|
Fangz posted:'Territorial integrity' and 'domestic sovereignty' is China's core value in international affairs. China will *NEVER EVER* act in such a way that it appears that they backed down under US pressure. If they do it for Chen, then they lose all Fixed that for you. The Chinese government cares a drat sight less about international opinion than it does about the Party's domestic image. The jingoistic nationalism which is pumped out through the media and fostered in schools and Universities is a double edged sword. China's economic strength and international standing are pretty much the only two issues that people have been taught to judge the government on. Nothing is going to happen with this until Clinton et. al. have left China. The central government will probably send Chen to a "University town" out West like Lanzhou and give the Shandong government a thorough bollocking for letting this get out of hand. That or he will disappear (although blind people aren't so good at sowing footballs). Fangz posted:To make any concrete measures take place, the Chinese must be allowed to develop a narrative that they *chose* this. The stronger the public pressure foreign powers put on them, the more the Chinese will shift to the defensive position of 'gently caress off, none of your business', and CGC will never get a positive resolution. If the CCP can weather the media cycle for another few days then they will be "in the clear" to act (either send Chen to University or stuff his body into a bin bag). As long as the cameras are rolling though, the government is not going to act in a conciliatory manner. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 4, 2012 |
#
?
May 4, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
Chen is too high profile to murder. They'll probably just brick up his family home and have government stooges watch over him like an eternal flame memorial. You know..the usual PRC reaction to these issues.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:
No, it's not. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jingo
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:No, it's not. Just caught that - I am going to check this one though because I swear to goodness that I saw this in a grown up academic book somewhere. [edit] Sorry - I got "gung ho" confused with jingoism. The former is most certainly a loan. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:Since I don't believe in states acting of humanitarian reasons I think Chen has little strategic value as a propaganda tool for the U.S. That's probably why Obama hasn't arranged asylum for him yet. Plus this creates a bad precedent for U.S. policy. There's a lot of people on the long U.S. poo poo list. Imagine if a Madoff type character with his billions was given asylum in China down the road. It's best not to open that can of worms over a blind Chinese hippie. Ahahaha you really think that would matter in fact I hope the Bernie Madoffs of the world do something like this. I can see it now 1% supporting totalitarian China tax the gently caress out of them.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Problem solved: http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-activist-apply-study-abroad-061440352.html Hopefully that's the end of this. Unfortunately, while this resolution works for Chen personally, it doesn't seem like the Chinese government will change its ways anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:Problem solved: http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-activist-apply-study-abroad-061440352.html I'm surprised China doesn't do this more often. They would be offloading political liabilities overseas where these people would be marginalized by foreign media. The mainstream U.S. press pays attention only because China kicks up a big controversy over it with their actions.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm surprised China doesn't do this more often. They would be offloading political liabilities overseas where these people would be marginalized by foreign media. The mainstream U.S. press pays attention only because China kicks up a big controversy over it with their actions. You're amusing that the Chinese government is as a collective whole competent or rational. If they were I would rightfully accuse them a being the space aliens they so obviously would be. Seriously it makes so much sense if you think about it from their perspective but it'll never get done for a multitude of reasons that can be summed us as humans are stupid sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:Fixed that for you. The Chinese government cares a drat sight less about international opinion than it does about the Party's domestic image. The jingoistic nationalism which is pumped out through the media and fostered in schools and Universities is a double edged sword. China's economic strength and international standing are pretty much the only two issues that people have been taught to judge the government on. I think you underestimate the international factor. American influence these days is to most of the world a giant shitstain that corrupts everything it touches. It's vital to the Chinese strategic interest that it presents itself as not-America. If however China shows itself to be vulnerable to economic strings being pulled even in its own house, it'll lose its distinctiveness and be labelled just another American stooge, undoing two decades of work done to build critical relationships in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm surprised China doesn't do this more often. They would be offloading political liabilities overseas where these people would be marginalized by foreign media. The mainstream U.S. press pays attention only because China kicks up a big controversy over it with their actions. If China deported everyone who ever acted in a protest against the government and will probably do it again, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people in China. TONS of people regularly protest conditions or corruption or policies. Whole towns do it. You would have to decide who's high-level and who's not.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:If China deported everyone who ever acted in a protest against the government and will probably do it again, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people in China. TONS of people regularly protest conditions or corruption or policies. Whole towns do it. You would have to decide who's high-level and who's not. The problem is there aren't many countries out there that would want the type of people China would want to deport anyways. Activists always shed crocodile tears over Uighurs and such but do people really want potential islamic fundamentalists living in their country? Same goes for Falun Gong cultists or large impoverished populations of Tibetans. I'm sure China would be thrilled to offload them to the U.S. But realistically they can't. That leaves a few high profile guys really. It would be an interesting scenario if China tried to engineer a demographic time bomb by just opening up the borders to India and allowed Tibetans a one way trip. I imagine you'd end up with a situation like Castro's Cuba. A lot of prisons would "mysteriously" empty over night sending actual criminals out of the country too. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:It would be an interesting scenario if China tried to engineer a demographic time bomb by just opening up the borders to India and allowed Tibetans a one way trip. I imagine you'd end up with a situation like Castro's Cuba. A lot of prisons would "mysteriously" empty over night. It'd also potentially start a nuclear war in a few years once the now-Indian Tibetans organized enough to start an insurgency operating from Indian soil, which they'd assuredly do. You know, kinda like the other cold war between two nuclear powers in the area. But yeah, things have changed since the Russians simply put Solzhenitsyn on a plane once they got tired of him. Nowadays, you apparently need an excuse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:If China deported everyone who ever acted in a protest against the government and will probably do it again, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people in China. TONS of people regularly protest conditions or corruption or policies. Whole towns do it. You would have to decide who's high-level and who's not. Oddly enough, the Chinese legal system is actually set up in a way that actually incentivises mass demonstrations as a means of getting the outcome you want in court.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I'm surprised China doesn't do this more often. They would be offloading political liabilities overseas where these people would be marginalized by foreign media. The mainstream U.S. press pays attention only because China kicks up a big controversy over it with their actions.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Readman posted:Oddly enough, the Chinese legal system is actually set up in a way that actually incentivises mass demonstrations as a means of getting the outcome you want in court. Okay, this, I want to understand. Lay it on me, brother. How's it work? I'm familiar with one version of the Chinese court system from reading Judge Dee, but I rather think that's a tad out of date.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Okay, this, I want to understand. Lay it on me, brother. How's it work? I'm familiar with one version of the Chinese court system from reading Judge Dee, but I rather think that's a tad out of date. The joke is that it doesn't work, and you're hosed unless you take to the streets.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 11:15
|
|
|
Typo posted:Also, lots of oversea dissidents isn't what you want either sometimes...remember in and before the 1911 revolution overseas Chinese had a habit of donating fund to anti-government groups. The majority of the "modern" era dissidents are the disenfranchised non-Han minority in most cases. There are exceptions like Chen but the ones making the most noise are usually still ethnic minorities. Overseas Chinese back in the early 19th century were the fairly well off mercantile class of southern Chinese who were exiled for mostly economic reasons. There was a direct Han connection to the mainland so it was easy to foment revolution. On the other hand the non ethnic Han minorities might be able to stir up movements within their own community in the mainland but it's a drop in the proverbial ocean of people in China without Han support. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 11:41 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The joke is that it doesn't work, and you're hosed unless you take to the streets. Here we go, Lecture III
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Okay, this, I want to understand. Lay it on me, brother. How's it work? I'm familiar with one version of the Chinese court system from reading Judge Dee, but I rather think that's a tad out of date. Briefly, sort of two related reasons: Firstly, desire to maintain 'harmonious' social relations. Mass incidents are seen as a failing of the local courts and local government. If you are able to get people together to demonstrate, you have the potential to embarrass the local authorities (who largely fund the local courts and decide which judges get promoted). Secondly, and relatedly, over the last decade or so, there are increasingly strong incentives for judges to mediate cases ('voluntarily') rather than allow litigation. By this I mean, the Supreme People's Court holds up as model judges those who limit litigation, and also provides for financial incentives for judges who keep the number of cases litigated to a minimum (I can dig the levels of compensation if you want). The emphasis on mediation and alternative dispute resolution is particularly true at the village level. So if you're increasingly deciding cases on an informal, mediation basis rather than a rules-based litigious basis, you're putting more power in the hands of the local judiciary. Going back to point 1, they don't want their benefactors to suffer political embarrassment, so you'll often see that they'll force mediation, with the intent of buying off or hushing up plaintiffs who have the potential to cause mass incidents (whether or not their claims are meritorious).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
Adar posted:It'd also potentially start a nuclear war in a few years once the now-Indian Tibetans organized enough to start an insurgency operating from Indian soil, which they'd assuredly do. You know, kinda like the other cold war between two nuclear powers in the area.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:That's assuming that an impoverished minority group within a large hindu/muslim population could gain enough socioeconomic traction and resources to carry on such a campaign. It's highly doubtful. You remember those pics that were circulating around '08 that were purported to be Chinese paramilitaries beating on protesting Tibetans? Yeah, those were actually Indian LEO's putting down Tibetan protests. No way Indians would tolerate that sort of activity within their borders either. Tibetans pretty much have no options. Those were Nepalese officers actually, but you're right, India would not allow a minority population to drag it into a confrontation with China.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:That's assuming that an impoverished minority group within a large hindu/muslim population could gain enough socioeconomic traction and resources to carry on such a campaign. It's highly doubtful. You remember those pics that were circulating around '08 that were purported to be Chinese paramilitaries beating on protesting Tibetans? Yeah, those were actually Indian LEO's putting down Tibetan protests. No way Indians would tolerate that sort of activity within their borders either. Tibetans pretty much have no options. Nepalese, and it has to do with Nepal's deteriorating relationship with the West and its increasing relationship with China, post-Maoist revolution. The Nepalese kingship had a very pro-Tibetan stance. Not in military action, but they made special allowances, particularly in the 1960's, for Tibetans fleeing Tibet, to either stay there or to go on to India. When the king was deposed and the Maoists, who are anti-religious in a pretty devoutly religious Hindu/Buddhist country, came to power, China essentially said, "Don't let Tibetans flee into your country, and if they get there, hand them back to us." And Nepal said, "OK." Or, this was how it was explained to me in Nepal last month.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is the American media's reporting of the Chen Guangcheng affair hopelessly stupid? Most outlets seem to be treating it as if Chen requested asylum and was denied and thrown under a bus, when State tells a very different story and Chen doesn't seem to be able to keep his story straight. There was only that one quote from the State Dept. guy who seems to understand something about the situation saying something like "we have a fragile deal with the state police and Chen is threatening it with his weird comments" but I don't hear the media even attempt to deal with analysis of that or any kind. They also are quite focused on how this reflects on OBAMA but what can you expect in an election year. There is zero interest it seems in the motives and interests of and constraints on the relevant parties or any attempt to analyze what might happen next. They just seem to have a canned narrative, fake outrage from Americans who won't recognize Chen's name next week, and no real understanding of the situation. I guess it doesn't help that the American government's treatment of the situation is almost willfully stupid, like trying to pass a Congressional resolution to give the guy asylum when, again, he hasn't requested it. The only thing keeping this guy from disappearing is U.S. diplomatic pressure and the fear of public embarrassment, and backroom deals to save face like the "study abroad" deal currently being floated is the only way Chen is getting anything positive out of this situation. I really feel for the State Department here sort of being the only adult in the room on this issue. But the media sure isn't helping. edit: the WaPo articles were good. I guess I should say television news, since those are the outlets I have specifically seen being offensively dumb. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 11:21 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:Nepalese, and it has to do with Nepal's deteriorating relationship with the West and its increasing relationship with China, post-Maoist revolution. The Nepalese kingship had a very pro-Tibetan stance. Not in military action, but they made special allowances, particularly in the 1960's, for Tibetans fleeing Tibet, to either stay there or to go on to India. When the king was deposed and the Maoists, who are anti-religious in a pretty devoutly religious Hindu/Buddhist country, came to power, China essentially said, "Don't let Tibetans flee into your country, and if they get there, hand them back to us." And Nepal said, "OK." This is pretty much right, although allowing Chushi Gangdruk to operate out of Lo-Monthang for a few decades is pretty relevant to this discussion. Obviously Nepalese politics have changed and the Chinese grip on Tibet has gotten a lot stronger than it was back in the 1960's, though, so chances for a Tibetan insurgency from Nepal are at pretty much 0% now. Oh, IIRC India has/used to have a few units of ethnically Tibetan troops that were pretty obviously kept trained and armed with the idea that they would go behind Chinese lines in the case of another sino-indian fight and work with Tibetans there to mess with China, although I'm not sure if these even exist anymore. edit: Also, as for Nepal actually returning escaped Tibetans, cases of refoulement are actually still pretty rare, although coordination between Chinese border police and Nepalese police has made it a lot harder for Tibetans to leave over the last few years. The number of Tibetans successfully making it out every year has gone from a few thousand to a few hundred, despite general unhappiness with Chinese rule being as high as it's ever been among Tibetans. Electro-Boogie Jack fucked around with this message at 19:04 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
China Expels Al Jazeera Channel Very sad to hear China has basically banned English language reporters for Al Jazeera. AJ had some really good documentaries and news programs covering China that is rarely covered by mainstream English language media, especially regarding the poorer segments of Chinese society.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
In another piece of just weird news, apparently "we all know that the Philippines were historically a part of Chinese territory..." http://tv.sohu.com/20120508/n342659555.shtml This is an odd turn to take with the water rights arguments that have been taking place recently. I feel like the Chinese won't react too negatively to this, but the Philippines are not going to be happy (if it ever gets to them).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
That reasoning has been used previously with any sort of conflict in the region. The Chinese generally claim that every nation around them was part of their territory historically, and as such, has to bow to them in disputes or rejoin the Han empire.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Curved posted:In another piece of just weird news, apparently "we all know that the Philippines were historically a part of Chinese territory..." Watch out on the above site btw, work security has flagged it as risky (and apparently blocked a nasty element). Think it might be harder for personal systems. Have this problem fairly often on Chinese sites >_<
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:That reasoning has been used previously with any sort of conflict in the region. The Chinese generally claim that every nation around them was part of their territory historically, and as such, has to bow to them in disputes or rejoin the Han empire. I love that argument. Might as well say a quarter of the world should belong to Mongolia.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:I love that argument. Might as well say a quarter of the world should belong to Mongolia. When's the Timurids going to get theirs?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:I love that argument. Might as well say a quarter of the world should belong to Mongolia. Yeah, apparently Chinese people don't find the "China is and always has been an inseparable part of the Mongolian Empire" argument very funny. You could always spice it up by claiming that Chinese people firmly support Ulaan Baatar and reject the splittist local government in Beijing, but it still might not fly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Every 2 bit hack that gets on TV in America also automatically becomes an official representative of all official positions of the US State department.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Curved posted:In another piece of just weird news, apparently "we all know that the Philippines were historically a part of Chinese territory..." This is, by the way, possibly the best thread in the forum. It's really fantastic. Too bad Thailand has near-zero geopolitcal significance. I have to settle for making GBS threads up the China thread with tangential commentary once in a while. Talk about the four-nation ring road, damming of the Mekong or the train projects throughout SE Asia being financed by China and I'm here! Heh. EDIT: Response from my Pinoy friend... quote:No!!! I will strangle the first Chinese I run into anywhere today. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 04:09 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Hahah, I'm going to forward this to my Pinoy friends for comment and see what comes back. At least the Mormons wait for you to die to baptize you. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but aren't overseas Chinese pretty prominent in Thai politics? I remember reading that something like fifteen (!) former Thai PMs are actually Thai-Chinese. There's an angle right there！
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
menino posted:Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but aren't overseas Chinese pretty prominent in Thai politics? I remember reading that something like fifteen (!) former Thai PMs are actually Thai-Chinese. There's an angle right there！ Everyone in East Asia is related to everyone else. But try telling the Japanese that they're more-or-less descendents of Koreans.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
They are indeed! Still, they're usually not germane here, sadly  The Thai-Chinese (largely from some place they pronounce as Dtachieu?) pretty much run the country on a day to day basis, barring the occasional Thai-dominated military overreach. They're also incredibly wealthy by international standards. There's a decent book - not great, but decent - called Asian Godfathers that features the richest/most powerful men from SE Asia (at that time) including HK and two of the guys in it are Thai. I hear a couple of Thai companies (all large Thai companies are run by Thai-Chinese), including CP, actually have a significant foothold in China - but this comes from Thai people, who are lovely, but about as jingoistic as we Americans. EDIT: On a humorous note, I asked a Singaporean friend who lives in Thailand once why the wealthy Thai-Chinese are a bit (this is a stereotype, but it's not entirely inaccurate) inattentive to the existence of anyone not driving a Mercedes and he said, "Oh, they call come from Dtachieu (?). Chinese people from that region are well-known arrogant cunts." ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 04:18 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Every 2 bit hack that gets on TV in America also automatically becomes an official representative of all official positions of the US State department. CCTV is subordinate to the Chinese government. It is well known CCTV is the mouthpiece of the party-government. That is not the case with the US.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:CCTV is subordinate to the Chinese government. It is well known CCTV is the mouthpiece of the party-government. Pro-tip: Just because something is run by the Chinese government doesn't make them competent or good at what they do.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
I remembered when I tutored some Korean professors in English (very smart guys, but their English needed some help), they would tell me about the Chinese claiming basically anyone who was of value and near the current Chinese border as being Chinese like Genghis Khan sometimes. I took this with a grain of salt because people sometimes get a bit defensive of their country's history but I could see it happening.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
LP97S posted:I remembered when I tutored some Korean professors in English (very smart guys, but their English needed some help), they would tell me about the Chinese claiming basically anyone who was of value and near the current Chinese border as being Chinese like Genghis Khan sometimes. I took this with a grain of salt because people sometimes get a bit defensive of their country's history but I could see it happening. Weren't Koreans the ones claiming that Sun Yat Sen was Korean?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:05
|
|