major currencies to buy other countries’ official debts.
It is silly to think that China has no other options, now that China has realised the potential danger with ever large reserves in US dollar and large holding of US Treasury bonds. It is the US, not China that has fewer options.
It does not take a professor who served as the chief economist of the US International Trade Commission to make such a poor argument to confuse himself and others. Anyone with a sane mind that can do elementary logic would understand the issue and come to a more sensible conclusion than what he did.
A remarkably poor professor, or economist, indeed!
The US needs much more competent ones to get it out of recession now, with some urgency. The welfares of the Americans are at stake now.
This is a very interesting article from a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission. No wonder the US has been in trouble economically, when one thinks about the quality of its economic professionals like this one.
It is a cooperative game between the US and China, given the current need of the US for funding of its unprecedented government deficits and debts, and China’s very large official reserves and possibly increasing. In such a game, the outcome will need to be win-win following cooperation by both sides. Otherwise both are likely losers, with the US likely to be the main one.
China should have other options or avenue to pursue for additional or new increases of its official reserves. For example, it can lend them to other nations that need US dollars, or sell them for other major currencies to buy other countries’ official debts.
It is silly to think that China has no other options, now that China has realised the potential danger with ever large reserves in US dollar and large holding of US Treasury bonds. It is the US, not China that has fewer options.
It does not take a professor who served as the chief economist of the US International Trade Commission to make such a poor argument to confuse himself and others. Anyone with a sane mind that can do elementary logic would understand the issue and come to a more sensible conclusion than what he did.
A remarkably poor professor, or economist, indeed!
The US needs much more competent ones to get it out of recession now, with some urgency. The welfares of the Americans are at stake now.
2009-07-26
Interesting Japan and its regionalism push
Comments on Takashi Terada “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism”, 26/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/
This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.
It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.
I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?
It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.
We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.
As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.
All nations need to be rational and mature.
This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.
It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.
I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?
It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.
We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.
As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.
All nations need to be rational and mature.
2009-07-23
Incredibly arrogant Mr Sheridan will be disappointed
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Don't kowtow to Beijing bully”, 23/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821436-5013460,00.html
Mr Sheridan, you have done a fantastic job to win the prize for the most foolish and arrogant writing in Australian history. Congratulations! Well deserved.
You think you are bigger than god and invincible, don’t you? You think China will bow and kowtow to your bully, don’t you? What a day dreamer! One has to question you are sane or insane when you think in that way.
I wonder whether there is anyone outside your narrow circle of self-righteousness and self-supremeness will pay a cent to your view.
You will duly be disappointed by the hush and unfortunate reality for you. The world has change a lot from your days when the cold war was earnest. The balance of international power has changed and will continue to change, most likely against your own will.
God bless you for you to have some peace in your confused mind.
Mr Sheridan, you have done a fantastic job to win the prize for the most foolish and arrogant writing in Australian history. Congratulations! Well deserved.
You think you are bigger than god and invincible, don’t you? You think China will bow and kowtow to your bully, don’t you? What a day dreamer! One has to question you are sane or insane when you think in that way.
I wonder whether there is anyone outside your narrow circle of self-righteousness and self-supremeness will pay a cent to your view.
You will duly be disappointed by the hush and unfortunate reality for you. The world has change a lot from your days when the cold war was earnest. The balance of international power has changed and will continue to change, most likely against your own will.
God bless you for you to have some peace in your confused mind.
2009-07-18
Arguments of a yesterday man
Comments on Kim Sung-han “Keeping the KORUS FTA alive”, 17/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/17/keeping-the-korus-fta-alive/comment-page-1/
It appears there are some inconsistency and contradictions in the arguments in the article as a whole. Further, it seems also suffers some logic problems.
The author says in the second paragraph that: “trans-Pacific economic interdependence has been the backbone of prosperity for the last few decades and will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century.” Many people would say that the 21st century belongs to Asian century. The latter has been underpinned by the dramatic development of China and India, both of which are very large nations with over a billion people and a rapidly growing economy.
At a time of the great recession when many most advanced economies are in serious trouble that would accelerate the international transfer or transformation of economic weights geographically, most people would feel puzzled or maybe perplexed by the claim that trans-Pacific economic interdependence will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century. Isn’t this 21st century? Aren’t we live in the 21st century now? Are we dreaming in the last century? Or, maybe the author would suggest that people should say the 21st Asian century is lead by the US, because otherwise the trans-Pacific interdependence can’t be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR determining the region’s economic order in this century. Or can it, one begs?
The confusion between bilateral and regional issues is not so subtle or unclear in the third paragraph. The KORUS FTA is bilateral one, while both ‘East Asian regionalism’ and ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism’ are regional. They can all exist without denying each other. So can WTO exist, a world wide. They can overlap to some degree, just as bilateral ones with WTO. One wonders why South Korea should be trouble in choosing which one, because it can choose to participate in all three of them. Is that a difficult decision to make for anyone?
Yes the author emphasises the point of the KORUS FTA for wider regional importance. One can’t help getting a sense of the past era of cold war rhetoric. Maybe that is the author’s key message. However, even president Obama has criticised others for cold war era thinking. So the author has an impossible mission and seemingly insurmountable task in convincing the key player, that is, the president himself.
Let’s keep eyes wide open and see if he can achieve the “mission impossible” in the 21st and Asian century. And wish him good luck!
It appears there are some inconsistency and contradictions in the arguments in the article as a whole. Further, it seems also suffers some logic problems.
The author says in the second paragraph that: “trans-Pacific economic interdependence has been the backbone of prosperity for the last few decades and will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century.” Many people would say that the 21st century belongs to Asian century. The latter has been underpinned by the dramatic development of China and India, both of which are very large nations with over a billion people and a rapidly growing economy.
At a time of the great recession when many most advanced economies are in serious trouble that would accelerate the international transfer or transformation of economic weights geographically, most people would feel puzzled or maybe perplexed by the claim that trans-Pacific economic interdependence will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century. Isn’t this 21st century? Aren’t we live in the 21st century now? Are we dreaming in the last century? Or, maybe the author would suggest that people should say the 21st Asian century is lead by the US, because otherwise the trans-Pacific interdependence can’t be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR determining the region’s economic order in this century. Or can it, one begs?
The confusion between bilateral and regional issues is not so subtle or unclear in the third paragraph. The KORUS FTA is bilateral one, while both ‘East Asian regionalism’ and ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism’ are regional. They can all exist without denying each other. So can WTO exist, a world wide. They can overlap to some degree, just as bilateral ones with WTO. One wonders why South Korea should be trouble in choosing which one, because it can choose to participate in all three of them. Is that a difficult decision to make for anyone?
Yes the author emphasises the point of the KORUS FTA for wider regional importance. One can’t help getting a sense of the past era of cold war rhetoric. Maybe that is the author’s key message. However, even president Obama has criticised others for cold war era thinking. So the author has an impossible mission and seemingly insurmountable task in convincing the key player, that is, the president himself.
Let’s keep eyes wide open and see if he can achieve the “mission impossible” in the 21st and Asian century. And wish him good luck!
2009-07-16
Japan's insecurity and its relations with China
Comments on the comments by Aurelia George Mulgan on “Australia, and managing Japan’s insecurity”, 13/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/13/australia-and-managing-japans-insecurity/
Obviously, there have been some untrust between China and Japan, from time to time.
I understand that Japan provided aid to China, although I don't know how much over the years.
I also don't know the normal international practices regarding war compensations, although I understand that China did not ask for war compensations from Japan. I also know that many Chinese are or were unhappy with that.
While Japan may feel that China is ungrateful to its aid, there have been impressions among many Chinese that Japan was half-hearted in providing assistance to China and did not like to see China to develop or become strong and rich, although it wanted to benefit from some opportunities. Was that because of its insecurity?
In terms of security, it is understandable that China did/does not like to be contained internationally, with Japan as part of the containment and as the deputy of a superpower in doing it.
So both sides may have their own stories and reasons to feel unhappy.
But past is past and few can change the history. What is important is today and tomorrow. Both sides need to look to the future relations.
Countries should respect with each other, no matter rich or poor, large or small, strong or weak. The relations between China and Japan should be based on mutual respect and trust.
There have been periods when the relations between the two countries were good. Both should reflect on how they can have long-last good relations.
China needs to remain a peaceful nation forever and an important international force for peace and stability of the region and the world, even when it becomes very strong in the future.
Japan needs to realise that sooner or later China will become a very powerful country and few individual countries will be able to match its power, even probably the US.
So the important issue is not to try to use the US to contain China, rather it is important to establish a peaceful, secure and stable international order where countries don't threat each other with force, as it has been so often in the past.
UN and some other regional forums as opposed to military alliance should be promoted as the mechanism to resolve any issues between countries. Will the alliance, even with the current most powerful country be always effective into the future?
So what is important for security? Every country needs to have a rational, strategic and realistic view.
I hope both China and Japan will choose the correct one and always have a good relation. They are two most important countries in the region. It is in the interest of each country.
Obviously, there have been some untrust between China and Japan, from time to time.
I understand that Japan provided aid to China, although I don't know how much over the years.
I also don't know the normal international practices regarding war compensations, although I understand that China did not ask for war compensations from Japan. I also know that many Chinese are or were unhappy with that.
While Japan may feel that China is ungrateful to its aid, there have been impressions among many Chinese that Japan was half-hearted in providing assistance to China and did not like to see China to develop or become strong and rich, although it wanted to benefit from some opportunities. Was that because of its insecurity?
In terms of security, it is understandable that China did/does not like to be contained internationally, with Japan as part of the containment and as the deputy of a superpower in doing it.
So both sides may have their own stories and reasons to feel unhappy.
But past is past and few can change the history. What is important is today and tomorrow. Both sides need to look to the future relations.
Countries should respect with each other, no matter rich or poor, large or small, strong or weak. The relations between China and Japan should be based on mutual respect and trust.
There have been periods when the relations between the two countries were good. Both should reflect on how they can have long-last good relations.
China needs to remain a peaceful nation forever and an important international force for peace and stability of the region and the world, even when it becomes very strong in the future.
Japan needs to realise that sooner or later China will become a very powerful country and few individual countries will be able to match its power, even probably the US.
So the important issue is not to try to use the US to contain China, rather it is important to establish a peaceful, secure and stable international order where countries don't threat each other with force, as it has been so often in the past.
UN and some other regional forums as opposed to military alliance should be promoted as the mechanism to resolve any issues between countries. Will the alliance, even with the current most powerful country be always effective into the future?
So what is important for security? Every country needs to have a rational, strategic and realistic view.
I hope both China and Japan will choose the correct one and always have a good relation. They are two most important countries in the region. It is in the interest of each country.
2009-07-13
We can't afford to be hypocritical between the rich and the poor nations
Comments on the comments by hc on my earlier comments on “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
2009-07-10
US congress acts like a bully
Comments on Andrew W. Shoyer “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, 10/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
