Moderator: Community Team
Why would a stronger, more innovative, creative, freer China be a negative outcome?A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world: The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity. With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history. The United States long tried to side with China, from the Stimson Doctrine calling for Chinese territorial integrity to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s support for China against Japan’s aggression and his strategic concept that China would act as one of the four “policemen” that would help govern the post-World War II global order. This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.
All nations have interests that extend beyond their own borders, so naturally they will need to take actions of some sort on the international stage.macbone wrote:Should countries have foreign affairs policies?
Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.Does promoting civil liberties make the world safer or less safe?
Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?
Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China? The reason the US is uncomfortable with a rising China is because they resent the rise of a power that has the capacity to directly compete with them in the global arena, and they resent the presence of a power in the Asia-Pacific which threatens US regional hegemony. Were China to start aping Western models of democracy, none of that would change.A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world... With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history.
Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity.
You have got to be kidding me.This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.
What is wrong with Sweden? Sweden is ranked 11th on the Global Peace Index(UN), while the US is ranked 101st and China 108th.Lord Arioch wrote:China has worked wonders for over 6000 years being a semi fascist/communist/totalitarian state ... the onlu time in recorded history they didnt were during the japanese occupation... and the japaneese are bad they dont know shit about stuff...NOT
US been a country what like ... 350-400 years ... no other country in the world (outside maybee india) got htis kind of history... china will only change if china itself wants to change!
And the world needs diversity... the day every country is like sweden, china or us im going back to my revolutinary ways of my youth! Perspective and diversity is needed... and We of the West should really keep our slimy paws out of chinas internal affairs imean ... come on us meddling in stuff usually dont end good...vietnam, irac, libya, chile ... and so on:)
So Go Mrs!
macbone wrote:You only linked to part of the article. Here it is in full, and more legible to boot: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 41091.html
Should countries have foreign affairs policies?
Does promoting civil liberties make the world safer or less safe?
Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?
Why would a stronger, more innovative, creative, freer China be a negative outcome?A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous strategic rivalry but also change the world: The Chinese people are enterprising and resilient, and more freedom in China would unleash their potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity. With a freer China there is a real possibility for Sino-American comity, especially in light of history. The United States long tried to side with China, from the Stimson Doctrine calling for Chinese territorial integrity to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s support for China against Japan’s aggression and his strategic concept that China would act as one of the four “policemen” that would help govern the post-World War II global order. This history of American support for China has been obscured by the CCP’s hostility.

3-4th? lol. Not even close.Lord Arioch wrote:Bah im getting pretty feed up with Sweden our political system suck, our tax system really suck, our medical system suck...
And yeas we havent been to war for over 200 years ... but het first we sided (unofficially) with the nazis, then we sided (unofficially) with the US vs Soviet ... and the we go about exporting weapons all over ...
i mean a country this size and we are what like the 3rd-4th largest weapon supplier in the world?
But yeah its pretty nice so is germany...and i still think if china works for chinese who are we to argue:)?
This thread is about other countries' governments trying to tell China how to run its own affairs. If you want to talk about the island disputes then you can try this thread ^_^Arama86n wrote:@mrswdk
Well I suppose one reason people are worried about China is the way it is behaving in the South China Sea, trying to Bully a majority of it's neighbours into giving up their tutorial waters to China. Chinese claims on the South China Sea are ludicrous.
hey if it's any consolation... the swedish ambassador in france is the one who managed to convince the nazis not to destroy Paris.Lord Arioch wrote:Bah im getting pretty feed up with Sweden our political system suck, our tax system really suck, our medical system suck...
And yeas we havent been to war for over 200 years ... but het first we sided (unofficially) with the nazis, then we sided (unofficially) with the US vs Soviet ... and the we go about exporting weapons all over ...
i mean a country this size and we are what like the 3rd-4th largest weapon supplier in the world?
But yeah its pretty nice so is germany...and i still think if china works for chinese who are we to argue:)?

If your neighbor beats his wife or starves his children, should you do or say anything about it?mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.
You didn't answer my question. =) Is authoritarianism good or bad for the world? Do you propose that authoritarianism is the best form of government?Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?
Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?
I think the answer here is self-evident, isn't it? See the cooperation between the world's democracies. Compare them to the conflict between the world's authoritarian governments.Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China?
Nonsense. Legislation can either stifle or nurture creativity and innovation. Everything is connected, politically, socially, culturally, economically. To reform China's education system requires a reformation of its political system, unless you're proposing another Cultural Revolution. China has already taken steps to ban "Western ideology" from textbooks. Is this the kind of educational reform you have in mind? (Strangely, no one seems to include socialism or communism within the ill-defined "Western ideology" category, despite Engels and Marx being German.)Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.
Reform is a gradual process, and China's current government is already taking substantive steps to punish official corruption, strengthen the rule of law and tackle institutionalized inequalities that disadvantage society's most vulnerable group, migrant workers (I'm happy to elaborate on all those points if you want). One day, if it is in China's best interests, then China will come to resemble a country like South Korea or Japan. Or maybe, given China's enormous size, such a system will never be in China's best interests. Either way, people from developed countries would do well to consider the lengthy process their own countries went through in order to reach the position they are currently in, and then butt out and let China develop in whichever way that China decides is appropriate for China.macbone wrote:If your neighbor beats his wife or starves his children, should you do or say anything about it?mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.
Must we be morally perfect before we can speak against injustice?
I directly answered your question. Making moves to undermine any regime, authoritarian or otherwise, has generally ended in total disaster for the country that was previously ruled by that regime. I don't think undermining authoritarian regimes leads anywhere positive.You didn't answer my question.Have Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and Afghanistan been made safer and more stable by foreign meddling designed to oust their authoritarian governments?Does undermining authoritarianism make the world safer or less safe?
It's neither good nor bad for the world. It's just another country's system of governance.Is authoritarianism good or bad for the world? Do you propose that authoritarianism is the best form of government?
What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation? Pretty much every single one of those countries on the 'most democratic' list you just posted are members of the EU. The ones that aren't are all Five Eyes members with a long history of close military alliance, based on the fact that they are all ex-British colonies born of the British system. If they have an unusually strong level of cooperation with one another, it has very, very little to do with having similar systems of governance.I think the answer here is self-evident, isn't it? See the cooperation between the world's democracies. Compare them to the conflict between the world's authoritarian governments.Why would having a more democratic China create an easier relationship between the US and China?
[big list]
Which countries are more stable? Which are better neighbors? Is there a correlation between more democratic countries and more stable countries? Do you think China benefits by ranking comparatively closer to Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria?
No it doesn't. What makes you say that?Nonsense. Legislation can either stifle or nurture creativity and innovation. Everything is connected, politically, socially, culturally, economically. To reform China's education system requires a reformation of its political system, unless you're proposing another Cultural Revolution. China has already taken steps to ban "Western ideology" from textbooks. Is this the kind of educational reform you have in mind? (Strangely, no one seems to include socialism or communism within the ill-defined "Western ideology" category, despite Engels and Marx being German.)Political freedom and capacity for innovation and creativity have nothing to do with each other. China's problems in promoting innovation and a creative mindset stem from its education system's persisting tradition of favoring rote learning and fact retention over problem solving and lateral thinking. To build an innovation economy China needs to reform its education system, not its political one.
People here go to school just to study how other countries should run internal affairs. Deal with it.mrswdk wrote:Why do clowns like the authors of this article think it is any of America's business how China manages its internal affairs? And why are people like this so obsessed with the idea that having any other country in the world with power comparable to that of the US is automatically a threat that must be suppressed?
I really don't get what they gain from writing stuff like this. Is it just propaganda designed to make Americans think their system is awesome? A way to justify aggressive foreign policy? Both? Something else?
I didn't make that claim. Note the difference between cause and correlation. Democratic countries have a correlation with stability, freedom of expression, and creativity. Nondemocratic countries have a correlation with repression of creativity and oppression of human rights.mrswdk wrote:What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation?
Re the bolded: I disagree. There is no one system of government, or any specific policy, that is universally better than all others. There are way too many factors at play. How mature are a country's institutions? What is its political culture? What is its history? Who will become leaders under any given system? What geopolitical situation is the country facing? What are the economy's strengths and weaknesses? Being flipped from empire to liberal democracy in a short space of time worked out okay for Japan but was a disaster for Russia. Installing an open and liberal economic system was beneficial for 19th century England and the Netherlands but destroyed 19th century China. There is no one-size-fits-all model for everyone to follow.macbone wrote:Mrswdk, I believe that we can demonstrably prove the superiority of one system of government over others. Aristotle, for instance, argued that a dictatorship ruled by an enlightened philospher-king was the highest form of government. The purpose of logic is to examine the arguments on both sides of an issue and come to a conclusion based on what has been explored. I believe that we can honestly examine this issue if we put aside preconceived notions, but doing so is very hard to do (and may not be in our interests at times, such as if I were monetarily incentivized to support my own government's policies).
Why did you even mention it then?macbone wrote:I didn't make that claim. Note the difference between cause and correlation. Democratic countries have a correlation with stability, freedom of expression, and creativity. Nondemocratic countries have a correlation with repression of creativity and oppression of human rights.mrswdk wrote:What makes you think 'levels of cooperation' and 'levels of democracy' have a causal relation?