NationStates Jolt Archive

You'll probably have heard of the recent trip of the Chinese big man around Africa, signing trade deals and stuff.

One of those deals was with Sudan. So the US and most of the Western World had a bit of hope that maybe the Chinese would mention Darfur.

Of course they didn't. Very much like the old Chinese empires they operate from the notion that they don't really give much of a shit about the rest of the world, as long as they get the resources they need through trade. They don't interfere in other countries' internal affairs beyond that.

My question is: Is that a good thing?

Now, I know that there are plenty of things wrong with the American approach of getting involved everywhere and with everyone. But then, there are cases in which you do want to get involved (various genocides come to mind), and realistically the only entity to take an initiator and leadership role is a superpower of some sort.

Would you prefer a superpower act as a policeman of sorts, or rather just have them keep to themselves?

Or might it be better to have lots of regional powers which try and take care of their immediate neighbourhood?

I think a nation needs to be careful at what they get involved in with other nations. With that said if a problem goes unchecked on the other side of the world. The potential of having to deal with a much bigger problem later when it comes to your doorstep. WWII is a good example of this.

I'd prefer superpowers that get involved in world events through international organizations, and those international organizations can work alongside regional ones to work out disputes.

Simply put, nations are responsible for the behavior of the nations they trade with. Ethical responsibility does not stop at the border, and whenever a trading partner does things that violate international law and convention their partners should work to resolve that violation through whatever means necessary, even up to cessation of trade Anything less than that effectively is a blank check for resource-rich nations to repress and exploit their people in total violation of the values and laws that have been formed by the international community.

IMO, China's involvement in the Sudan is equally as bad or slightly worse as the US or any nation's involvement in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any of the other Middle-Eastern dictatorships. Ethical responsibility always comes before economics.

China is not just 'keeping to itself'. In essence, in its scramble for resources it's deliberately seeking out the most unsavoury regimes on the planet that the West refuses to deal with and nabbing all their resources for themselves. The oil money Sudan gets from China does go on bombs for Darfur, and China has gone to great lengths to prevent the Security Council from taking any action. So yeah, I'd go for the policeman. Sure it's a crooked policeman, but at least it isn't an out and out mob boss.

I think that a superpower, along with any other nation involved, whether it be by immigration, trade, or some other policy, should get involved with international affairs if these affairs are breaking international law. I mean genocide is a very big deal, people just don't think about it because it isn't happening to us. But people are being killed every day and they don't deserve that at all. Everyone deserves the freakin right to live. Therefore I do think that nations should get involved to fix the problem. I don't condone what china is doing but I can understand where they are coming from. They want money and resources, as do we all. Besides, sometimes a police force is necessary in getting a problem solved even if we don't seem to be doing well at that "job." Sometimes a police force can calm people. As has been said, a corrupt police force is still a police force that will help in some way or another and is better off had than not had at all in most cases. But on that note, I also believe we should take care of our own problems before using so much on others, as selfish as that sounds. There are poor people out in the streets in America and we are still sending a lot of money overseas. My AP gov teacher brought this up to me.

Sorry for the lengthy thought. But to sum it all up, I believe a police force is necessary, if at last to help lead by example and rally other nations to help deal with the problem. Genocide is a really important issue and should not be taken lightly, it's happening in other places than darfur such as uganda and other places in southern africa. If anyone would like to retort my response I would love to hear your own thoughts on this.

You'll probably have heard of the recent trip of the Chinese big man around Africa, signing trade deals and stuff.

One of those deals was with Sudan. So the US and most of the Western World had a bit of hope that maybe the Chinese would mention Darfur.

Of course they didn't. Very much like the old Chinese empires they operate from the notion that they don't really give much of a shit about the rest of the world, as long as they get the resources they need through trade. They don't interfere in other countries' internal affairs beyond that.

Err... how is invading and annexing an independent country (http://www.tibet.com/) somnehow not interfering in it's internal affairs?

And the list doesn't stop there - Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Peru, and Taiwan (The polite fiction that Taiwan is not an independent nation is exactly that - a polite fiction.)

My question is: Is that a good thing?

Now, I know that there are plenty of things wrong with the American approach of getting involved everywhere and with everyone. But then, there are cases in which you do want to get involved (various genocides come to mind), and realistically the only entity to take an initiator and leadership role is a superpower of some sort.

Would you prefer a superpower act as a policeman of sorts, or rather just have them keep to themselves?

Or might it be better to have lots of regional powers which try and take care of their immediate neighbourhood?

You aren't going to like this, but I think this is a false dichotomy - no powers fall at such extremes of the spectrum.

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.

I think that a superpower, along with any other nation involved, whether it be by immigration, trade, or some other policy, should get involved with international affairs if these affairs are breaking international law. I mean genocide is a very big deal, people just don't think about it because it isn't happening to us. But people are being killed every day and they don't deserve that at all. Everyone deserves the freakin right to live. Therefore I do think that nations should get involved to fix the problem. I don't condone what china is doing but I can understand where they are coming from. They want money and resources, as do we all. Besides, sometimes a police force is necessary in getting a problem solved even if we don't seem to be doing well at that "job." Sometimes a police force can calm people. As has been said, a corrupt police force is still a police force that will help in some way or another and is better off had than not had at all in most cases. But on that note, I also believe we should take care of our own problems before using so much on others, as selfish as that sounds. There are poor people out in the streets in America and we are still sending a lot of money overseas. My AP gov teacher brought this up to me.

Sorry for the lengthy thought. But to sum it all up, I believe a police force is necessary, if at last to help lead by example and rally other nations to help deal with the problem. Genocide is a really important issue and should not be taken lightly, it's happening in other places than darfur such as uganda and other places in southern africa. If anyone would like to retort my response I would love to hear your own thoughts on this.


as much as every one hates america...and in many ways...rightfully....we are the worlds protector from assholes...even as we are assholes?

my point is we are bad...but the lesser of 2 evils...and villafied...while the other true evil is ignored...sigh...i am tired.

have fun.

Really? What about Vietnam, Korea, and Tibet?
Speaking of modern-day China.

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.
Really? What about Vietnam, Korea, and Tibet?

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.

Yes, but what happened when China did that in the past? It came back and bit them in the ass so hard that they lost their status as a world power for over a century. And that was in the 18th and 19th centuries, when communications were far slower than they are now and travel was a lot more difficult. Today, a person can travel around the world in little more than a single a day, and can communicate with a person anywhere around the world instantly.

The outside world will always affect you, and it will affect you more and more as technology and trade remove barriers and globalize world markets. I mean, just look at terrorism for an example of that.

Of course it doesn't interfere with other countries.
Mainly because it thinks of every country it invades (or wants to) as being part of China already.
Thus it's not another country.

Yes, but what happened when China did that in the past? It came back and bit them in the ass so hard that they lost their status as a world power for over a century. And that was in the 18th and 19th centuries, when communications were far slower than they are now and travel was a lot more difficult. Today, a person can travel around the world in little more than a single a day, and can communicate with a person anywhere around the world instantly.

The outside world will always affect you, and it will affect you more and more as technology and trade remove barriers and globalize world markets. I mean, just look at terrorism for an example of that.
Free movement of goods and individuals is good. Superpowers that feel the urgent need to intervene in others' business without their sanction, is not.

And I sincerely doubt China is about to isolate itself, so what I am referring to is a lack of imperial aspirations.

Speaking of modern-day China.

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...ignorance of the ramifications of your actions always hurts you in the end. Sometimes sooner than later, but it always hurts you.

China's actions are making it weaker rather than stronger...they're playing in to the hands of the extremists and despots out there, which means those groups will control them and will influence everything they do. Every barrel of oil or ton of copper they import from a dangerous or extremist regime is another weight dragging them down.

Of course it doesn't interfere with other countries.
Mainly because it thinks of every country it invades (or wants to) as being part of China already.
Thus it's not another country.
Thinking something makes it true? I guess that crazy guy was right. Aliens do control the Senate!

Free movement of goods and individuals is good. Superpowers that feel the urgent need to intervene in others' business without their sanction, is not.

Sometimes superpowers need to intervene in order to allow the free movement of goods and individuals, and they have a responsibility to make sure the goods they purchase come from regimes that respect that freedom.

And I sincerely doubt China is about to isolate itself, so what I am referring to is a lack of imperial aspirations.

It has imperial aspirations in Africa, just like the Europeans did two centuries before them. That's why it's spending so much money in Africa in the first place; they have lots of raw materials, but not so much infrastructure. China steps in, offers credits, equipment, and technology, civilian and military, and moves in to extract the raw materials on its terms.

It's just like what the US and USSR did during the Cold War...and we all knew how that turned out.

Sometimes superpowers need to intervene in order to allow the free movement of goods and individuals, and they have a responsibility to make sure the goods they purchase come from regimes that respect that freedom.
Why intervene if the country is already a trading partner? If this is not what you mean, clarify.

Only insofar as it is the superpower's government itself purchasing the goods.

It's just like what the US and USSR did during the Cold War...and we all knew how that turned out.
Hey, I am no fan of China. I am simply saying I'm not about to support another superpower turning into some self-appointed arbiter of "justice" for the world.

Not to mention it's drives to bribe and bully smaller nations (especially Pacific ones) into not recognising Taiwan.
How is that anything but nation interference?

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.

As I pointed out (probably while you were posting) The PRC most certainly interferes in other countries internal affairs. And they tend to do so with rather

Really? What about Vietnam, Korea, and Tibet?

I said it first. :p :p :p (Before even Europa Maxima's post.)

Of course it doesn't interfere with other countries.
Mainly because it thinks of every country it invades (or wants to) as being part of China already.
Thus it's not another country.

Hmmm... when did the PRC claim Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Peru?

And I sincerely doubt China is about to isolate itself, so what I am referring to is a lack of imperial aspirations.

And what of Tibet? That was nothing short of naked imperial aggression.

As I pointed out (probably while you were posting) The PRC most certainly interferes in other countries internal affairs. And they tend to do so with rather

And what of Tibet? That was nothing short of naked imperial aggression.
I wish people would make up their minds on China. Alright, then it is interventionist, then I withdraw my support for it.

I said it first. :p :p :p (Before even Europa Maxima's post.)

I saw that after I posted. Oh well...

Why intervene if the country is already a trading partner? If this is not what you mean, clarify.

Only insofar as it is the superpower's government itself purchasing the goods.

What I mean is that the government has a role in ensuring this is the case. Since we have government-imposed borders and trade regulations, it is the government's responsibility to make sure that trading partners respect the rule of international law and the trade agreements they negotiate.

Hey, I am no fan of China. I am simply saying I'm not about to support another superpower turning into some self-appointed arbiter of "justice" for the world.

I'm a fan of China's progress towards dismantling its failed Communist system and moving towards a free-market, free-trading democratic society, but not the current government or its policies.

I support the world community arbitrating justice for its members, with superpowers providing the necessary resources to enforce their decisions.

What I mean is that the government has a role in ensuring this is the case. Since we have government-imposed borders and trade regulations, it is the government's responsibility to make sure that trading partners respect the rule of international law and the trade agreements they negotiate.
I agree, they have a duty to respect any agreements they enter.

I support the world community arbitrating justice for its members, with superpowers providing the necessary resources to enforce their decisions.
Define what you mean exactly by "arbitrating justice".

I wish people would make up their minds on China.
:confused:

Ehhh?? When have I said anything that indicated I was of a different opinion on this matter?

Alright, then it is interventionist, then I withdraw my support for it.

Imperialist as well.

Define what you mean exactly by "arbitrating justice".

According to binding international law agreed upon by the world community. If they break it, it's up to the world community to determine the just course of action to enforce the law,

:confused:

Ehhh?? When have I said anything that indicated I was of a different opinion on this matter?
I mean in general. People seem to variously suggest China is imperialist, then others come along contradicting this.

According to binding international law agreed upon by the world community. If they break it, it's up to the world community to determine the just course of action to enforce the law,
Alright, I see what you mean - I can live with that. What I do not take to is superpowers arrogating for themselves the exclusive right for themselves to make the law.

Alright, I see what you mean - I can live with that. What I do not take to is superpowers arrogating for themselves the exclusive right for themselves to make the law.

Oh, absolutely. I consider unilateral action by a superpower little different than strongman rule, and I loathe the concept of any nation as the de facto world dictator as much as I loath the concept of dictatorship in a single country.

Err... how is invading and annexing an independent country (http://www.tibet.com/) somnehow not interfering in it's internal affairs?

And the list doesn't stop there - Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Peru, and Taiwan (The polite fiction that Taiwan is not an independent nation is exactly that - a polite fiction.)

You missed India. China invaded and still occupies 1/3 of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) just because it is the route connecting Tibet to Uighurstan/east turkestan/xinjiang/whatever chinese call it. China still maintains a claim on the North-eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh because allegedly some king in sometime past millenia made a tribute to some king in Tibet...the logic goes like...since Tibet is China..those who paid tribute to Tibet are now Chinese..:rolleyes:

China does not raise HR stuff in African and Latin American countries primarily because they really don't give a shit....we are talking about a regime which was ready to roll fucking tanks over their own students.

I think everyone needs to calm down and realize that the PRC is acting in it's own national interest, these trade deals and the like benefit to people of China, and that is all the PRC can be expected to do. And please no one moan about it's 'it's immorally wrong dealing with such regimes etc', such notions are a fallacy, the US has been dealing with tyrants, murderous and assorted scum in the their own interests for over a hundred years. Might equals right is a US invention, afraid other are using it now?

Honestly, whether we like it or not, a global superpower plays a gigantic role in the world today (especially with how globally integrated we are). generally, when a superpower like America, England, or China (superpowers are debatable, but we generally agree USA is one, right?) gets involved in any sort of humanitarian aid program, many other countries are soon to follow. same generally goes for wars and the like.

In any case, im honestly not surprised by China's isolationism because thats basically the way theyve been (excepting, of course, during wars in their proximity) internationally for the past century.

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.

Exaclty.
Oli rich country dictator X wants to make little genocide? "No problem, go ahead as you wish." He also wants to invade neighbouring country. "Fine until oil trade stays uninterrupted". He also wants to make another genocide in that neighbouring country. "Hey, we already said that genocide is not a problem."

Im sure that world would be much better then everyone would not care what is happening in other countries until their trade is not damaged. Actualy I think that strong industrial countries should start capturing resource rich countries and make them colonies again. Problematic local population can be eliminated. That annoying Israeli-Palestina conflict could be also ended by "final solution" of Palestinian problem, same applies to "Kurdish problem" in Turkey and "Albanian problem" in Kosovo. Oh, those endless opportunities of world where "nobody gives a fuck about anything outside".

Olmedreca;12308713']Exaclty.
Oli rich country dictator X wants to make little genocide? "No problem, go ahead as you wish." He also wants to invade neighbouring country. "Fine until oil trade stays uninterrupted". He also wants to make another genocide in that neighbouring country. "Hey, we already said that genocide is not a problem."

As opposed to "What's this? You have oil? I'll trump up some fabrications and invade you" or in policeman terms "My track record sucks. I know. I'll arrest some random yob, plant drugs on him and claim he's a drug dealer."

Or maybe "Hey! You've got a democracy. But your leader won't give me his resources cheap. I'll topple your government and install a friendly (to me) mass murderer instead."

The track record indicates that world policemen do more damage than your local yahoo who wants to thump his people. The only ones who do more are those with global domination dreams.

Olmedreca;12308713']Im sure that world would be much better then everyone would not care what is happening in other countries until their trade is not damaged. Actualy I think that strong industrial countries should start capturing resource rich countries and make them colonies again. Problematic local population can be eliminated. That annoying Israeli-Palestina conflict could be also ended by "final solution" of Palestinian problem, same applies to "Kurdish problem" in Turkey and "Albanian problem" in Kosovo. Oh, those endless opportunities of world where "nobody gives a fuck about anything outside".That's exactly why international laws exist, are needed, and why it's a piss poor idea for superpowers to go vigilante.

What we need is a new & improved UN™. Every time a major power decided to fuck the law & go vigilante, every little megalomaniac in the world can justify doing the same. Every time we trade with one of those megalomaniacs, we consolidate their power. We, as individual countries, need to stay the fuck out of meddling with totalitarian regimes. Nothing we as individual countries can do, can improve the lot of the average citizen of whatever victim country we've got our eyes on.
Especially because actually seperating groups of people, splitting up countries, seizing control of countries, and rebuilding entire national infrastructures, is too damn expensive for any one country to do. Good intentions doesn't mean anything, when everything you do turns to shit.

International intervention is of limited effect, at least historically, but it's still leagues better than anything solitary nations can hope to accomplish. And if you want to stop geocide, the trick isn't to commit genocide on the perpetrator. Who commits it & who the target is, doesn't make it any less genocide or any less reprehensible.

PResently, if there can be any talk of moral high ground, it belongs solely to the non-existing countries that doesn't finance brutal regimes & doesn't wage war on them.

No, the world does not need some self-appointed policeman, and yes, I am happy that China does not give a fuck about anything outside it. Healthy attitude to have. Wish more people and countries would adopt it.
Why? Don't give me theory, I want real practical reasons why that would be a good thing.

Realpolitik anyone?

And the PRC, even prior to its current form, did intervene in neighboring countries. For example, Korea and Vietnam. The Chinese have colonialized them in the past. Even today, China has a pragmatic policy - basically, they act out of what suits their national interests at best. Not all countries are ready for democracy, after all, there are factors in order to make it stable and work.

The PRC is not one of those ready nations. There is a great divide in wealth in China, China may be developing, but only on the eastern side of the nation, can you see this. On the western side of China, there is still a lot of urbanization to do to get it up to more modern standards.

On the issue of power - I don't like constant interventionism, but countries will inevitably influence the internal affairs of other nations with means like trade and culture blending. At least China can do it with more subtlety. In places like Sudan, there are actually politicians that can remove Chinese economic influence with political manipulation, but they won't do it because the benefits are outweighed by the cons.

I support multilateralism and international organizations, but they are not always effective. On NS, the United Nations is really useless in its influence in RP affairs (on the NS role-play and II role-play boards). IRL, it does do good, and while flawed has had successes. But it also has to keep in mind that it can only remain a forum for the international community. To turn it from a global forum into a world government would never ever work...for a group of nations with sufficiently connected cultures yes, but for the entire world...just no, it won't work.

You missed India. China invaded and still occupies 1/3 of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) just because it is the route connecting Tibet to Uighurstan/east turkestan/xinjiang/whatever chinese call it. China still maintains a claim on the North-eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh because allegedly some king in sometime past millenia made a tribute to some king in Tibet...the logic goes like...since Tibet is China..those who paid tribute to Tibet are now Chinese..:rolleyes:

China does not raise HR stuff in African and Latin American countries primarily because they really don't give a shit....we are talking about a regime which was ready to roll fucking tanks over their own students.

Indeed, I did forget to mention it. There's also the issues with the Russian that tend to get forgotten.

we are talking about a regime which was ready to roll fucking tanks over their own students.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Kent_State_massacre.jpg

*coughs*

*coughs*

Why, of course, the picture makes it clear that the US govt and PRC are now morally equals in their treatment of their citizens. :rolleyes:

http://www.freedomtocare.org/Tiananmen.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Kent_State_massacre.jpg

*coughs*

Yes, but guess what? Those men were tried before a grand jury in a fair legal trial.

In China, not only does the government condone that slaughter, it also denies that it ever happened. Even more fun, you get to be imprisoned and probably beaten and tortured for even trying to find out about it.

China and the US are not even remotely similar in the way they treat their citizens. China is a repressive and authoritarian dictatorship...there's no way around it.

Not even a question. China, were it less of a threat to Briysih interests and standing, would be my favorite state.

They have achieved economic prosperity, political and social stability, flown in the face of Amnesty International (for which I would, were I more affluent, send them several million pounds), and exerted international influence, without fashioning the reputation and revulsion the USA has gathered.

In China, not only does the government condone that slaughter, it also denies that it ever happened. Even more fun, you get to be imprisoned and probably beaten and tortured for even trying to find out about it.

It goes further than that. To recover the costs of incarcerating you and executing you, the state does......organ harvesting of executed criminals.

They have achieved economic prosperity, political and social stability, flown in the face of Amnesty International (for which I would, were I more affluent, send them several million pounds), and exerted international influence, without fashioning the reputation and revulsion the USA has gathered.

Their economic prosperity is thankfully ripping apart their political and social stability. The stagnation and regressive rule of the Communist Party is coming swiftly to an end as the people get wealthier and get sick of being repressed under incompetent rulers.

And there is quite a bit of revulsion and negativity building up towards the Chinese...the only difference is that it's only had 7 years while America has had over 50.

It goes further than that. To recover the costs of incarcerating you and executing you, the state does......organ harvesting of executed criminals.

Provided the judicial procedure was sound, I find that idea to be acceptable.

Provided the judicial procedure was sound, I find that idea to be acceptable.

There is no judicial system or legal procedure in China. Your sentence is decided beforehand and the trial is a mere formality; the only way it might change is if you're wealthy or powerful enough to bribe your way out of being punished. They might just stick you in Tibet or northwestern China as punishment, sort of like how the Soviets punished high ranking figures that couldn't be dealt with using the methods used on the common people, such as a long prison sentence, slave labor, torture, a bullet to the back of the head or a good beating.

Remember, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is above the law...everyone and everything is controlled by the party, and their word is law.

Their economic prosperity is thankfully ripping apart their political and social stability. The stagnation and regressive rule of the Communist Party is coming swiftly to an end as the people get wealthier and get sick of being repressed under incompetent rulers.

And there is quite a bit of revulsion and negativity building up towards the Chinese...the only difference is that it's only had 7 years while America has had over 50.

It's flag is not, however, burnt throughout the world as a manifestation of evil.

In any case, whilst Mao-esque communism is not my cup of tea, and its removal would be excellent, the fact remains that China, in contmporaray history, has followed less pro-active, interventionist policies than the USA, and has profited from them.

Moreover, cite countries, outside of immediate Chinese presence, that object to China to the extent that they do the USA.

It goes further than that. To recover the costs of incarcerating you and executing you, the state does......organ harvesting of executed criminals.

And I honestly wonder how many of those "criminals" are really criminals. My guess is that a lot of them are farmers who protested against the government for taking their land to build condos or for protesting against companies dumping toxic chemicals in to rivers and lakes.

There is no judicial system or legal procedure in China. Your sentence is decided beforehand and the trial is a mere formality; the only way it might change is if you're wealthy or powerful enough to bribe your way out of being punished. They might just stick you in Tibet or northwestern China as punishment, sort of like how the Soviets punished high ranking figures that couldn't be dealt with using the methods used on the common people, such as a long prison sentence, slave labor, torture, a bullet to the back of the head or a good beating.

Remember, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is above the law...everyone and everything is controlled by the party, and their word is law.

Indeed, hence the use of a conditional in my original post. I may not have stated it with quite as much unnecessary elaboration as you, however I generally assume posters are able to make inferences without being spoonfed information.

It's flag is not, however, burnt throughout the world as a manifestation of evil.

Not yet. Of course, these countries are more likely to simply pull China's strings rather than loathe them; the real powers behind China are the OECD countries and its resource suppliers in Africa and the Middle East.

In any case, whilst Mao-esque communism is not my cup of tea, and its removal would be excellent, the fact remains that China, in contmporaray history, has followed less pro-active, interventionist policies than the USA, and has profited from them.

They only profit from them because the US is doing all the dirty work.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year keeping the price of oil and other commodities artificially cheap through our military power and expenditures.

Perhaps it's time to pull out and let the Chinese kiss the Saudis' asses for another half century...we've debased ourselves enough for those scum.

Moreover, cite countries, outside of immediate Chinese presence, that object to China to the extent that they do the USA.

There aren't any. China didn't really start to get involved in world affairs until the late 1990's, and before that they were seen as the Communist rival to the Soviet Union and a good alternative to the strings-attached aid of the United States.

Indeed, hence the use of a conditional in my original post. I may not have stated it with quite as much unnecessary elaboration as you, however I generally assume posters are able to make inferences without being spoonfed information.

You'd be surprised...

I'd prefer superpowers that get involved in world events through international organizations, and those international organizations can work alongside regional ones to work out disputes.

Simply put, nations are responsible for the behavior of the nations they trade with. Ethical responsibility does not stop at the border, and whenever a trading partner does things that violate international law and convention their partners should work to resolve that violation through whatever means necessary, even up to cessation of trade Anything less than that effectively is a blank check for resource-rich nations to repress and exploit their people in total violation of the values and laws that have been formed by the international community.

IMO, China's involvement in the Sudan is equally as bad or slightly worse as the US or any nation's involvement in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any of the other Middle-Eastern dictatorships. Ethical responsibility always comes before economics.

Well put.

Just a note on people claiming the PRC is interventionist.

It was for a while under previous governments, particularly Mao's. They're not anymore, the only reasonable point put forward was the maneuvering in the Pacific Islands between Taiwan and the PRC, both trying to get as many islands to recognise them as possible.

Either way, you know very well what I meant. The US sees itself as a protector for all sorts of rights and securities, all over the world. When there's a genocide going on, most of the world looks in America's direction, and if they hear about it, most Americans look towards their government for action in such a case.

China doesn't do that. Their current mode of operation is to talk to governments and leave it at that. What happens in these other countries is of no concern to them. I'm wondering whether that approach is more popular than the American, more interventionist one.

China doesn't do that. Their current mode of operation is to talk to governments and leave it at that. What happens in these other countries is of no concern to them. I'm wondering whether that approach is more popular than the American, more interventionist one.

I'd rather do what's right than what's popular any day of the week.

I honestly couldn't give a shit what the Sudan's government or the Saudi royal family think of us...they could rot in hell for all I care.

Why? Don't give me theory, I want real practical reasons why that would be a good thing.
Because then I wouldn't have to put up with pests like you. And that for me is the best practical reason out there.

I'd rather do what's right than what's popular any day of the week.

I honestly couldn't give a shit what the Sudan's government or the Saudi royal family think of us...they could rot in hell for all I care.

However, intervention is rarely, if ever, right, or effective. The US believes it seeks its own ends through interventionist policies, yet this policy has painted a big red target around the USA and all its forces, and so altered public opinion so as to give tacit popular agreement to violence against the USA amongst those whom you seek to convert.

Except for that whole Tibet and Taiwan deal.

However, intervention is rarely, if ever, right, or effective. The US believes it seeks its own ends through interventionist policies, yet this policy has painted a big red target around the USA and all its forces, and so altered public opinion so as to give tacit popular agreement to violence against the USA amongst those whom you seek to convert.

That's why intervention is the responsibility of the international community and not individual superpowers.

That's why intervention is the responsibility of the international community and not individual superpowers.

Why is intervention always "right" in itself?

Invariably, the world dances to the tune called by Washington, and hoorendously mis-construes localised issues as having a global significance they lack.

Except for that whole Tibet and Taiwan deal.

And much of Central Asia.

China's just fairly quiet about it.

Why is intervention always "right" in itself?

Invariably, the world dances to the tune called by Washington, and hoorendously mis-construes localised issues as having a global significance they lack.

In our increasingly globalized world, local issues have global impact.

In our increasingly globalized world, local issues have global impact.

An awful axiom upon which US policy is predicated. It really worked in Vietnam now, didn't it....

An awful axiom upon which US policy is predicated. It really worked in Vietnam now, didn't it....

2 million tons of bombs, Agent Orange, My Lai and Post-Tramautic-Stress-Disorder later, we're still making the same mistakes. I think there's a lesson here.

An awful axiom upon which US policy is predicated. It really worked in Vietnam now, didn't it....

That's the way it is. Rivalries in a country 3,000 miles from the US could erupt in chaos in Los Angeles or in the suburbs of Paris.

Also, when you invade a country that doesn't really want you there, you're quite likely to run in to trouble. That's why the international community is so important, because you have more input from other nations in regard to what you're going to do and how it's going to be done.

You'll probably have heard of the recent trip of the Chinese big man around Africa, signing trade deals and stuff.

One of those deals was with Sudan. So the US and most of the Western World had a bit of hope that maybe the Chinese would mention Darfur.

Of course they didn't. Very much like the old Chinese empires they operate from the notion that they don't really give much of a shit about the rest of the world, as long as they get the resources they need through trade. They don't interfere in other countries' internal affairs beyond that.

My question is: Is that a good thing?

Now, I know that there are plenty of things wrong with the American approach of getting involved everywhere and with everyone. But then, there are cases in which you do want to get involved (various genocides come to mind), and realistically the only entity to take an initiator and leadership role is a superpower of some sort.

Would you prefer a superpower act as a policeman of sorts, or rather just have them keep to themselves?

Or might it be better to have lots of regional powers which try and take care of their immediate neighbourhood?

are you saying China is nice? tell that to conquered territories of China... they just didn't have huge empires like others because they had a poor sense of direction and got lost when they went on invasions, plus they're all near sighted and couldn't read the road signs....

Just a note on people claiming the PRC is interventionist.

It was for a while under previous governments, particularly Mao's. They're not anymore, the only reasonable point put forward was the maneuvering in the Pacific Islands between Taiwan and the PRC, both trying to get as many islands to recognise them as possible.

Yes, some examples given where under Mao. However, the PRC continues to occupy the entierty of Tibet and parts of India. When they give up their claim to Tibet I will acknowledge they've given up on their imperialist intervention.

Either way, you know very well what I meant.

Yes. As I stated, I belive you are engaging in a false dichotomy. To clarify, I think you are positing the PRC at one extereme of non-interventiuonism and the US at another extreme of interventionism. This is not true, even today.

The US sees itself as a protector for all sorts of rights and securities, all over the world. When there's a genocide going on, most of the world looks in America's direction, and if they hear about it, most Americans look towards their government for action in such a case.

China doesn't do that. Their current mode of operation is to talk to governments and leave it at that. What happens in these other countries is of no concern to them. I'm wondering whether that approach is more popular than the American, more interventionist one.

No. China does still do that. Mr. Hu, give back Tibet her freedom! Until then one cannot claim that the PRC is the benevolent non-interventionist, non-imperial power you are making it out to be.

(Yes, you hit a very raw nerve there. I am a follower of Tibetian Buddhism, and the imperial occupation of Tibet by the PRC is a sore, sore spot for me. Try and imagine trying to tell a Catholic that the occupation of the Holy See by Imams claiming it as their traditional soverign territory was neither interventionist nor imperialist!)

(Yes, you hit a very raw nerve there. I am a follower of Tibetian Buddhism, and the imperial occupation of Tibet by the PRC is a sore, sore spot for me. Try and imagine trying to tell a Catholic that the occupation of the Holy See by Imams claiming it as their traditional soverign territory was neither interventionist nor imperialist!)
Buddha Vult! :D