Second comments on Justin Li “Chinese investment in Mongolia: An uneasy courtship between Goliath and David”, 2/02/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/02/02/chinese-investment-in-mongolia-an-uneasy-courtship-between-goliath-and-david/#comments
Questions for Bold (who posted a comment there on 4 Feb 2011):
While the Mongolians may be bitter in terms of the parts lost which they may think belonged to them, much more Chinese may think that Mongolia should have never been allowed to split from China. And indeed many mainland Chinese have been very bitter towards the communists and the communist government that had ‘agreed’ to the independence of Mongolia in the first place.
In that context, the Mongols should be grateful to the Chinese communists and the communist government, because the other major political party in the last century in China was the Gomindang that is now in government in Taiwan and it has been said that they did not accept Mongolia’s independence. Should they be in government in the mainland, they may still want Mongolia back to China!
It is true that the Han Chinese and Mongolians may have fought each other for many centuries, but it is equally true and a fact they became one for hundreds of years until the Mongolia’s succession from China in the first half of the last century, whether it was the Mongols conquered China or China colonised Mongolia does not matter much. The time they were one is longer than the time the history of the current USA, and certainly than current Australia!
It is clearly difficult to evaluate the opinion polls you cited without knowing the detailed sources of those polls.
But for many Chinese, both mainland and in Taiwan, they may not trust those polls and the purposes of those Western organisations. They may think some Westerners simply want to divide China and make it weaker. And by that logic, they suspect that some Westerners clearly don’t want to see China becomes any territorially larger.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
2010-05-17
Learn historic lessons correctly
Comments on peter Drysdale “How should Asia read the Greek tragedy? – Weekly editorial”, 17/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/17/how-should-asia-read-the-greek-tragedy-weekly-editorial/
Global institutions may or may not be helpful when the need arises in a country or a group of countries.
While David Vines argued strongly the outcomes of those Asian countries in coming out of the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s, many may not necessarily share his reasoning to attribute those countries' success later on to the success of IMF measures and its conduct during that painful process.
World institutions theoretically should have greater capacities than regional institutions in terms of dealing with any financial crises.
That, however, should be balanced by the dilution of accountability or interests, the further away an institution is from a country or a region, the less its interests are aligned with the latter's, due to obvious and various political and practical reasons.
At a time of revisiting the role of IMF in the Asian financial crises in the 1990s, one should be objective and not be distorting the fact from what actually occurred.
Only when approaching history correctly will we be able to learn from it and develop correct strategies for the future.
Otherwise, one may be very disappointed from incorrect foundation on which a theory is to be built.
Global institutions may or may not be helpful when the need arises in a country or a group of countries.
While David Vines argued strongly the outcomes of those Asian countries in coming out of the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s, many may not necessarily share his reasoning to attribute those countries' success later on to the success of IMF measures and its conduct during that painful process.
World institutions theoretically should have greater capacities than regional institutions in terms of dealing with any financial crises.
That, however, should be balanced by the dilution of accountability or interests, the further away an institution is from a country or a region, the less its interests are aligned with the latter's, due to obvious and various political and practical reasons.
At a time of revisiting the role of IMF in the Asian financial crises in the 1990s, one should be objective and not be distorting the fact from what actually occurred.
Only when approaching history correctly will we be able to learn from it and develop correct strategies for the future.
Otherwise, one may be very disappointed from incorrect foundation on which a theory is to be built.
2009-09-26
More fundamental factors in play in history
Comments on Robert Manne “Past another turning point in history”, 26/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26124842-7583,00.html
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
