The Loneliest Superpower

How did China end up with only rogue states as its real friends?

BY MINXIN PEI | MARCH 20, 2012

If geography conspires to deprive Beijing of durable security allies, the Chinese one-party system also seriously limits the range of candidates that can be recruited into Beijing's orbit. Liberal democracies -- mostly prosperous, influential, and powerful -- are out of reach because of the domestic and international liabilities of forming an alliance with a dictatorship. China and the EU wouldn't forge a security alliance; the rhetoric elevation of their relationship to a "strategic partnership," is immediately made hollow by the existing EU arms embargo against China and incessant trade disputes.

Electoral democracies now constitute roughly 60 percent of all the states in the world, making the pool of potential political allies for China much smaller than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Newly liberal democracies like Mongolia, a neighbor of China, are loath to be tied to an autocratic behemoth, particularly a neighboring one. Instead, they seek alliance with the West for security (and one imagines that Beijing wasn't thrilled at Mongolia and the United States recently holding joint military exercises). Today, China's much-vaunted Cold War ties with Romania and Albania have collapsed. Although their democracies are deeply flawed, both countries' leaders seem to understand that hitching their wagons to China would hurt their chances of being part of the West. Doing business with China is one thing -- and perhaps it's inevitable in a modern, globalized economy, but seeing eye to eye on foreign policy is another matter entirely.

Beijing's foreign policy strategy in the last three decades has not focused on building strategic alliances. Instead, the emphasis has been on maintaining a stable relationship with the United States and capitalizing on a peaceful external environment to promote domestic economic development. Chinese diplomacy post-Mao went into overdrive only twice: squeezing Taiwan when a pro-independence government was in power (1995-2008) and the occasions when it rallied developing countries to defeat the West's human rights campaign against China. These were the times when Beijing had to rely on its friendship (and veiled threats) to get its way, such as when it convinced states such as Algeria and Sri Lanka to boycott the Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremony in December 2010 honoring Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. But otherwise, Chinese leaders have firmly stuck to their belief that the most dependable way for a great power to safeguard its security and interests remains expanding its own capabilities while ignoring the rest of the world. 

Like other great powers, China has client states, such as North Korea and Myanmar.  If North Korea has shown how a vassal can become a dangerous trouble-maker, Myanmar illustrates why a patron should never take its charge for granted. Until the recent political thaw in Myanmar, China thought it had the isolated military junta in its pocket. But the generals ruling Myanmar apparently had other plans. They abrogated a contract with China to build a controversial dam and, before Beijing could make its displeasure known, released political prisoners and invited U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Yangon for a historic visit. Today, Myanmar appears to be slipping away from the Chinese orbit of influence.

Farther afield, China may have a few countries with which it is truly on friendly terms, such as Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and the Castros' Cuba. But these are, by and large, states headed by political pariahs that are skilled manipulators of great powers. Besides access to natural resources and backing at the U.N., important as they are, good relations with such states generate little value for Beijing. In any case, the rulers of these states are old and ailing. When new, better democrats take their place, the relationship with China may cool.

Russia is the closest thing China has to a powerful quasi-ally. Their shared fear and loathing of the West, particularly of the United States, has brought Moscow and Beijing ever closer to each other. Yes, their common economic interests are dwindling: Russia has disappointed China by declining to deliver advanced weapons and energy supplies, while China has not lent enough support to Russia in its feud with the United States over missile defense and Georgia. But in a strictly tactical sense, China and Russia have become partners of convenience, cooperating at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to avoid isolation and protect each other's vital interests. On Iran, they coordinate closely with each other to moderate the West's pressures on Tehran. On Syria, they twice jointly vetoed UNSC resolutions to protect the Assad regime. Yet any honest Russian or Chinese would tell you point-blank that they are no allies; their strategic distrust of each other makes genuine alliance impossible.

The growth of Chinese power has created the dreaded "security dilemma": Instead of making Chinese more secure, its growing power is striking fear among its neighbors and, worse, has elicited a strategic response from the United States, which has pivoted its security focus toward Asia. The emerging strategic rivalry will severely test Beijing's diplomatic skills. The strategic choices available in terms of strengthening its alliance structure are few. Most Asian states want the United States to maintain its critical balancing role in the region; friends China can make in other parts of the world bring nothing to bear on this rivalry. There are, however, two difficult but promising paths China can take. One is to resolve the remaining territorial disputes with its neighbors and then throw its weight behind a regional collective security system which, once in place, could alleviate its neighbors' fears, moderate the U.S.-China rivalry, and obviate the need for China to recruit allies. The other is to democratize its political system, a move that will once and for all eliminate the risks of a full-fledged U.S.-China strategic conflict and bring China "friends all over the world." The first may be a reach, too little, too late -- and don't hold your breath for the latter.

Feng Li/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, SOUTHEAST ASIA
 

Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

HOWARDXUE

1:13 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Democracy, a cure once for all?

If democracy can help China solve issues like Tibet, Taiwan, south china sea, sino-India border, without sacrifice of china's national interests, why not!
But, a big but here is, can it?
I have my doubt, sorry, Prof. Pei... :-)

 

IMPERIUMVITA

10:17 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Can't see your hands in front of your face

Its funny becuase Democracy is exactly the solution to each of the problems you name, even while preserving China's legitimate national interests (rather than those of The Communist Party, don't conflate the two)

1. Tibet. Even the Dali Lama "Dog" has regonised China's historic rule over Tibet, and has stated that full independance is not sought. A democratic solution would be to allow a free and open depate in the region about tibet's status, probably ending with allowing tibet a stronger Provincial governement. One China 2, 3, 4, systems.... it has the potential to be a functioning Federal relationship similar to the USA and other democracies. The bottom line is let them be Tibetans, while being a part of China.

2. Tiawan. If China Democratized there is no longer even a conflict here. Of course Taiwan would probably also want a strong autonomous government, under the Central Governement setting national rules and foreign policy.

3. South China Sea. I'll reinterate, legitimate intersts. China's claim to the ENTIRE South China Sea is objectively laughable. In a Democracy with a free speaking population that's not fed Communist Nationalist propaganda through the media, there would be an open debate on the issue and the Chinese population would see how foolish China's claim to an entire region of ocean is. Problem solved.

4. Sino-Indian Border. Ok, this one is a little harder to solve through Democracy but again the issue is with free flow if information, debate and ending propaganda. As things stand now, the Chinese government cannot negotiate on the disputed territory, becuase any consession to reach a peacefully mutual agreement that does not end with the entire territory handed to China will be be denouced by Chinese hyper-nationlism as a show of weakness. The Communist Party cannot currently allow that because it currently derives its legitimacy in part as a defender of Chinese nationalism post-"century of humiliation." On the other hand, if the Chinese government dirived its legitimacy through real elections, and the true will of the people in a country where the free flow of information and open debate is encouraged. Then there would be more freedome to make reach a mutually agreeable deal with concessions from both sides.

The key difference is that Democracy will allow the government to approach problems with finding a solution in mind, whereas the current Chinese government much approach problems with its primary concern being maintaining its own power.

 

HOWARDXUE

3:41 AM ET

March 21, 2012

You're either incredibly ignorant, or insanely naive

1. Tibet. Some people want Tibet Independence, which clealy violates the current China anti-secession law. Democracy does not mean freedom of law violations.

2. Taiwan. Will the US welcome a democratic and unified China, under current Taiwan Relationship Act? Or will the US still keep selling weapons to Taiwan, to keep a democratic mainland and a democratic self-ruled island divided (as the current status quo)?

3. South China Sea. I don't think a democratic China will give up the claim of marine rights in the region, by vote or by referendum.

4. Sino-India Border. I doubt the possibility of the willingness of the democratic Indian government to give any concessions in bilateral negotiations.

In global games, sure democracy can help, but geopolitics matter most no matter how democratic you are. That can well explain many pending issues between democracies in today's world.

 

BETALOVER

11:58 AM ET

March 21, 2012

Money for crowd control

Democracy won't necessarily hinder China’s objective on Tibet and Xinjiang or any ethnic issues.

China can follow the USA’s footstep of coercive progressive social agenda, selectively.

Three factors should be the focus.

First, freedom of expression does not mean any expression at any place and at any time. Even in the USA, demonstration requires a permit, which can be denied on the simple realistic ground that disorder is likely and fund for police overtime is lacking. Study the US response to the recent “occupy” movement.

Second, just allowing demonstrations does not mean that a government has to heed the expressions in the demonstration.

Third, allowing democratic participation from minorities does not mean that the USA has to yield on its assimilative policy, such as related to the Akaka Bill of 2000 that could have granted cultural autonomy to the Hawaiians.

China can give its Tibetan citizens a small platform to demonstrate with very heavy police presence if it really wants to and this will not affect any assimilative effort.

Note the in New Kent county VA, black parents under the “freedom of choice” program were given the freedom to choose segregated all-black schools or integrated schools for their kids. 85% chose to send their kids to segregated schools (surprised!) . The Supreme Court ruled that they were no to have such freedom. It ruled that the outcome of integration (cultural genocide/!) was paramount and black parents were to be compelled to send their kids to integrated schools so that their kids will have to sit next to white kids 40 hours a week. Note carefully. Demonstrations against busing were fervent and allowed. The elitist and progressive mind of the government has been firm and unyielding. The crux is that a democratic government must allow freedom of expression to a degree, but is never obliged to heed the message of the demonstration.

Nor will minority participation in the democratic process undermined assimilative policy. In rejecting the Akaka Bill of 2000, the US Senate simply and summarily claimed that there is an American “tradition of assimilation” so the Hawaiians do not need any autonomy. The Akaka Bill could have granted the Hawaiians cultural autonomy. Many Hawaiians demonstrated fervently but their message of self-determination was not heeded.

Democracy does not impede coercive policy toward assimilation, but democracy is expensive in terms of cost of crowd control. Police overtime is very costly. A rich country with a long tradition of freedom of expression can afford token protests to message of which it has absolutely no intention to heed. A poor country like China might not, and once protests on ethnic issues are allowed then those on other issues will have to be formally, then China will have to spend a great deal more on crowd control.

China now in fact allows some demonstartions, those that are deemed manageable.

The underlining factor is still money for crowd control.

 

BETALOVER

12:49 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Democracy and freedom

Democracy does not hinder assimilation of Tibet and Xinjiang and does not impede reunification with Taiwan.

But democracy is NEVER the instructment of assimilation.

Assimilation always has coercive element because there is an extremely wide gap between the subjective feelings of ethnic elders' toward cultural preservation vicariously through their offspring, and the objective virtues of assimilation that is salubrious to a country.

No coercion exposure, no assimilation.

Assimilation is the only desirable social goal.

 

IMPERIUMVITA

9:05 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Response to your response

1. Tibet. Current Chinese law is not the issue, and in a Democratic China such a law would be repealed (if as I understand from your post it makes illegal merely wishing or talking about seccession). There are people in Quebec, Canida who want to seceed, their are people in Texas, USA who want to seceed, there are people in South Carolina who want to seceed. So what? Let them talk about it, let them want it. Doesn't hurt China one bit.

2. The purpose of the Taiwan Act will no longer exist and it will be happily repealed. That goes without saying. With Taiwan and China happily reunited, there would be no reason to continue selling arms to Taiwan, as the only reason the USA currently does so is to prevent an invasion from the mainland. The USA doesn't have problems with the Chinese people, only the undemocratic Mainland gov. that likes to kill and lock up its people.

3. South China Sea. Maybe it won't. An open and honest public debate is important.

4. Sino-India Border. You are wrong on this one, Stable national government's conceed territory relatively commonly in bi-lateral negotiations. Educated citizens given all the facts will favor stability in foreign relations over stupidly holding on to a grudge. Same for SCS

 

ANDAO

3:34 AM ET

March 22, 2012

The idea of an anti-secession

The idea of an anti-secession law is really laughable. How many countries have pro-secession laws? Yes, we encourage you to separate from the country, as quickly as possible.

Further, the Scotland can leave the UK, Quebec can leave Canada, and neither country is worse off for it. If anything, the Scots and Quebecois would probably be happier and have better relations towards the country than ever before. Chinese are simply way, way too sensitive about this whole sovereignty nonsense, to the point where you can't even talk about alternative theories without being labeled a traitor.

 

BETALOVER

2:16 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Not superpower and not as lonely

China is not a superpower, not yet.

China is not lonely among other third world countries, even ideologically considered.

Moreover, if China were "lonely" diplomatically, Taiwan would still be the real China at the UN.

If China were lonely economically, then it would not be trading so well globally.

You mean China is lonely because many Western countries and Japan do not want to be seen as too close to China. China is lonely in this way for two main reasons.

First, China is still poor. The poor do not place freedom and democracy on the forefront of political and popular thoughts.

Second, China was at the receiving end of brutal treatment from the West and Japan. It is fine and legitimate to urge China to forgive and to correctly gauge global sociological advancement to its current benefits; but it is not logical to ask China to accept the legacy from such mistreatment. Taiwan is the main thrust of the latter.

The third adjunct reason is simply that China is winning this contest against the West. Taiwan becoming HK II is inevitable and all ethnic groups in China will assimilate as sociologically deterministic. Why should the side in strategic route over Taiwan and otherwise relent? By say 2040, the mainland will just harass Taiwan’s abjectly vulnerable energy link with little force applied but with enormous standby; HK II is in the offing. There will be nothing the US could or will be allowed to do.

 

JUNGHOKIM

7:58 PM ET

March 20, 2012

You are confusing

power with alliance, and mercantile relationships with friendship.

Taiwan never really stood a chance against the PRC's claim on being the one and only China. This much was already recognized in the West as early as the 50s. China didn't really need any allies to win Taiwan's seat in the UN, although the Nixon visit certainly helped. Likewise, China won't need any friends to convert Taiwan into HK II. Its ability to do so will not depend on its network of alliances, but simply on its overwhelming heft.

And obviously, trading relationships do not equate to friendship. I shouldn't even have to say that.

It is time to recognize that China does inspire fear and loathing in its immediate neighbourhood, and not blame this on some sort of neo-colonialism by the West. People sometimes unfairly focus on China's faults, but this is inevitable given the PRC's status as a rising, authoritarian power with blood on its hands that have not dried yet (figuratively speaking).

 

BETALOVER

9:04 PM ET

March 20, 2012

non-friend and non-foe relation will last

As far as China is concerned, this is a very good situation.

It has to manage trade relations with the West and Japan, but as long as it manages trade relations there is not much to worry about from mere suspicion from other countries.

What could the USA do as long as China does not act aggressively? It always will have increasing capabilities, but intents and willingness to forego goodwill will be more telling. In the SCS dispute, China has already indicated that it will not be the first to use force or the threat of force to settle disputes. Just having the much bigger stick is threat enough, even if China does not brandish it. China will throw its economic weight around and then compromise some and then settle.

Fear and loathing is too much of an exaggeration; concerns are very real. Inter-governmental relations between China and SE Asian countries are still and will be manageable. These countries need China economy; the governments know but the people may be more fervent. China doesn’t want to use force and it won't have to.

China needs to better manage its internal affairs like environmental problems. Internationally China is in fine shape, lonely or not, US "pivot toward Asia" or not..

 

MANDREWSF

9:20 PM ET

March 20, 2012

It just so happens that

It just so happens that without the critical support of third world countries in China's accession vote at the UN, Taiwan would probably still represent all of China at the security council. It also happens that trade relationships are extremely important in forming real relationships--two trading countries could be diplomatically cold towards each other, but two countries will never be close without the economic ties backing the friendship.

And should I mention that there are no friendships between countries? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example when a country even sacrificed its short-term interests for the sake of another country.

 

BETALOVER

12:58 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Israel

"And should I mention that there are no friendships between countries? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example when a country even sacrificed its short-term interests for the sake of another country."

not true.

Israel to the USA is precisely one such relationship, both short term and very long term interests.

There are the religious, ideological, and puppy dog factors, not only interests.

It is not true that the Jews control the USA; some Jews control too many Americans willing and yearning to be controlled.

 

ANDAO

3:47 AM ET

March 22, 2012

To refute Betalover's

To refute Betalover's il-logic

1) This is false, because all of the democratic and freedom advocates are thrown into jail. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Chinese, only that the government persecutes those that advocate it.

2) Communists killed more Chinese and destroyed more Chinese culture than the Japan and West combined, yet Betalover forgot about that.

3) Why would Taiwan want to be a part of Mainland China? Did you ask them? Something like 2% want reunification. Just because the mainland is big and strong doesn't mean they can eat up anyone they like. Further, recent polls have shown that fewer HKers feel Chinese than in many years past. How can Beijing convince Taiwan should be absorbed when they haven't convinced Hong Kong yet?

 

BETALOVER

12:21 PM ET

March 22, 2012

"1) this is false, because

"1) this is false, because all of the democratic and freedom advocates are thrown into jail. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Chinese, only that the government persecutes those that advocate it."

I don't know what this refers to.

Observe empirically that there are generally two ways for a country to become democratic. First is economic progress that creates a major middle case that aspires for democracy such as in South Korea. Second is being conquered by a later repentant aggressor that felt obliged to spread democracy to its subjects (England-India).

“2) Communists killed more Chinese and destroyed more Chinese culture than the Japan and West combined, yet Betalover forgot about that.”

I don’t think the Communists killed more Chinese than the West and Japanese combined. What is your source? My college text books indicate that with the exception of the period 1958-1961, Chinese economic progress was quite significant and the Chinese population doubled between 1950-1979. I have never made any comment on Chinese culture from this context

On Communism in China, it was made prevalent on the backdrop of an ideological tempest. What caused the Chinese to be so fervent after WWII? Their suffering for the past 150 years at the hands on the West and Japan. Constructive thoughts should center on China’s recovery from such ideological tempest; intellect should appreciate the history that has led to such ideological tempest. It is pointless to be accusative now.

“3) Why would Taiwan want to be a part of Mainland China? Did you ask them? Something like 2% want reunification. Just because the mainland is big and strong doesn't mean they can eat up anyone they like. Further, recent polls have shown that fewer HKers feel Chinese than in many years past. How can Beijing convince Taiwan should be absorbed when they haven't convinced Hong Kong yet?”

I never comment on Taiwan’s right of self-determination. May be Taiwan should have such a right. The Taiwan situation is different from that in Tibet. I agree that freedom is valuable to human happiness (ethnic culture is not).

My comment on Taiwan centers on reality. The first is that Taiwan will be helpless. The mainland will harass Taiwan’s abjectly exposed energy link with very little force and Taiwan will be economically paralyzed. The USA will not START a war that will destroy Taiwan. Hong Kong II is in the offing; such is reality.

The second is that what matter most to Americans should be whether China’s design to recover Taiwan forebodes that we cannot get along with China. Self-determination for Taiwan cannot be the prime consideration.

Peace and humanness will be paramount over any ideal of self-determination.
Peace is relative. Single digit casualties on the crew of an oil tanker leaving Taiwan c 2040 will be peace; 7-digit casualties if war broke out will be inhumaneness. The USA will not rob Taiwan of the chance to negotiate for a niche within China. The USA is too decent and will certainly see the bigger picture when the time approaches, more clearly starting may be 2025-2030.

 

TIMWX

4:40 AM ET

March 25, 2012

couldn't agree more....

Your right, the Jews do not control the US. It's a small number of people claiming to be Jewish that have control of the US and most other country's aswell.

- Zygor

 

JOHNBOY4546

8:56 PM ET

March 20, 2012

"Beijing has a shocking lack of real allies"

This may be a shocking thought, but maybe they don't *want* allies.....

After all, what did Goerge Washington say all those years back regarding foreign entanglements?

So maybe they are simply practising what you guys once preached.

I understand that this is an American web site, but you'd have thought that a place devoted to foreign policy would at least grapple with the idea that, you know, maybe other countries don't *want* to ape the USA.

And that - maybe, just maybe - they don't want to act that way because they think "that way" is a f**king stupid way to conduct yourself on a world stage.

 

ANON45

4:55 AM ET

March 21, 2012

reply to Johnboy4546

China hardly practices avoiding foreign entanglements, even a grade schooler can see that. It blunders through Syria, Norway, Africa, South America, etc.

Quite frankly China's current foreign policy of deceit and blatant landgrabbing is increasingly looking to be the real "f**king stupid way", as it has given a reason for a major US return to the region, and smelling like f**king roses while doing it.

China's lack of allies increasingly becomes a burden as it continues to rely on the outside world for resources. Hell the US practically feeds a large portion of China anyways. They wouldn't have the guts to take on the US lest a quarter of their population starve.

China's lack of allies is hampering it on all political fronts, and don't you fuc**ng tell me allies are not needed in geopolitics, such arrogance is something China should have thrown away 200 years ago.

The rest of the countries around the world aren't China's tributaries, they are equals. China must acknowledge that and deal in an inclusive manner, or watch as its 3000 year old history burns to ash and is left to rot in the trashbin of history.

 

JOHNBOY4546

5:36 AM ET

March 21, 2012

"China hardly practices avoiding foreign entanglements"

Oh, sure, it has a foreign POLICY, and by that very nature it has foreign RELATIONS.

But it doesn't have allies, and the reason why may be as simple as this: it has made the decision that "alliances" lead to "entanglements", and it would rather not be so entangled.

Relations, sure. But obligations, no.

And isn't that what an "alliance" really is i.e. a formal treaty of mutual obligation between two or more signatories.

The USA loves 'em, and can't understand why China doesn't embrace the idea.

Maybe, just maybe, the Chinese can't understand why the USA thinks that "alliances" are a good idea.

Who's to say they ain't correct?
After all, whose treasury is bulging with cash, and who is cash-strapped?

 

NICOLAS19

7:43 AM ET

March 21, 2012

obligation vs. good relation

China is slowly building up its relations around the world where it suits them. They need resources from Africa, so they invest heavily. They need technology from Europe, so they invest heavily there too. As both regions need the money from China, it is a win-win situation, without burdensome and unnecessary political obligations. The US prefers to have great photo ops about leaders signing charters of mutual understanding and like, but what is the point? The rewards can be reaped (for both parties) without an alliance, moreover, there are no auxiliary obligations. Having no allies but many partners gives you what you want, but saves you from being obligated to go to war for them. Elephant in the room: US-Israeli relations. It landed the US small economic benefits, but large and unnecessary military burdens. China would never give such an "ironclad" commitment to any but the strategically most important states (like North Korea which is on their border).

 

SPOOD

7:52 AM ET

March 21, 2012

China would love to have allies, but nobody trusts them

China would love powerful allies to help push its interests internationally. The problem being most of the developed world has a distaste for autocracy these days. That coupled with a long history of antagonizing nations surrounding it doesn't help it either.

They would love to project military power abroad and have made attempts to start such things, but don't have the money or ability. Right now an invasion of Taiwan would be described as a "million man swim".

Its very tough to say a country is doing things well when they were capable of evicting over a million people just to build a temporary olympic village.

China is in a bubble economy which will make ours pre-2008 look like a quarterly dip. They are hardly known for economic transparency. Whatever you think you know about their situation, is probably wrong. This is a country with a ridiculously inflated construction bubble, a vast gulf between those living on the coastline and the very large interior and the inability to get along with its neighbors.

They are very much dependent on the US as the main market for the cheap goods produced there and for capital needed for industrial growth. The problem for China being that the West has alternative countries for the same things. India, much of Latin America and South East Asia provide labor just as cheaply and don't have the attendant headaches dealing with China entails.

 

BETALOVER

12:11 PM ET

March 21, 2012

WWI

China sure does not need lets-march-together for war WWI type ally.

China does not need the tail that wags the dog type ally, like Israel to the USA.

 

BETALOVER

12:27 PM ET

March 21, 2012

I don't see it

"China hardly practices avoiding foreign entanglements, even a grade schooler can see that. It blunders through Syria, Norway, Africa, South America, etc."

I have two Master's degrees and I don't see major foreign entanglement.

These are all small issues (syria) or small in comparison to gain (Africa) for China.

The fatal entranglement that the USA suffers from called the ME for Israel dwarfs such "entanglements" by orders of magnitude.

Is Israel a friend to the USA? Is the USA not lonely due to Israel?

 

HARRY GUY

1:07 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Oh c'mon now Anon. Buddy, why

Oh c'mon now Anon. Buddy, why you so angry.

I am adhere to International Relations's Neo-Realism line of thinking. All rational nation-state actors are concerned about security and surviving. There are no "real" long term alliances and allies. A bi-polar model is inherently more stable than a uni-polar (definitely) or possibly even multi-polar world (not fully sold on this).

In a uni-polar world, all eyes are focused on the hyper-power country and ill-will and blame is also directed at the hyper-power. In a bi-polar world, power is balanced and disputes are handled via proxy skirmishes.

Get real, with your crap about other countries are "not being tributaries and are equals". A country with 30 million population and a GDP 20 times less is an "equal"?! When has this ever been the case in human history. All powerful states have circling satellite states. Power and wealth are not created equal. A small and weak state with little resources are ALWAYS ignored except when national interests of the powerful state aligns with it.

Anon, stop being so angry and naive. Learn the governing rules that drive the system.

 

BETALOVER

1:33 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Trust is seldom critical among nations

Not many critical international relationships are based on trust.

Investigation, expectation with probability, knowledge about motivation, history and intent form more bases for durable realtionship than trust.

Trust is really a rare article in international relationship.

 

JOHNBOY4546

4:12 PM ET

March 21, 2012

"China would love powerful allies to help push its interests"

Says who? You?

So sorry, but the Chinese had said no such thing, and acted in no such manner.

Spood is simply assuming that because the USA just looooooves to sign alliances then EVERY country must be green with envy at all those wonderful friends that Uncle Sam has.

The classic example of someone who can't step out of his mindset and, therefore, can not conceive that others might think differently.

I'll repeat: the most likely reason why China doesn't have alliances is because it thinks that "alliances" are soooooooo 20th century. That in the 21st century there is much more utility to be gained by currying favours within an ad-hoc grouping like the BRICs, rather than to sign treaties that impose mutual obligations upon China.

All the benefits, with none of the entanglements: what's not to like about that?

 

MANDREWSF

9:10 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Friendships on the international stage?

Can one truly exist? Only three things carries currency in the world: power, power, and power. America doesn't have any friends either: America's behaviour on all accounts has been more aggressive, more patronizing, and more damaging than what China had ever cooked up, according to the article's criteria. The U.S. is able to tie a bloc of nations directly to its national interest is because the U.S. benefits from an superior geopolitical environment that allows it to intervene all over the world without costing its geopolitical position--it is a lot more different living right next to a great power whom a state has to balance against, than with one that is far away. According to millennia old strategic thought, one guards against the closer states by allying with the farther states.

No matter how China diplomatically maneuvres itself, it will always be in a more vulnerable geopolitical situation. To use words like "friends" to describe states, and to describe certain states as more superior or more "popular" than other states, strikes as a juvenile attempt to compare world politics to angst-filled high school social intrigues.

 

BETALOVER

1:10 PM ET

March 21, 2012

There is international friendship

I say there is friendship among a few countries.

USA, UK and Canada are really friends for more issues than otherwise.

Israel-USA relationship is more than friendship. A tail is wagging a dog so masochistically wanting pain.

The China–NK relation is not just calculated gains either. There is an ideological element to it.

 

DIANA RELKE

5:10 AM ET

March 21, 2012

Sour grapes?

There are plenty of possible mutual interests among the nations of Central and East Asia. Give China time.

 

KORVOSCOP

10:34 AM ET

March 21, 2012

China Loneliest Superpower

China has already indicated that it will not be the first to use force or the threat of force to settle fashion wholesale
disputes. Just having the much bigger stick is threat enough, even if China does not brandish it. China will throw its economic weight around and then compromise some and then settle.

 

SPOOD

2:26 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Except for...

...Issues dealing with the border of India, Taiwan's national sovereignty, control of the South China Sea. The list goes on.

Every time they have tried in the past, it has been failure:
-They failed to dislodge UN forces in Korea
-They were beaten back by the Soviets in 1969
-They were beaten back by the Vietnamese in 1979
-Its war against India in 1962 was a diplomatic disaster for them.

China doesn't extend its force beyond the immediate region because they lack the ability to do so. They don't brandish power because they don't have it. You are mistaking lack of ability for virtue here.

 

JOHNBOY4546

8:49 PM ET

March 21, 2012

"They failed to dislodge UN forces in Korea"

Whaaaaaaat?

If the Chinese had wanted to assist a North Korean takeover of South Korea then the PLA would have been there from the very beginning, at which point the "war" would have been over before anyone could wake MacArthur from his afternoon nana-nap.

The Chinese did not intervene until it became obvious that MacArthur was going all the way to the Yalu River i.e. they came into the war to eject UN forces from NORTH Korea, they did not take part in the fighting to overrun SOUTH Korea.

Q: Did the PLA manage to dislodge UN forces from NORTH Korea?
A: Oh, yeah, they were spectacularly successful in achieving their aim.

Those UN forces retreated South quicker than they had previously advanced North, and in less than to months every UN soldier had scuttled back over the 38th parallel.

Indeed, so quickly that I believe some US battalions are still looking for their battle flag.....

 

ATIMOSHENKO

11:37 AM ET

March 21, 2012

Can it be any other way?

How can an autocratic government form a long-term alliance of equals with a pluralistic government? They disagree on the very principles of organisation! A pluralistic government may tolerate autocratic governments either as semi-client states (e.g. US and Saudi Arabia), or profitable trading partners (US and China), but what grounds are there for a long-term alliance? The preferences of the pluralistic state are too impermanent for the autocratic state, while the rejection of autocratic influence is the very reason pluralistic states were founded.

Hence, autocratic states can only form long-term alliances with other autocratic states, though even those generally do not prove to be very long-lasting (hence more wars between countries that lack true democratic institutions).

 

HARRY GUY

1:23 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Because all rational states

Because all rational states are essentially governed by similarly thinking elites. In selectorate theory, the winning governing body is selected by a winning coalition. In a Democracy the size of the selectorate (active voting members, political insiders, special interests, and large institutional players) are much larger than autocracies (power-brokers, political insiders, special interests, and institutional players). As can be observed, there isn't all that much difference. It all comes down to the winning coalition.

Observe the GW Bush Jr. 's win in 2000. He won only 49-51% of actual votes. His winning coalition was composed of big corporations, evangelicals, pre-dominantly white males, foreign policy hawks. His winning coalition only composed of at maximum half of the USA population. President Obama's winning coalition in 2008 consisted of first time voters, pre-dominatly African Americans, urban dwellers, college educated professionals, and etc. Even Obama's winning coalition probably consisted of roughly at maximum 60% of the population. Both presidents were elected with a lot of help from powerful power-broker champions, special interests, political insiders, and institutional players.

Autocracies, or at least China's style of Politburo are actually similar (though distributorship is very different). At the end of the day, the elites that govern states and help shape policies share much more in common at times than people realize.

No, I do not believe in "real" long-term alliances in general. But I also believe that autocracies and democracies can form long-term mutually beneficial relationships.

 

BETALOVER

1:51 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Tibet calls for assimilation

"1. Tibet. Even the Dali Lama "Dog" has regonised China's historic rule over Tibet, and has stated that full independance is not sought. A democratic solution would be to allow a free and open depate in the region about tibet's status, probably ending with allowing tibet a stronger Provincial governement. One China 2, 3, 4, systems.... it has the potential to be a functioning Federal relationship similar to the USA and other democracies. The bottom line is let them be Tibetans, while being a part of China. "

I don't think so.

The Tibetan issue has to be settled by assimilation.

The Chinese central government should promote Han and other minority settlement in its Tibetan area. Demographic change should once and for all settle the issue of Tibet, a la New Mexico or Texas. There is no reason for Soviet influence of self-determination by ethnicity. The veneer of "autonomy" should never cloud the virtues of assimilation that will be salubrious for all the Chinese people to come.

China should have faith in its tradition of assimilation. It should have the wherewithal to professionally control disorder resulting from assimilative effort and in accordance to law.

Tibetan minorities should be given the chance to practice their religion in the proper places with only minor limitations, as the situation is now.

What is not conducive to happiness for the Chinese people is to accept segregation. What does not bode well for China is to yield to any demand for autonomy based on nativity.

 

SPOOD

2:33 PM ET

March 21, 2012

When you strip away the propaganda, its a much nastier picture

"The Tibetan issue has to be settled by assimilation."

Didn't the Serbians used to call that ethnic cleansing? So in essence you are trying to make a point for genocide or at least at the cultural level.

Maybe the problem with Tibet has been that it was part of China out of a modern conquest. That sort of behavior tends to breed resentment. Its occupied territory. A place which was autonomous before it became part of China. Its not like they had a choice to join the country.

"Tibetan minorities should be given the chance to practice their religion in the proper places with only minor limitations, as the situation is now."

Of course another problem China has is NOBODY gets to practice their religion in a way which is intended. Those "minor limitations" tend to be ones which amount to a level of interference many with a religious bent consider persecution.

 

BETALOVER

3:59 PM ET

March 21, 2012

OK, coercive busing is

OK, coercive busing is genocide

Ok, just cultural genocide.

 

BETALOVER

4:07 PM ET

March 21, 2012

ethnci cleasing

"Didn't the Serbians used to call that ethnic cleansing?"

Please, ethnic cleansing is not assimilation. In fact, it is the polar opposite.

Is Obama a product of assimilation or ethnic cleasing?

Why and whay not?

 

BETALOVER

2:12 PM ET

March 21, 2012

assimilative and democratic

It is entirely possible to have assimilative policy and still be democratic. I do not say democratically assimilative; I say democracy can exist with coercive assimilative policy.

The USA demonstrates that this is possible.

The USA allows protests against coercive busing of black kids, but never intended to heed the message against busing. It dealt out the slogans of “separate is inherently unequal” and “segregation instills a sense of inferiority on black children” as token protests against busing were allowed.

Likewise, the US Senate summarily cited the American “tradition of assimilation” as it rejected the Akaka Bill of 2000 which could have granted the Hawaiians cultural autonomy. While protests against the rejection of the Akaka Bill were staged, the US Senate issued its elitist verdict that nobody in the USA needs autonomy as we already have a tradition of assimilation.

Democracy and coercive assimilation can co-exist if there is the means to control the demonstrating crowds.

 

SPOOD

2:43 PM ET

March 21, 2012

You really don't get it

The "message against bussing", was nothing short of pure racist hostility. Of course it was not meant to be heeded. It was the kind of behavior the government sought NOT to give sanction under color of law. You also don't get the nature of protests in this country.

We are not like China, we don't crush protesters under tanks and shoot them on sight. If the protests aren't violent destructive, or on private property they are allowed by the government. The government has the burden to prove its actions to break it up were necessary. As opposed to China where it is assumed the protesters do not have the right to public assembly without official sanction.

Btw the Akaka Bill was rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Hawaii and could lead to the disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. Autonomy being used as an excuse for discrimination and removing people from political power.

"Coercive assimilation" is essentially the government attacking the personhood of its citizens. Showing a blatant disregard for individual liberties for the purposes of furthering government ends. The US tried in in the late 19th/early 20th Century. It didn't end well. It was a sign of the racism of the times more than anything of benefit.

 

BETALOVER

3:56 PM ET

March 21, 2012

The "message against

The "message against bussing", was nothing short of pure racist hostility. Of course it was not meant to be heeded.

Is it racist to say no to my black kids having to spend ten hours a week on a school bus so that he can sit next to white kids 40 hours a week? I don't think so. Is it bigotry for a Tibetan Chinese to say non-Tibetans should not be here, that is within 100 miles from me?

"We are not like China, we don't crush protesters under tanks and shoot them on sight."

Yes, the USA is not like China.

The USA has a per capita income now of over $40,000, and with wealth and education came social progress. The USA has a long tradition of freedom of speech.

The USA is also the usurper of a continent who has extracted a lot of wealth form it. Oil/mineral, forestry, fishery, land agriculture that is far more land intensive than labor intensive. Prudhoe Bay as part of Alaska was bought from the Russians. The USA also imported slaves who are racially drastically different from their masters.

For the past two hundred years, the USA has benefited from aggression while China had suffered from it. What do you expect from a China that has suffered this way and is only recovering? Don’t forget the situation that China was in after WWII that gave rise to the Communists and the ideological tempest. There is a cause for such ideological tempest; it is the recent experience of a country.

“Btw the Akaka Bill was rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Hawaii and could lead to the disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. “

Tibetan autonomy should be rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Tibet and could lead to the disenfranchisement of the more secular Tibetans.

"Coercive assimilation" is essentially the government attacking the personhood of its citizens.

Coercive assimilation implies mind control on an individual. If you respect a human being, do not easily say that he or she is subject to “coercive assimilation”. Coercion is on the parents so that there is exposure of his or her offspring to the majority and other minorities.

We never have “coercive assimilation” in the USA. We have coercive exposure of which forced busing of kids and the rejection of the Bill are parts.

Is there prevalent “coercive assimilation” in China? I would say NO. The minority elders fear that their offspring will not choose cultural preservation. This is their gripe.

The Tibetan and other ethnic languages are allowed in China. It is sociological deterministic that they will likely be marginalized. As Nike says, “Just do it”. Don’t mind if your offspring or kinfolks will or will not. This is American; otherwise is Un-American.

 

BETALOVER

4:49 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Spood: I hope you don't think

Spood:

I hope you don't think that only whites protested against busing.

Black parents did very vehemently as well. They wanted their black cultural ID.

Remember malcohm X; you must be crazy to want integration; we want separation, not segregation. There is some Malcohm X in most ethnic parents mind, vicariously for their offspring.

I hope you don't think that during the Civil Rights movement most blacks jumped with joy at the chance of mixing their kids with white kids and a chance to have white in-laws. The same old store, culture, culture and culture prevailed.

A progressive govrenment cannot yield to the wishes of the present generation of minorities to seek cultural isolation.

Assimilation is not ethnic cleansing. In cultural cleasing, a culture is deliberately washed away, together with the human packaging. In assimilation, cultures have the chance to be integrated, may be even with the human packaging treated as a lover.

Love is not the same as hate; assimilation is not cultural cleansing.

Please understand some social issues before you opine. If you are white, I hope you know that many minority youths do not want their culture; they want to have the same chance as any white man to make love to your daughters.

Yes, even when their parents sought cultural preservation thru them.

 

SPOOD

4:57 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Betalover find a new analogy, you are too ignorant about the US

You are an idiot! The main objection to bussing didn't come from the black kids or their parents. It came from white people in the towns the kids were going to school.

Please stop using it as an analogy. You don't know a goddamn thing about it beyond some extremely screwed up propaganda take on it. It was a crap example the first time, all you are doing is showing an ignorance of conditions from the US almost 40 years ago.

Its like if I referenced Mao's murderous policies as an example of China today and claimed he was a Christian Fundamentalist. Not only is it not current, its factually incorrect. Just like your posts.

And we still don't run over our protesters with tanks nor jail people for life because of their political views.

"Tibetan autonomy should be rejected for many reasons having to do with the possibility of creating a semi-segregationist situation on Tibet and could lead to the disenfranchisement of the more secular Tibetans."

Tibetan independence is a much better policy. Btw it wasn't even something I really cared about until you showed me what arrogant pricks the Chinese government are to them. Your blase attitude towards what amounts to cultural genocide and essentially colonialism just rubbed me the wrong way.

"While protests against the rejection of the Akaka Bill were staged"

What would you know about staged protests? Are they the only ones allowed in China?

 

BETALOVER

2:46 PM ET

March 21, 2012

demoracy for Tibet is not hard

Democracy for Tibet alone is not hard

Set up an area about ¼ miles square.

Have ten thousand police officers trained in crowds control armed with no more than batons and shield in the area.

Have many cameras.

Invite demonstrations.

See who use force first and in what way.

No one protest then show is over.

Disallow protests in all other areas.

 

BETALOVER

3:17 PM ET

March 21, 2012

"China should allow peaceful protests"

So many potential democratic friends of China want to urge China to allow peaceful protests.

Well, what is peaceful or will remain peaceful?

Let's assume that advocacy to split the country can be peaceful, but what is the likelihood of demonstrations for splitting the country remaining peaceful?

The whole idea of peaceful demonstrations is very dogmatic or academic. There is a very fine line between expecting disorder and disorder having started.

Best is to expect disorder and preparing for it, but realistically this is very costly.

I think a rotating once a year chance for peaceful protest in high security controlled setting can be affordable to China. Set up a ten-thousand officer squad and allow a small area for peaceful protests once a year for many areas on a rotating scheme throughout the country may work.

But let’s be honest, do many ethnic protesters in China really want peaceful protests? What will peaceful protest do for the Tibetan separatist or autonomy seekers when nearly all of the Chinese are not and will never be for their cause?

 

BETALOVER

4:16 PM ET

March 21, 2012

which is more this and that

Which is more intrusive, draconian, assimilative, culturally genocidal, culturally cleansing, or even non-democratic ?

a. Being forced to have your kid sit next to a kid of another race 40 hours a week and to spend ten hours a week on a school bus.

b. Being forced to have a non-Tibetan neighbor.

 

THE_OBSERVER

6:10 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Not a bad position

What is the author on about?

A Chinese population of 1.3 billion+ is not being lonely. To put that into context, hat is a population more than Europe, N. America and Latin American.

There are pros and cons to being lonely in an international sense. Sometimes at the start of sorting a country out or building up infrastructure and industry you don't need mega-international bodies and corporations trying to impose their models and way of doing business. A country with good leadership should be allowed to find out the best way for internal development. You also don't want to have needy friends who are a burden on your time and resources. On the other hand the benefit of outreaching is that you can perhaps find better ways and people to show you how develop quicker. This is what China has done in the last 20 years.

China was also much lonelier internationally before President Nixon and Henry Kissinger visited China in 1972. At that time China had a few friends in Africa, Cuba, and N. Korea. At that time Latin America was America's b*tch as were Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. The Middle East like now were mostly American cronies. China had very little trade with other countries and per capita income was probably less than that of India.

Look at China today and see the difference. Numero deux in the world's economy with trade links with countries on 6 continents. You have many African countries and a few Latin American ones looking to China as a potential economic model. Many more Chinese are educated and universities are being built every year.

Today the Chinese are too busy going around trying to improve themselves in family, work and career to care too much about what the author of this article is on about. Most of the Chinese population know that they are at the best they've been in a 160 years.

 

BETALOVER

6:14 PM ET

March 21, 2012

International friends not really useful

I think a few countries really have a few countries that can be regarded as friends. But I do agree with many here that the utility of having real international friends as nations is quite limited.

Even the Brits now do not benefit from American friendship at all. Many Brits lament their US connection re the ME and joining to the hips with Zionism. Conversely, Americans do not need the Brits except for symbolic coalition.

In truth, large major nations are individualistic and happy to be so. The world is essentially at peace now; nations really do not want firm allies together with the obligation.

One thing that is very important is to be recognized by other nations at the UN to be a nation. This is super important as it ties into the new world order of peace and security. When a nation attacks another nation, there will be consequences, if only diplomatic.

Thus, Israel and Taiwan are utterly different. The world will NEVER recognize any Taiwan independence unless there were a war which the Chinese mainland loses. No actual war; no Taiwan independence.

Taiwan will never have the avenue and venue to address it grievance. I mean may be by 2040 the Chinese mainland will start to harass the island’s extremely vulnerable and exposed energy link, always short of attacking the island. Then it will be the end of Taiwan de facto independence and the beginning of HK II. The UN will not be involved. Taiwan is a part of China; it will not even be an open and shut case, no book will even ever be opened, period.

So, without knowing what the people of Taiwan, would the USA start a war with China c 2040 over Taiwan without any pretense of UN mandate? The chance is exactly zero.

This leaves strong enough non-military means of interference. Not likely either. If the US thwarts China restrained assertiveness, much greater power might result eventually, in another one or two more decades. The whole world will welcome HK II as the peaceful solution to the Taiwan time bomb.

 

BETALOVER

6:57 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Did blacks welcome cultural upgrade from whites?

Spood:

First, you should study American recent history. Just Google New Kent County VA; you will get much info.

Before that, close all books and use you social awareness to predict what actually happened in New Kent country VA. Let's see if you have any social commonsense.

After several hundred years of slavery and discrimination, do you actually believe that, hence, black parents wanted to send their kids to integrated schools? Do you think they accepted that their culture needed an upgrade? No the same cultural preservation instinct of the ethnic parents prevailed.

Only much later in surveys there started to be acceptance.

There was a “freedom of choice” program in which black parents were allowed to choose integrated schools, but 85% of black parents elected to send their kids to all-black segregated schools.

And yes, protests against coercive busing by blacks were vehement.
The Supreme Court then ruled that the result of integration had to overrode and freedom of choice.

I hope you see that the entire social phenomenon of assimilation is multigenerational. Ethnic parents are hardwired to oppose assimilation, which the offspring eventually consider the greatest social thrill—the proverbial blue-eye blonde, the opposite sex of the majority. The process is all over and only the stubborn refuses to recognize.

Even the German newcomers tried fervently to retain their culture. They set up schools with German as the medium of instruction. After a few generations, because a blonde is a blonde in courtship and marriage, a Busch is only a Busch by incidental male line. Geronimo did not give the Germans the right to move here for homestead, that is free land.

About Tibet, there will be NO independence. The day that all white Americans leave North America is the day that China will give up Tibet. The future of Tibet is assimilation.

 

BETALOVER

7:20 PM ET

March 21, 2012

"staged" means simply that

"staged" means simply that they happened.

I stand to say "occurred". This is not my focus.

Don't get so excited.

The fact is that China is much better than you say it is.

Paternalistic initiative from the government has its unique function in ethnic issues.

Overall, I view China's ethnic policy quite positively. The objective is to intelligently promote assimilation.

For every protester, I think there are a hundred Tibetans becoming more secular, more Han. This is what those who commit self-immolation is trying desperately to prevent.

China has its ethnic celebrities; they are very well received by the Chinese public.

The USA is also a good country; except when it is too presumptive.

Get this: freedom and democracy are not sufficient for social satisfaction for racial minorities in the USA. What they need and want is equal opportunity to the bedroom of the majority.

Does the USA have the openness to commit "cultural genocide"? This is the crux to happiness of racial minorities in the USA.

When there is cultural genocide that ethnic parents fear, cultural suicide with your daughter is what their offspring wants.

Get a hint and live with it.

 

BETALOVER

12:02 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Freedom and democracy sustains racism

Would China ever have a professional sports team called the "Tibetan Lamas", say the Lhasa Tibetan Lamas basketball team? Or may be the "Mongolian Hordes"? Never. The Chinese government will simply step in to say this is ethnic baiting. It does not need to justify such prohibition with legal terms.

During the Year of the Pigs the Chinese government warned the Han majority to be very careful about not insulting the Muslim minorities about pigs and pork.

Yet, the USA has the "Washington Redskins" as the denigrating mascot; there are also the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians with grotesque caricatures of the natives.

One the ground of freedom of expression, the US legitimatizes such hateful expressions. The natives have no voice in this because they are outside the American society; they suffer from the trap of autonomy called the Indian Nations.

Try the “Cleveland Nig*ers” and you will see protests because blacks are within the American society. They no longer suffer from any autonomy trap called segregation.

Do not allow any true autonomy for any ethnic minorities in China. Be kind and include them in the Chinese society; promote assimilation , the only just social goal.

 

BETALOVER

3:29 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Clinton-Lewinsky and the Tibetan cause

Has one ever read any article from the perspective of ethnicity or cultural genocide for the Clinton-Lewinsky connection?

If the Tibetan cause is so universal, then there ought to have been such a perspective. Ostensibly, what we have here is an ethnic minority, a Slavic American, being used as a sex toy to perform oral sex for an Anglo-Saxon white man in power.

Even with racial similarity with the Anglo-Saxon whites, the Slavic people should be an ethnic minority. Someone by the name of Clinton must be quite Anglo-Saxon; someone by the name of Lewinsky must be quite Slavic. Don’t mind that Slavic people look white. That that are Slavic must mean they are a minority yearning to preserve their culture; thus, a Lewinsky must still consider herself Slavic.

In reality, who knows how Clinton a Clinton really is; how Lewinsky a Lewinsky really is. Why would even a real Lewinsky want to remain Slavic?

We don’t know how Han or Tibetan a Chen is in China; may be 100% Tibetan by lineage. It can be projected that many Tibetans will have done a Natalie Wood to enter the coveted Han mainstream. May be 50% Tibetan and 50% Han due to love between a man and a woman. Who knows unless one investigates.

The case also is that the Chinese public warmly accepts China’s ethnic minorities as celebrities. These ethnic stars flaunt their ethnicity in the right way; of course, they must be loyal to China. The theme generally is “diverse and united” with ethnic songs and dresses, in front of ardently applauding Han and other audiences. Primitive! Superficial! Un-free! Yes, but how nice it is!

Freedom is not everything. Freedom is not effective against ingrained bigotry. Elitist initiative will be necessary to overcome ethnic bigotry.

Many Western white folks are really very politically obsessed and quite socially clueless or oblivious when considering China’s ethnic issues.

I think China has a good ethnic minority policy.

 

POLARFOX

3:11 PM ET

March 25, 2012

China is very isolated!

China is very isolated indeed!

China's relations with the West including US, Asian giants like India, Japan, and South Korea, and South East Asia were well discussed here! I agree!

The overlooked issue is China's relations with her Central Asian neighbors: Kazakhstan, Uzbekstan, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Tazhikstan and Turkmenstan (it has no land border with China). For China, Central Asia is very important stragetic region: First, the vast majority of China's strategic defense objects and weaponry are actually located deep in Western and North Western China! For example, Gansu has China's space station, and there are evidence that the majority of China's nucs are located around Gansu and Western provinces. Therefore, the access to these facilities is much much easier from Central Asia. For example, the distance between Mongolia's south-Western border and Gansu's nuc center is less than 200 km. Therefore, China is very vulnerable from Central Asia in case of war with the West and Russia. Second, Central Asian vast energy and mineral resources are vital too. Third, Both Kazakhstan and Mongolia has huge chanks of people who have ethnic ties with Inner Mongolia and other Mongol regions, and Xinjiang's Uighur minority. Kazakhstan alone has 1 million Uighurs across the border, and even more than 200 thousand Uighur men there served in the Soviet and Kazakh Armies. Mongolia has 2.8 million who are ethnic brethrens of the Mongolians in China. These people are getting more and more supportive of their brethrens in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. This is a credible threat China too.

But China's relations with all these countries are based on mutual distrust, historical hatred, and Cebtral Asians' genuine fear of losing their lands to China and Chinese in the future. The most anti-China nation among them is Mongolia, a successful democracy with the fastest growing economy (in 2011, GDP grew at 20%), and with very deeply rooted distrust and dislike of China. The unpublished PEW survey among 10 thousand adults in Mongolia show that 90 percent of Mongolians dislike and distrust China because of historical fights, Inner Mongolia, and cultural differences, and 10 percent said "they do not know" No single soul said he/she trusts China and Chinese. This is depsite fact that trade and investment between two nations are growing 20 percent every year!

An interesting point is no Mongolian mentioned China's communist political system as a reason to be trustful. This means that even if China become a democracy, Mongolians will still have very unfavorable views of China.

A similar argument could be made about other Central Asian semi-dictatorship: They are happy to trade but never trust China and Chinese!

And therefore, the West's military advances in Central Asia in particular with Mongolia must be very disturbing to China: Mongolia not only has a de facto US military base under the name "Peacekeeping training camp" in Central Mongolia where from 80 to 100 US marines station during 8-10 months of every year under various disguised names. This really reminds the strategy the Soviets used from 1920 to 1990 in Mongolia. For example, the Soviets had a very fast and powerful tank division at Mongolia's border town Zamyn-Uud, and it takes only 6 hours for these tanks to reach Beijing. That is why China has its her main forces inthe North Eastern Beijing, hebei and Inner Mongolia up until 1990s. The same pattern is repeating again.

Mongolia not only has annual joint military exercises with US and NATO, but it sent her troops to Iraq and Afganistan under the US and NATO command.

Just a few days ago, Mongolia signed a new agreement with NATO (Individual partnership) to a strategic and individual partnershiop. The details are vague. But Mongolian analysts claim that this is the beginning of Mongolia's eventual membership in NATO if Russia does not block it. For Mongolia Russia is a very important ally, and 80 percent of Mongolians say Mongolian must have a good relationship to counter China's instrusions.

Lastly, there are already calls from Mongolian politicians to move US air base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan to Western Mongolia for permanently. The distance between the current US base and the suggested land in Western Mongolia is 500 km. This can be a real pain on back of China!

 

PATRICK GIMBLE

8:34 PM ET

April 18, 2012

China is situated in one of toughest geopolitical neighborhood

I know that, China is situated in one of the toughest geopolitical neighborhoods in the world. It shares borders with Japan, India, and Russia; three major powers which have all engaged in military conflicts with China in the 20th century.It still has unresolved territorial disputes with Japan and India, and the Russians fear a horde of Chinese moving in and overwhelming the depopulated Russian far east.As natural geopolitical rivals, these countries do not make easy allies. To the southeast is Vietnam, a defiant middle power which has not only fought many wars with China in the past, but is apparently gearing up for another contest over disputed waters in the South China Sea. And just across the Yellow Sea is South Korea, historically a protectorate of the Chinese empire, but now firmly an ally of the United States.