what happens to Burma and Sudan is not China's business!

[badguy2000]

there are some riots in Burma now.

But strangely lots of west medias and government think China should interfere in and give lots of pressure on Chinese government.

the same thing happens to Sudan.


I don't know why China should be responsible to Sudan and Burma?

Sudan and Burma is not China's provinces. it is not our business.

commercial business?it is ok!
diplomatical interferation? NO!

[ronnieraygun]

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=295960

[signatory]

there are some riots in Burma now.

But strangely lots of west medias and government think China should interfere in and give lots of pressure on Chinese government.

the same thing happens to Sudan.


I don't know why China should be responsible to Sudan and Burma?

Sudan and Burma is not China's provinces. it is not our business.

commercial business?it is ok!
diplomatical interferation? NO!

China is trying to play the global capitalist game.

And that my friend is a double-edged sword.

If China trade with Burma then perhaps people in other countries don't want to trade with China... decide what is most important, to support a brutal dictatorship or to look good on the global market.

[sp2c]

people wouldnt be so upset if China didn't Veto every chance for a possible solution they got

and yes I know what you're going to say ... "but so does the US regarding Israel1+!!1!!"
that is why the US is actively involved in Israeli politics and that's what people are asking from China.

[badguy2000]

people wouldnt be so upset if China didn't Veto every chance for a possible solution they got

and yes I know what you're going to say ... "but so does the US regarding Israel1+!!1!!"
that is why the US is actively involved in Israeli politics and that's what people are asking from China.
Maybe China should quit UN just as USA quit League of Nations.

Except Taiwan ,Korea and Sprately Islands,China should avoid being involved into the affairs in other regions.

what happens to non-eastAsian affairs is not China's business!

[sp2c]

Maybe China should quit UN just as USA quit League of Nations.

Except Taiwan ,Korea and Sprately Islands,China should be isolated from the affairs in other regions.

what the hell would that solve??

[signatory]

Maybe China should quit UN just as USA quit League of Nations.

Except Taiwan ,Korea and Sprately Islands,China should avoid being involved into the affairs in other regions.

what happens to non-eastAsian affairs is not China's business!

So don't do business with them.

[badguy2000]

what the hell would that solve??
I really appreciate the "isolatism" Washington advocated.

USA could grow up to the global most powerful economy in 1894 ,mainly because USA was isolated from the non-America affairs.

Now,China is developing very rapidly,but there are still many domestic problems in China, including pollutions, wealth disparity.
So,China should focus on its domestic problems.

The unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs just wastes the resource and energy of Chinese people.
Now. Isolatism is necessary to China.

[badguy2000]

in fact, " isolatism" lies in Chinese traditional mind.

Before 1840,China kept supremacy in east Asia for thousands of years. but even when Chinese empire was on the summit of its power, Chinese ancient scholars,including Confucius, usually opposed any military adventure out of its boundary.

[sp2c]

it won't work, China consumes more oil then it produces

[signatory]

China should learn from the mistakes done by the west.

Not repeat them.

[Flamming_Python]

China probably doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks. It is doing what is in it's best interests like any powerful country, and if anyone decides to slap sanctions or reduce trade as a result, it would be their loss, not China's.


there are some riots in Burma now.

But strangely lots of west medias and government think China should interfere in and give lots of pressure on Chinese government.

the same thing happens to Sudan.


I don't know why China should be responsible to Sudan and Burma?

Sudan and Burma is not China's provinces. it is not our business.

commercial business?it is ok!
diplomatical interferation? NO!

Irrelevent. World politics doesn't work by the principle of "this is right, that is wrong", it's more like "what are going to do about it and with what army?"

[badguy2000]

it won't work, China consumes more oil then it produces
non-involvement here means non-military/political-invovlement.

economical ties with other regions is inevtitable and necessary.

when isolatism was popular in USA in 19th century., USA still kepy widely economical ties with Europe and Asia.

[Tokamak]

I just hate when coutries like China, USA or any other nation use its veto on the SC to avoid any resolution agains a country that is doing things wrong!!! like Burma.

[deadtired]

non-involvement here means non-military/political-invovlement.

economical ties with other regions is inevtitable and necessary.




And what happens when political/military issues in those other countries start to impact those economic relationships? For instance, if a war or rebellion or whatever were to cut off access to oil or some other economic necessity?

[IraGlacialis]

Maybe China should quit UN just as USA quit League of Nations.

Except Taiwan ,Korea and Sprately Islands,China should avoid being involved into the affairs in other regions.

what happens to non-eastAsian affairs is not China's business!
The US was never in the League of Nations in the first place.

Why should China stay involed with those nations as well?

As for the non East Asian affairs, that means that China would have to give up Xianging and Tibet as they are not considered East Asian. Since China won't, the point becomes moot about interfering in non east Asian affair. Besides, Burma borders China.

[badguy2000]

And what happens when political/military issues in those other countries start to impact those economic relationships? For instance, if a war or rebellion or whatever were to cut off access to oil or some other economic necessity?
well, since USA and western countries like "keeping world peace" as they were " world police", just let USA and western countries do what "world police" should do.

anyhow, it is not China's duty to be "world police"!

[badguy2000]

The US was never in the League of Nations in the first place.

Why should China stay involed with those nations as well?

As for the non East Asian affairs, that means that China would have to give up Xianging and Tibet as they are not considered East Asian. Since China won't, the point becomes moot about interfering in non east Asian affair. Besides, Burma borders China.
as a whole, China is a east-asian countries. of course Xinjiang and tibet also belong to East asia

[badguy2000]

And what happens when political/military issues in those other countries start to impact those economic relationships? For instance, if a war or rebellion or whatever were to cut off access to oil or some other economic necessity?
the world needs a police to keep the order.

But now it is USA"s duty to keep the order,just as it was UK's duty to keep the global order in 19th century.

China had better take pick-up of USA.

[deagle]

well, it would make sense for China to step in as an intermediary for world political prestige points. (peacekeeping etc..), similar to US involvement in europe or africa or elswhere. its borderline meddling and intervening, flexing might.

[badguy2000]

well, it would make sense for China to step in as an intermediary for world political prestige points. (peacekeeping etc..), similar to US involvement in europe or africa or elswhere. its borderline meddling and intervening, flexing might.
hi,man,

people live on bread ,instead of "political prestige points" so called.

China is still a developing country and should concentrate its energy on providing "bread" to its people,instead of " "political prestige points" so called.



If USA and western countries think they have enough bread already,they can look after " "political prestige points"" by themselves.

Just don't have China burden what China can't burden ,because" "political prestige points"" is too luxery to China today.

[deadtired]

well, since USA and western countries like "keeping world peace" as they were " world police", just let USA and western countries do what "world police" should do.

anyhow, it is not China's duty to be "world police"!


Why in hell would the US concern itself with protecting Chinese trade in a war zone? Such a thing would be China's problem far more than the US's.

[badguy2000]

Why in hell would the US concern itself with protecting Chinese trade in a war zone? Such a thing would be China's problem far more than the US's.
the higher position, the more responsibility!

protecting the international trade in a war zone is the responsibility of a "world police".

whoever wants to be "world police" must burden the responsiblity.

If USA abandoned the responsbility,it should also abandon its role of "world police".
Today,China doesn't want to be "world police" like USA,so China of course can take the pick-up of USA.

[Noble713]

You seem to be ignoring the underlying reasons for our position as "world police". We police the world because a quiet, peaceful world, imposed on our terms, is good for business and therefore our huge and insatiable economy. China also has a huge an insatiable economy, and if you expect it to stay that way and continue to grow, you are going to have to use coercion of some sort (diplomatic, sometimes military) to get what you want...which boils down to policing the world.

[badguy2000]

You seem to be ignoring the underlying reasons for our position as "world police". We police the world because a quiet, peaceful world, imposed on our terms, is good for business and therefore our huge and insatiable economy. China also has a huge an insatiable economy, and if you expect it to stay that way and continue to grow, you are going to have to use coercion of some sort (diplomatic, sometimes military) to get what you want...which boils down to policing the world.
well, USA in 19th century did take the pick-up of UK and succeeded in emerging as a top economy in the world without ""

[badguy2000]

You seem to be ignoring the underlying reasons for our position as "world police". We police the world because a quiet, peaceful world, imposed on our terms, is good for business and therefore our huge and insatiable economy. China also has a huge an insatiable economy, and if you expect it to stay that way and continue to grow, you are going to have to use coercion of some sort (diplomatic, sometimes military) to get what you want...which boils down to policing the world.
well, USA in 19th century did take the pick-up of UK and succeeded in emerging as a top economy in the world without "have to use coercion of some sort (diplomatic, sometimes military) to get what you want...which boils down to policing the world."

[I can't think of a name]

The powers that be in Burma serve China and China in turn protects them from foreign pressure.

So in the end, Tyrants stick together and keep each other in power. Just like the DPRK and Zim's relationships with China.

[Noble713]

well, USA in 19th century did take the pick-up of UK and succeeded in emerging as a top economy in the world without "have to use coercion of some sort (diplomatic, sometimes military) to get what you want...which boils down to policing the world."

American Civil War + Indian Wars + Spanish-American War

All essential to creating a modern continent-spanning economy with global influence. Wanna try again?

[badguy2000]

American Civil War + Indian Wars + Spanish-American War

All essential to creating a modern continent-spanning economy with global influence. Wanna try again?
well ,USA became global top economy in 1894 but spanish-USA war happened on 1900.

civil war is civil war. it has nothing to do with foreign countries. as for Indian war,it is not a war ,but a slaughter!

[Kilgor]

You can bet if it was in china's interest they would be sticking their nose into Burma's affairs, but the status quo suits them so this nice little euphemism plays out.

[Noble713]

civil war is civil war. it has nothing to do with foreign countries.

My point being that the restructuring of the economic makeup of our nation post Civil War played a vital part in our expansion.


as for Indian war,it is not a war ,but a slaughter!

Same thing. :)

On another note, the economies of the 1800's cannot adequately be compared to the economies of today due to the resources needed for them to function. The US was endowed with continent-spanning territory that provided virtually all of the resources it needed (primarily iron and coal). While China has an equally-large land area, much of the materials it needs for develop in this age cannot be found in sufficient quantities (copper, oil), increasing the necessity for acquisition from foreign sources, which brings us back to square one: you are going to have to stick your nose in someone else's business.

[deadtired]

the higher position, the more responsibility!

protecting the international trade in a war zone is the responsibility of a "world police".

whoever wants to be "world police" must burden the responsiblity.

If USA abandoned the responsbility,it should also abandon its role of "world police".
Today,China doesn't want to be "world police" like USA,so China of course can take the pick-up of USA.


Somehow I don't think you're quite getting this "world police" thing. The US protects it own interests, and it's own trade. Occasionally we embark on some feelgood humanitarian BS mission, but that's not really what US foreign policy is about. It's about protecting US access to goodies from overseas. Thats it. There is not, nor will there ever be, a responsibility for the US to protect Chinese trade with anybody. There is no benefit (for the US) in doing so. So if suddenly Chinese trade with Sudan (or some other African country in which the US has no interest) is threatened or cut off, it would be China's problem.

[Ordie]

When one country has disapproved another country's behavior, politcal leaders seek ways to communicate displeasure short of war.

Sanctions allows countries to punish another government without resorting to war. When sanctions are added to the mix, military action as in the case with Burma, will more likely to occur.

This is because countries that prefer sanctions do so on the premise of not costing themselves politically. Burma intrepets the act of sanction as lack of resolve. If the rest of the world didn't care about Burma's totalitatian government for the last 50 years, why should they care today?

The Burmese Military Government will not listen or don't care. The only exception is China. The Military Government is dependent on China's military arms and cross border trade through Yunnan Provence. Whithout which the Generals don't have access the fill thier pockets.

China is dependant of US trade and cash.

For any change in Burma to happen, it happens through Beijing and Kunmming.

This is why people place pressure on the PRC especially on the eve of the Olympics.

Unfortunately, since Abu Ghraib, the US is not in the position to lecture on Human Rights. Our credibility is lacking to apply soft power and hold the high moral ground.

[plato]

Not China's business? I don't think so. China only used her veto power five time at the UN. Yes, the last veto was used on Myanmar or Burma. So, don't tell us Burma is NOT China's business, you should go tell the Chinese government that.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I really appreciate the "isolatism" Washington advocated.

USA could grow up to the global most powerful economy in 1894 ,mainly because USA was isolated from the non-America affairs.

Now,China is developing very rapidly,but there are still many domestic problems in China, including pollutions, wealth disparity.
So,China should focus on its domestic problems.

The unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs just wastes the resource and energy of Chinese people.
Now. Isolatism is necessary to China.

The US only became (arguably) the world's most powerful nation after ending her isolationism.

IMHO China should not be allowed to escape the consequences of her actions. You can't arm somebody you know is unstable, then not be responsible for the resulting bedlam. At some point China will also have to militarily stabilize areas that it depends upon for resources. To to otherwise would be counter-productive. But just like the West, those areas of the world that don't have something to offer will be the last to be helped out. Lastly- since China's rise is largely dependent upon foreign markets, those foreign markets are empowered to exert pressure on China to take on a roll commensurate with their status. The world is a competitive place, and Western governments are not going to sit around doing all the hard work of creating stability while China gets a free ride. It's a balancing act for everybody.

[I can't think of a name]

Unfortunately, since Abu Ghraib, the US is not in the position to lecture on Human Rights. Our credibility is lacking to apply soft power and hold the high moral ground.

How does that equate to the abuses of China and Burma? It was not state sanctioned and it did not result in any dead.

That can only be an issue if you (We as a people) let it happen. Burma and China take things to another level with their own citizens for demonstrating. Not putting panties on the heads of terrorists.

[Ordie]

How does that equate to the abuses of China and Burma? It was not state sanctioned and it did not result in any dead.

That can only be an issue if you (We as a people) let it happen. Burma and China take things to another level with their own citizens for demonstrating. Not putting panties on the heads of terrorists.

Because any US actions on the premise of human rights is negated by the images of Abu Ghraib.

Burmese Generals would argue, "Why is the US teaching us about human rights, if they are equally guilty of abusing human rights in Iraq?". Then they will bring up the images.

The whole Iraq war set up behind 10 years of diplomatic credibility. As soon as the US sanctions were hit on the generals, they reacted harshly on the priest because they know we will do nothing militarily or diplomatically.

[hauptman]

Burma is the same to China as the Kosovo is or was to Europe ...

[Ordie]

Burma is the same to China as the Kosovo is or was to Europe ...

Big difference.

Burma is internationally recognized nation state and member of the United Nations.

Kosovo is not.

However, one could argue that Burma is a client state of China given the level of economic military aid dependency.

Very much in the same way the ROC on Taiwan is a client state of the US.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Because any US actions on the premise of human rights is negated by the images of Abu Ghraib.

Burmese Generals would argue, "Why is the US teaching us about human rights, if they are equally guilty of abusing human rights in Iraq?". Then they will bring up the images.

The whole Iraq war set up behind 10 years of diplomatic credibility. As soon as the US sanctions were hit on the generals, they reacted harshly on the priest because they know we will do nothing militarily or diplomatically.

We prosecuted and jailed those responsible for breaking the rules. But to me, that entire line of thinking is just a bunch of hooey. Anybody launching that argument would have dismissed the US's alleged moral high ground with or without the Iraq war. China has been saying exactly that for the last 40 years, every time we beat them up over human rights. We ourselves (i.e. the West) are the only ones who give a sh*t about such treatment, as it's an everyday occurrence in most of the world. The Allies used far worse methods than Abu Ghraib or Gitmo during WWII, and we somehow managed to maintain the moral high ground. Hell, we friggin' nuked two cities in Asia.

[blue_eagle]

We prosecuted and jailed those responsible for breaking the rules.

Only lower-ranked soldiers...

[Bitogno]

China is putting his nose in Burma affairs because China has listening bases in Burma. That's all.

[0rphie]

Not China's business? I don't think so. China only used her veto power five time at the UN. Yes, the last veto was used on Myanmar or Burma. So, don't tell us Burma is NOT China's business, you should go tell the Chinese government that.
Since Burma or Myanmar does not posses threat to other countries it is not UNSC business to deal with their internal policies

[0rphie]

Only lower-ranked soldiers...
and even those got slap of the wrists

[Ordie]

Since Burma or Myanmar does not posses threat to other countries it is not UNSC business to deal with their internal policies

One could argue that North Korea's invasion of South Korea in the 1950's was an internal matter.

Yet the UN Security Council passed resolution for North Korea to withdraw to the 38th Parallel, and calling all U.N. members to support the United Nations in achieving this.

During the critical Security Council vote, The Soviet Union, boycotted the meeting on the premise that the PRC was not recognized as a member of the Security Council.

Without the Soviet Union veto, the resolution passed.