FAIL - Handle them with kid gloves, avoid criticism, let them lecture us on interest rates and free trade, blah, blah, blah.
<font size="1></font>
| Site Announcements |
|---|
|
View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here: http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned! Welcome to the new forum! If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following: 1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt 2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit 3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided 4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab 5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit. 6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password. If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc. For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button. |
Obama's Visit To China
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Obama's Visit To China
by SwampThing » Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:32 am
- SwampThing
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1778
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:11 pm
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:07 am
[i]Right.[/i] The Obama administration needs to be aggressive with China, take them to task, act tough. The world's most important up-and-coming industrial power will respond nicely to that approach. We don't need China to put pressure on N Korea or to keep buying our debt. Great advice, champ.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SwampThing » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:15 am
Never gave [i]advice[/i] about being aggressive or tough. Just a little nervous about being tied at the hips with a country that isn't up to snuff when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, respect for IP, and more. We offend at any mention of the Dali Lama or Taiwan but their buying our debt and providing us with cheap goods (and food?) so all that stuff doesn't really matter I guess. Hope it all plays out well for our future.
We have to ask (pressure) China to deal with N Korea? Nice.
You like our position?
<font size="1></font>
We have to ask (pressure) China to deal with N Korea? Nice.
You like our position?
<font size="1></font>
- SwampThing
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1778
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:11 pm
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:25 am
Diplomatic visits are all for show. The stuff that really matters is all behind closed doors. It doesn't really matter if Obama shakes hands (or bows) to a foreign leader or dignitary, just like it matters little if Bush holds hands with a Saudi King. All of that stuff is bullshit for state propaganda.
What is important is how China [i]acts[/i] as a result of the meetings. Will China support US economic and foreign policy interests in the region, and globally? Will China <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KK12Dg01.html" target="_new">help the US</a> increase pressure on North Korea to tone down their antics? Will China stop selling missile tech and weaponry to our foes? For everything we want, China will want something in return. China has arrived; it is no longer a country that can be strong-armed.
I hate to say it, but we pretty much torched our right to bitch about any other country's human-rights record. Given our nation's fearful reaction to terrorism-- regional wars and occupation, torture, and indefinite detention-- that moral high ground is not likely to be reclaimed during our lifetimes.
I find it annoying that the next great fear that's being hyped is China, as though China suddenly popped out of nowhere and represents a new form of threat that Obama must solve. China is not going anywhere-- they have lots of problems and are (historically) concerned with stability. They have invested massively in becoming a production-driven economy (as opposed to a consumption economy like the US) and have effectively chained their fate to ours. This is a good arrangement for the time being, they provide an economic counterbalance to our excesses.
Part of the price we pay for this arrangement is that China becomes modern and more assertive. Will China grab Taiwan or expand into Southeast Asia? Unlikely. One lesson that the US (and Russia) has expertly and repeatedly taught the world over the past few decades is that prosperous countries do not fare well in battle with countries that have nothing to lose.
What is important is how China [i]acts[/i] as a result of the meetings. Will China support US economic and foreign policy interests in the region, and globally? Will China <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KK12Dg01.html" target="_new">help the US</a> increase pressure on North Korea to tone down their antics? Will China stop selling missile tech and weaponry to our foes? For everything we want, China will want something in return. China has arrived; it is no longer a country that can be strong-armed.
I hate to say it, but we pretty much torched our right to bitch about any other country's human-rights record. Given our nation's fearful reaction to terrorism-- regional wars and occupation, torture, and indefinite detention-- that moral high ground is not likely to be reclaimed during our lifetimes.
I find it annoying that the next great fear that's being hyped is China, as though China suddenly popped out of nowhere and represents a new form of threat that Obama must solve. China is not going anywhere-- they have lots of problems and are (historically) concerned with stability. They have invested massively in becoming a production-driven economy (as opposed to a consumption economy like the US) and have effectively chained their fate to ours. This is a good arrangement for the time being, they provide an economic counterbalance to our excesses.
Part of the price we pay for this arrangement is that China becomes modern and more assertive. Will China grab Taiwan or expand into Southeast Asia? Unlikely. One lesson that the US (and Russia) has expertly and repeatedly taught the world over the past few decades is that prosperous countries do not fare well in battle with countries that have nothing to lose.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by Frau_Blucher » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:36 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Will China grab Taiwan or expand into Southeast Asia? Unlikely. One lesson that the US (and Russia) has expertly and repeatedly taught the world over the past few decades is that prosperous countries do not fare well in battle with countries that have nothing to lose.
[/quote]
This is part of the worry. These countries actually do have a lot to lose. South Korea thru Singapore is not Palestine to Pakistan and are not countries with nothing to lose. They are part of the pillars of the global economy. They have a lot to lose both as nations and as individuals. Protecting ones own asses in such cases makes APPEASEMENT all the more dangerous a possibility. Keeping the pressure on China to impress upon them that they can't fuck things up for themselves and the rest of us is important. I do think in that regard, this was a bit too kid gloves. I would have preferred to show more strength openly then do the backroom deals however the hell they want.
<br>Will China grab Taiwan or expand into Southeast Asia? Unlikely. One lesson that the US (and Russia) has expertly and repeatedly taught the world over the past few decades is that prosperous countries do not fare well in battle with countries that have nothing to lose.
[/quote]
This is part of the worry. These countries actually do have a lot to lose. South Korea thru Singapore is not Palestine to Pakistan and are not countries with nothing to lose. They are part of the pillars of the global economy. They have a lot to lose both as nations and as individuals. Protecting ones own asses in such cases makes APPEASEMENT all the more dangerous a possibility. Keeping the pressure on China to impress upon them that they can't fuck things up for themselves and the rest of us is important. I do think in that regard, this was a bit too kid gloves. I would have preferred to show more strength openly then do the backroom deals however the hell they want.
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:43 am
China is not stupid. The days of empire and colonialism are over, and besides, they can barely keep their own provinces under control. China is not poised to invade South Korea, Singapore or its neighbors to the south. All of those countries have defenses on relative par with China, and they would defend their countries to the very last man, woman and child.
Why is it that all diplomacy these days is considered appeasement? Diplomacy is a game of chess. Showing respect on a visit is not appeasement. I'm not sure what sign of weakness you're referring to, but I do not think you visit the leadership of China with an intent to show off one's might.
Why is it that all diplomacy these days is considered appeasement? Diplomacy is a game of chess. Showing respect on a visit is not appeasement. I'm not sure what sign of weakness you're referring to, but I do not think you visit the leadership of China with an intent to show off one's might.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by Frau_Blucher » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:15 am
Perhaps nuance is too much to expect here. My statement is Obama could have been stronger, not that he's being appeasing. Appeasement is a dangerous route that people who have things to lose may pursue in the face of strength or leverage and should feared as much as over-agressiveness. "On par" is a wild misrepresentation. It's the second gross misrepresentation you make here along with "nothing to lose". And if this is chess, I would have preferred for Obama to open stronger, to have been more forceful about rights and fair trade while still being diplomatic. Degrees not poles, à la diplomacy.
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
by djcraig » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:50 am
What, Sally a purveyor of black and white, polarized "thinking" ? Say it aint so.
BTW I liked the appeasement policy more the FIRST time I lived through it, back when Jimmy Carter so miserably failed to effect change or garner worldwide respect with that technique.
Those were the days.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
BTW I liked the appeasement policy more the FIRST time I lived through it, back when Jimmy Carter so miserably failed to effect change or garner worldwide respect with that technique.
Those were the days.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
- djcraig
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3703
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:28 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:43 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>Perhaps nuance is too much to expect here. My statement is Obama could have been stronger, not that he's being appeasing. Appeasement is a dangerous route that people who have things to lose may pursue in the face of strength or leverage and should feared as much as over-agressiveness. "On par" is a wild misrepresentation. It's the second gross misrepresentation you make here along with "nothing to lose". And if this is chess, I would have preferred for Obama to open stronger, to have been more forceful about rights and fair trade while still being diplomatic. Degrees not poles, à la diplomacy.
[/quote]I used the term "nothing to lose" with regard to the more vulnerable poorer nations in its immediate reach (aka Indochina), which China has been trying to control throughout its history. I used "on [i]relative[/i] par" to describe the more prosperous nations you misinterpreted my first comment to mean.
How should Obama have been "stronger"? I already mentioned that our human rights record is somewhat recently & flagrantly tarnished, and we've got major trade issues/barriers of our own to be addressed. The main reason for our trade imbalance with China is that they make all the stuff, and we buy it. Instead of using our dollars to stimulate their population to become consumers of US goods, they invest it in long-term strategic investments such as infrastructure, foreign notes (i.e., our debt) and purchasing rights to critical world energy supplies. Being stronger or more forceful don't mean squat to a regime that knows it has your balls in its hands. [<u>Update</u>: And I should note, we also have China by the sack, which is why it's in both parties interest to smile, act rationally and calmly work through any issues-- even though nationalism on both sides cries out for further rhetoric and posturing.]
<br>Perhaps nuance is too much to expect here. My statement is Obama could have been stronger, not that he's being appeasing. Appeasement is a dangerous route that people who have things to lose may pursue in the face of strength or leverage and should feared as much as over-agressiveness. "On par" is a wild misrepresentation. It's the second gross misrepresentation you make here along with "nothing to lose". And if this is chess, I would have preferred for Obama to open stronger, to have been more forceful about rights and fair trade while still being diplomatic. Degrees not poles, à la diplomacy.
[/quote]I used the term "nothing to lose" with regard to the more vulnerable poorer nations in its immediate reach (aka Indochina), which China has been trying to control throughout its history. I used "on [i]relative[/i] par" to describe the more prosperous nations you misinterpreted my first comment to mean.
How should Obama have been "stronger"? I already mentioned that our human rights record is somewhat recently & flagrantly tarnished, and we've got major trade issues/barriers of our own to be addressed. The main reason for our trade imbalance with China is that they make all the stuff, and we buy it. Instead of using our dollars to stimulate their population to become consumers of US goods, they invest it in long-term strategic investments such as infrastructure, foreign notes (i.e., our debt) and purchasing rights to critical world energy supplies. Being stronger or more forceful don't mean squat to a regime that knows it has your balls in its hands. [<u>Update</u>: And I should note, we also have China by the sack, which is why it's in both parties interest to smile, act rationally and calmly work through any issues-- even though nationalism on both sides cries out for further rhetoric and posturing.]
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:28 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]<br>BTW I liked the appeasement policy more the FIRST time I lived through it, back when Jimmy Carter so miserably failed to effect change or garner worldwide respect with that technique.
Those were the days.[/quote]You probably don't know much about Carter with respect to China then. Although Nixon received credit for "opening" China, Carter brought about the full normalizing of relations with China. This was done in part to help forge ties to counter the Soviets at a pivotal time. So in retrospect, how did this "appeasement" work out? Pretty fuckin' well.
Those were the days.[/quote]You probably don't know much about Carter with respect to China then. Although Nixon received credit for "opening" China, Carter brought about the full normalizing of relations with China. This was done in part to help forge ties to counter the Soviets at a pivotal time. So in retrospect, how did this "appeasement" work out? Pretty fuckin' well.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:14 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by SwampThing[/i]
<br>Never gave [i]advice[/i] about being aggressive or tough. Just a little nervous about being tied at the hips with a country that isn't up to snuff when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, respect for IP, and more.[/quote] That's a fair point. I apologize for jumping on your case. The media narrative of Obama being somehow deferential to the Japanese and Chinese has clearly irritated me.
<br>Never gave [i]advice[/i] about being aggressive or tough. Just a little nervous about being tied at the hips with a country that isn't up to snuff when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, respect for IP, and more.[/quote] That's a fair point. I apologize for jumping on your case. The media narrative of Obama being somehow deferential to the Japanese and Chinese has clearly irritated me.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by ghosty » Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:05 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SwampThing[/i]
<br>Never gave [i]advice[/i] about being aggressive or tough. Just a little nervous about being tied at the hips with a country that isn't up to snuff when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, respect for IP, and more.[/quote] That's a fair point. I apologize for jumping on your case. The media narrative of Obama being somehow deferential to the Japanese and Chinese has clearly irritated me.
[/quote]
I'm not surprised. The media treats politics like it's a cartoon. Obama's cartoon character a few months ago was that of the Knight in shining armor. Last month he was the President who sat around while Rome burns (blame SNL for that one) and today he's the guy paying lip service to China. Tomorrow he might be the Knight in shining armor again. It's all a bunch of media bullshit anyway. I'm surprised more people aren't irritated by everything on the news.
Oh...I used to work out of a newsroom so...um...yeah, I'm biased. I hate the news media (in case no one has figured that out yet) .[:D]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SwampThing[/i]
<br>Never gave [i]advice[/i] about being aggressive or tough. Just a little nervous about being tied at the hips with a country that isn't up to snuff when it comes to human rights, freedom of expression, respect for IP, and more.[/quote] That's a fair point. I apologize for jumping on your case. The media narrative of Obama being somehow deferential to the Japanese and Chinese has clearly irritated me.
[/quote]
I'm not surprised. The media treats politics like it's a cartoon. Obama's cartoon character a few months ago was that of the Knight in shining armor. Last month he was the President who sat around while Rome burns (blame SNL for that one) and today he's the guy paying lip service to China. Tomorrow he might be the Knight in shining armor again. It's all a bunch of media bullshit anyway. I'm surprised more people aren't irritated by everything on the news.
Oh...I used to work out of a newsroom so...um...yeah, I'm biased. I hate the news media (in case no one has figured that out yet) .[:D]
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:14 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]<br>My statement is Obama could have been stronger, not that he's being appeasing.[/quote]Ok, while I'm listing errata, Blir, I conflated your statement about Obama not being sufficiently strong with appeasement. Maybe you're familiar with the narrative that Obama is on a world tour to apologize and disavow american exceptionalism (presumably in the aim of establishing a one-world order or similar nonsense). I view this issue with that context, and trace the "Obama is weak/effete" meme to that storyline, which DJCraig articulated, almost on cue.
Of course, if Obama had done anything that riled China, the spin would have been different: [i]"Obama was foolish to risk an increase in tension with one of our largest and most important trading partners at a time of economic uncertainty. The DJII fell X points on the news, due to jitters about the weakening dollar, further sabre rattling from N Korea. In other news, I just pulled a dollar-store yo-yo outta my ass and it still works! (closeup: rockin' the baby)"[/i]
A few articles on China and Obama's visit, not necessarily related to any of this:<ul><li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html?scp=1&sq=Krugman%20China&st=cse" target="_new">World out of Balance</a>, Economist Paul Krugman talks about China's currency fixing</li><li>NYT Room for Debate: <a href="http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/obamas-soft-approach-on-human-rights/?scp=2&sq=Krugman%20China&st=cse" target="_new2">Obama's Soft Approach on Human Rights</a>, Panel of invited specialists</li></ul>
Of course, if Obama had done anything that riled China, the spin would have been different: [i]"Obama was foolish to risk an increase in tension with one of our largest and most important trading partners at a time of economic uncertainty. The DJII fell X points on the news, due to jitters about the weakening dollar, further sabre rattling from N Korea. In other news, I just pulled a dollar-store yo-yo outta my ass and it still works! (closeup: rockin' the baby)"[/i]
A few articles on China and Obama's visit, not necessarily related to any of this:<ul><li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html?scp=1&sq=Krugman%20China&st=cse" target="_new">World out of Balance</a>, Economist Paul Krugman talks about China's currency fixing</li><li>NYT Room for Debate: <a href="http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/obamas-soft-approach-on-human-rights/?scp=2&sq=Krugman%20China&st=cse" target="_new2">Obama's Soft Approach on Human Rights</a>, Panel of invited specialists</li></ul>
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:09 am
Couple more articles from today's news cycle:
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_obama_3" target="_new">AP: US Envoy Pans Media Coverage of Obama China Visit</a><blockquote>... however much of the U.S. media coverage was strongly negative, accusing Obama of failing to gain concessions on key issues such as Iran's nuclear program and climate change, as well as being weak on human rights.
Ambassador Jon Huntsman [note: former official of both bush admins and former republican governor of Utah] said the reports missed the fact that the visit had yielded important progress on cooperation in areas such as clean energy, military-to-military exchanges and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
"I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier.
"I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings," he said.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9y0yI9UP2mXHkKTwHJ6ZZq-rLlA" target="_new2">US admiral defends Obama's Japan bow</a><blockquote>Admiral Timothy Keating, who retired last month when he ended his stint as head of the Honolulu-based US Pacific Command, said he did not hesitate to bow when Akihito and Empress Michiko visited Hawaii in July.
"That's what one does when one sees the emperor of Japan. I don't care if it's the president of the United States or the commander of 325,000 Americans," Keating told a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It's almost a reflexive gesture," he said. "I did it and it didn't bother me even a New York second."</blockquote>
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_obama_3" target="_new">AP: US Envoy Pans Media Coverage of Obama China Visit</a><blockquote>... however much of the U.S. media coverage was strongly negative, accusing Obama of failing to gain concessions on key issues such as Iran's nuclear program and climate change, as well as being weak on human rights.
Ambassador Jon Huntsman [note: former official of both bush admins and former republican governor of Utah] said the reports missed the fact that the visit had yielded important progress on cooperation in areas such as clean energy, military-to-military exchanges and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
"I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier.
"I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings," he said.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9y0yI9UP2mXHkKTwHJ6ZZq-rLlA" target="_new2">US admiral defends Obama's Japan bow</a><blockquote>Admiral Timothy Keating, who retired last month when he ended his stint as head of the Honolulu-based US Pacific Command, said he did not hesitate to bow when Akihito and Empress Michiko visited Hawaii in July.
"That's what one does when one sees the emperor of Japan. I don't care if it's the president of the United States or the commander of 325,000 Americans," Keating told a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It's almost a reflexive gesture," he said. "I did it and it didn't bother me even a New York second."</blockquote>
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SwampThing » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:56 am
The bowing thing didn't bother me..
But what about this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... happy.html
IMHO - poor move, based on our long held friendship and support, he's practically the poster child for human rights.
[quote]"This idea that if you are nice to the Chinese Communist Party up front you can cash in later is just wrong. If you lower the bar on human rights they will just move it lower and lower." [/quote]
<font size="1></font>
But what about this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... happy.html
IMHO - poor move, based on our long held friendship and support, he's practically the poster child for human rights.
[quote]"This idea that if you are nice to the Chinese Communist Party up front you can cash in later is just wrong. If you lower the bar on human rights they will just move it lower and lower." [/quote]
<font size="1></font>
- SwampThing
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1778
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:11 pm
- Location: USA
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests