PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by cassowary » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:17 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:12 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 am

Economic sanctions would have toppled the regime. It would have strengthened the hand of moderates like Zhao Zhiyang who met the students. The regime may look solid from the outside but is actually quite fragile. They are pretending to appear reasonable , hiding their strength and biding their time till they are strong enough.

The weakness of oBUMa convinced them to bare their teeth prematurely. Hence they started claiming the S China Sea and building military bases on those islands. Then along came Trump who has the courage to confront them.
The lack of response to the massacre by Western governments was reprehensible Cass. Yet I still wonder whether economic sanctions would have changed anything for the better. Do you know something I don't?

In 1989, the PRC was still not Australia's trading partner but was our fastest growing and most promising. I have doubts about whether our government of the time would have wanted to spoil a good thing by joining an international boycott.

Many other countries might have likewise baulked - which might be the reason why even the USA under Bush's leadership did not try to organise one.

I defer to your point on the "fragility" of the PRC regime cass.

As for Trump: I do not view his as "courageous" but as full of bluff and bluster. Not the same!
At the time of Tiananmen, China was weak. Commie regimes were falling like ten-pins. The Chinese people's confidence in the CCP was at its lowest ebb following the Cultural Revolution. Sanctions would have thrown out the CCP. The people were ready to try democracy. Bush missed the big opportunity.

Under a new government with free market reforms, China's trade with Australia would stil grow.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by Milo » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:17 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:12 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 am

Economic sanctions would have toppled the regime. It would have strengthened the hand of moderates like Zhao Zhiyang who met the students. The regime may look solid from the outside but is actually quite fragile. They are pretending to appear reasonable , hiding their strength and biding their time till they are strong enough.

The weakness of oBUMa convinced them to bare their teeth prematurely. Hence they started claiming the S China Sea and building military bases on those islands. Then along came Trump who has the courage to confront them.
The lack of response to the massacre by Western governments was reprehensible Cass. Yet I still wonder whether economic sanctions would have changed anything for the better. Do you know something I don't?

In 1989, the PRC was still not Australia's trading partner but was our fastest growing and most promising. I have doubts about whether our government of the time would have wanted to spoil a good thing by joining an international boycott.

Many other countries might have likewise baulked - which might be the reason why even the USA under Bush's leadership did not try to organise one.

I defer to your point on the "fragility" of the PRC regime cass.

As for Trump: I do not view his as "courageous" but as full of bluff and bluster. Not the same!
At the time of Tiananmen, China was weak. Commie regimes were falling like ten-pins. The Chinese people's confidence in the CCP was at its lowest ebb following the Cultural Revolution. Sanctions would have thrown out the CCP. The people were ready to try democracy. Bush missed the big opportunity.

Under a new government with free market reforms, China's trade with Australia would stil grow.
I got the impression, as did many at the time, that the Tiananmen movement was confined to a small, urban and highly educated minority; that's why the CCP could crush it. As to sanctions, China had endured deprivations in the extreme before, no reason to think they wouldn't again.

Very charitably, sanctions in general are a mixed bag, have they done anything to Cuba, Iran, Russia, North Korea?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:32 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
I got the impression, as did many at the time, that the Tiananmen movement was confined to a small, urban and highly educated minority; that's why the CCP could crush it. As to sanctions, China had endured deprivations in the extreme before, no reason to think they wouldn't again.
I agree.
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
Very charitably, sanctions in general are a mixed bag, have they done anything to Cuba, Iran, Russia, North Korea?
Well, they've provided a propaganda bonanza to the regimes being targeted. But that probably wasn't the intent.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by neverfail » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:16 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:32 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
I got the impression, as did many at the time, that the Tiananmen movement was confined to a small, urban and highly educated minority; that's why the CCP could crush it. As to sanctions, China had endured deprivations in the extreme before, no reason to think they wouldn't again.
I agree.
So do I, absolutely!
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
Very charitably, sanctions in general are a mixed bag, have they done anything to Cuba, Iran, Russia, North Korea?
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:32 am
Well, they've provided a propaganda bonanza to the regimes being targeted. But that probably wasn't the intent.
For the governments of the countries inaugurating the sanctions, they also give the public at home the impression that "something is being done about this".

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2371
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by Doc » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:18 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:27 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:45 pm
I have heard of many other incidents like this.

Our only hope in the long run is democracy coming to China.
I had long warned this forum about China and the regime that runs it. As it gets more powerful, expect its bullying to get worse. With its large population it’s gdp and hence military power will overtake the US, the protector of the free world.

As for democracy, the Chinese are a practical people. In my book, I warned that the western democracies must put their houses in order. The huge government debt is caused by a systemic flaw in the one man one vote system.

You got to fix that. Otherwise the Chinese will conclude their one party system is superior and democracy won’t come. I agree with Milo that democracy in China will civilise Chinese behaviour. So it’s important that western countries especially the US reform their democracies.
Do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party will ever cede its monopoly of political power gladly?
Only is someone is pointing a rifle at its head.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by cassowary » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:03 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:17 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:12 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 am

Economic sanctions would have toppled the regime. It would have strengthened the hand of moderates like Zhao Zhiyang who met the students. The regime may look solid from the outside but is actually quite fragile. They are pretending to appear reasonable , hiding their strength and biding their time till they are strong enough.

The weakness of oBUMa convinced them to bare their teeth prematurely. Hence they started claiming the S China Sea and building military bases on those islands. Then along came Trump who has the courage to confront them.
The lack of response to the massacre by Western governments was reprehensible Cass. Yet I still wonder whether economic sanctions would have changed anything for the better. Do you know something I don't?

In 1989, the PRC was still not Australia's trading partner but was our fastest growing and most promising. I have doubts about whether our government of the time would have wanted to spoil a good thing by joining an international boycott.

Many other countries might have likewise baulked - which might be the reason why even the USA under Bush's leadership did not try to organise one.

I defer to your point on the "fragility" of the PRC regime cass.

As for Trump: I do not view his as "courageous" but as full of bluff and bluster. Not the same!
At the time of Tiananmen, China was weak. Commie regimes were falling like ten-pins. The Chinese people's confidence in the CCP was at its lowest ebb following the Cultural Revolution. Sanctions would have thrown out the CCP. The people were ready to try democracy. Bush missed the big opportunity.

Under a new government with free market reforms, China's trade with Australia would stil grow.
I got the impression, as did many at the time, that the Tiananmen movement was confined to a small, urban and highly educated minority; that's why the CCP could crush it. As to sanctions, China had endured deprivations in the extreme before, no reason to think they wouldn't again.

Very charitably, sanctions in general are a mixed bag, have they done anything to Cuba, Iran, Russia, North Korea?
Milo,

Trade with America and the outside world is what caused China's rise to power. Its GDP has almost caught up with the US. It has a larger population and so its GDP will of course one day dwarf that of the US. Thus so will its military. So will its technology simply because a larger population can produce more engineers and scientists. Had the world not traded with China after Tiananmen, this could not have been achieved.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by Milo » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:56 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:03 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:01 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:17 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:12 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:35 am

Economic sanctions would have toppled the regime. It would have strengthened the hand of moderates like Zhao Zhiyang who met the students. The regime may look solid from the outside but is actually quite fragile. They are pretending to appear reasonable , hiding their strength and biding their time till they are strong enough.

The weakness of oBUMa convinced them to bare their teeth prematurely. Hence they started claiming the S China Sea and building military bases on those islands. Then along came Trump who has the courage to confront them.
The lack of response to the massacre by Western governments was reprehensible Cass. Yet I still wonder whether economic sanctions would have changed anything for the better. Do you know something I don't?

In 1989, the PRC was still not Australia's trading partner but was our fastest growing and most promising. I have doubts about whether our government of the time would have wanted to spoil a good thing by joining an international boycott.

Many other countries might have likewise baulked - which might be the reason why even the USA under Bush's leadership did not try to organise one.

I defer to your point on the "fragility" of the PRC regime cass.

As for Trump: I do not view his as "courageous" but as full of bluff and bluster. Not the same!
At the time of Tiananmen, China was weak. Commie regimes were falling like ten-pins. The Chinese people's confidence in the CCP was at its lowest ebb following the Cultural Revolution. Sanctions would have thrown out the CCP. The people were ready to try democracy. Bush missed the big opportunity.

Under a new government with free market reforms, China's trade with Australia would stil grow.
I got the impression, as did many at the time, that the Tiananmen movement was confined to a small, urban and highly educated minority; that's why the CCP could crush it. As to sanctions, China had endured deprivations in the extreme before, no reason to think they wouldn't again.

Very charitably, sanctions in general are a mixed bag, have they done anything to Cuba, Iran, Russia, North Korea?
Milo,

Trade with America and the outside world is what caused China's rise to power. Its GDP has almost caught up with the US. It has a larger population and so its GDP will of course one day dwarf that of the US. Thus so will its military. So will its technology simply because a larger population can produce more engineers and scientists. Had the world not traded with China after Tiananmen, this could not have been achieved.
I do not believe that mere numbers of people with credentials automatically means more technological progress. Without the ability to think freely, and more importantly to make mistakes, admit them and learn from them; progress will be limited.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by cassowary » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:58 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:59 am

I do not see any other major country acting in this manner. Yes, China "could" become a threat, but it isn't, at the moment.
Yes, it is. It is laying claim to nearly the entire S China Sea. Also don't forget that it conquered Tibet. I believe we are all influenced by our history, among other things. For example, Americans are influenced by the Declaration of Independence which talked about God given rights. This eventually found its way to the UN Charter of Human Rights. America's actions are influenced by this. Another example, is that the Germans, to this day fear inflation because of the hyperinflation after WWI.

Now let's take a look at China's history. Historically, the Emperor of China saw himself as the rightful ruler of the world, though he never actually achieved that. Ambassadors visiting him were not seen as representatives of an equal country but as messengers bearing tribute.

Excerpt from link:
By the later part of the 18th Century the Chinese government could contemplate with satisfaction the almost complete recovery of the whole extensive dominions which had at any time owned the imperial sway. The regions directly administered by the officers of the emperor extended from the borders of Siberia on the north to Annam and Burma on the south, and from the Pacific Ocean on the east to Kashgar and Yarkand on the west. But even that did not complete the tale, for outside these boundaries there was a fringe of tributary nations which still kept up the ancient forms of allegiance, and which more or less acknowledged the dominion of the central kingdom.

The Manchu Emperor of China claimed to be "the Great Exalted Monarch and Highpriest of the Great Ching Empire of the World," claiming, as an actual political right, the absolute sovereignty of the whole Earth. Every human being and every corner of the habitable Earth were subject to "the One Solitary Man," who governed the World. Styled "The One Man of the Earth", in his humility he was also styled "the Lonely One", or "the Solitary Man".

It was laid down in the authoritative work on the Rites of the Manchu Dynasty, as the first principle of the Rites of the Dynasty respecting Tribute that, "the barbarian States of the four quarters of the globe having submitted themselves to the influence of (Chinese) civilisation ", i.e. having become tributary, "all barbarian States of the four quarters of the globe are entailed States". Hence, the Imperial Commissioner Lin, in his notorious letter to the Queen of England, speaks of "her honorable State " — England — as one of the "entailed — i. e. tributary—States"; and reminds Her Majesty of "the power of the Heavenly Dynasty — of the Ta-Ching, to whom the whole Earth is subject — to order both China and the barbarian World "; and of "the Heavenly Dynasty's means to keep in subjection its ten-thousand States therefore advising the Queen, "by yielding respectful and true obedience, to evince her clear sense of Heaven's Ordinances." In a remarkable Essay on Russia, full of information, — although the author is inclined to think that the Russian people must have derived their origin from cannibals,— published by the ex-Cabinet-Minister Chi-Kiin-Tsau, reads: "The Ta-Ching having succeeded to the Empire, they are in possession of all the habitable Earth, and there is no corner within or beyond the seas, which is not subject to them."

The Government of China in the 17th or 18th century was no doubt sincerely unable to understand what there was offensive to European powers in its pretensions. The etiquette concerning the reception of tribute-bearers was thus fixed at a time when the tributary princes were for the most part of Chinese nationality, and the alien ambassadors only represented really barbarous tribes. The etiquette established for such receptions is as old as the Chow Li, and until European ambassadors understood in what character they were supposed to approach the Chinese Court, they could not explain clearly and convincingly in what particulars the supposition was erroneous. And, at the same time, till the Europeans had explained their own view of their own position, China could not be expected to understand in what respects the modern foreigners from the West differed from the tributaries and barbarians of antiquity, and from the dangerous barbarian neighbors of recent history.

The belief that the emperor of China ruled the world, so earnestly propagated by the Chinese officials, found additional support from the fact of European ambassadors being sent to Pekin; these being understood by the people to be sent like the ambassadors of the tributary states already mentioned to pay respect and do homage to the Chinese emperor. It was further supported by the fact that no Chinese ambassador had to go to any foreign court.

It is well known that Lord Macartney, whose Embassy to China took place in the 58th year of the reign of Chien-Lung, was received by that Emperor as "a messenger bearing tribute". The next embassy was sent in 1795, under Isaac Tilsingh and A. E. von Braun. They resolved to avoid the errors which had caused the failure of the British embassy under Lord Macartney; he had refused to perform the kotow; they were ready even to improve on the methods of the preceding Dutch embassies, and to make whatever recognition of suzerainty the Chinese might demand. Their mission has been characterised by a sober historian in the following terms: "They were brought to the capital like malefactors, treated when there like beggars, and then sent back to Canton like mountebanks to perform the three-times-three prostration at all times and before everything their conductors saw fit." Their mission was without result, other than to confirm the Chinese in their belief that theirs was the civilization to which all people must conform, and theirs the empire before which all the nations of the world must bow.

Most of China's subsequent misfortunes were in connection with one or other of these tributary states. The principal tributary nations then were Korea, Luchiu, Annam, Burma, and Nepal. In 1658 the Grand Lama was allowed to do homage at Peking, the Chinese emperor having acquired, through the accession of the Mantchu reigning house, a curious sort of protectorate over the established church of Tatary. In the same year the last recognised scions of the Ming Dynasty were put to death, and the lamas, who had been expelled under the later Chinese emperors, applied for leave to return and resume possession of their foundations. The young emperor fell under the influence of these sectaries. Nepal, an independent State on the southern slope of the Himalayas, tributary to China since 1791.

The dynastic records enumerated several others, including even England, but these were more or less accidental. The Chinese affect to treat all countries as tributary that have once sent an ambassador to their court. In their fantastic court calendar, Portugal, Spain, Holland, England, are all tributaries. Lord Macartney's mission of 1793 was described as bringing tribute. An English account of China published in 1795, shortly after Macartney's mission of 1793, ennumerated the states tributary to China as the Kingdom of Corea, the Kingdom of Tonking, Cochin China, the Kingdom of Thibet, the Country or Kingdom of Ha-mi, and the Isles of Lieou-Kieou.
That's how they traditionally saw the world. China was civilized; the rest of the world were barbarians. China was the center of the world and the rest must acknowledge its superiority. The emperor was believed to be the rightful ruler of the world. Relations between China and a foreign country was not one between two equals but between a sovereign and a vassal or tributary. Of course, China no longer has emperors. The Chinese no longer think the rest of the world are barbarians.

But there is still a residual belief among China's leaders that China's rightful place was to be once again, the Middle Kingdom, the country that the rest of the world must acknowledge is preeminent and must bow to. Trump wants America to be Great again. So does Xi. But his idea of Greatness is different. Since the demise of Communism, China's Communist Party is replacing the failed ideology with nationalism. And that implies the restoration of past Greatness.

Second, I want to draw attention to China's shifting borders:



The first point to note in China's long history is that whenever China was strong, it expanded. Whenever China was weak, it contracted or even fractured into smaller states. So its current expansion into the S China Sea is simply a continuation of historical trends. Don't forget, the Ming dynasty sent invading armies into Korea and Vietnam.

The second point to note from the youtube video is that China's periodic breaking up weighs strongly on the minds of Chinese leaders. That is why it can't let Taiwan go. Xi insists on strong central control over every aspect of China. They deem American style Federalism as too risky. So yes, China is a threat to Taiwan, the states of SE Asia and eventually Russia.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

America, which is influenced by its founding documents, is better for the world than China, which is influenced by its history.

neverfail
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by neverfail » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:04 am

Well put Cassowary! :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: PRC harassment abroad: the regime that will stop at nothing to get its own way.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:30 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:58 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:59 am

I do not see any other major country acting in this manner. Yes, China "could" become a threat, but it isn't, at the moment.
Yes, it is. It is laying claim to nearly the entire S China Sea. Also don't forget that it conquered Tibet. I believe we are all influenced by our history, among other things. For example, Americans are influenced by the Declaration of Independence which talked about God given rights. This eventually found its way to the UN Charter of Human Rights. America's actions are influenced by this. Another example, is that the Germans, to this day fear inflation because of the hyperinflation after WWI.

Now let's take a look at China's history. Historically, the Emperor of China saw himself as the rightful ruler of the world, though he never actually achieved that. Ambassadors visiting him were not seen as representatives of an equal country but as messengers bearing tribute.

Excerpt from link:
By the later part of the 18th Century the Chinese government could contemplate with satisfaction the almost complete recovery of the whole extensive dominions which had at any time owned the imperial sway. The regions directly administered by the officers of the emperor extended from the borders of Siberia on the north to Annam and Burma on the south, and from the Pacific Ocean on the east to Kashgar and Yarkand on the west. But even that did not complete the tale, for outside these boundaries there was a fringe of tributary nations which still kept up the ancient forms of allegiance, and which more or less acknowledged the dominion of the central kingdom.

The Manchu Emperor of China claimed to be "the Great Exalted Monarch and Highpriest of the Great Ching Empire of the World," claiming, as an actual political right, the absolute sovereignty of the whole Earth. Every human being and every corner of the habitable Earth were subject to "the One Solitary Man," who governed the World. Styled "The One Man of the Earth", in his humility he was also styled "the Lonely One", or "the Solitary Man".

It was laid down in the authoritative work on the Rites of the Manchu Dynasty, as the first principle of the Rites of the Dynasty respecting Tribute that, "the barbarian States of the four quarters of the globe having submitted themselves to the influence of (Chinese) civilisation ", i.e. having become tributary, "all barbarian States of the four quarters of the globe are entailed States". Hence, the Imperial Commissioner Lin, in his notorious letter to the Queen of England, speaks of "her honorable State " — England — as one of the "entailed — i. e. tributary—States"; and reminds Her Majesty of "the power of the Heavenly Dynasty — of the Ta-Ching, to whom the whole Earth is subject — to order both China and the barbarian World "; and of "the Heavenly Dynasty's means to keep in subjection its ten-thousand States therefore advising the Queen, "by yielding respectful and true obedience, to evince her clear sense of Heaven's Ordinances." In a remarkable Essay on Russia, full of information, — although the author is inclined to think that the Russian people must have derived their origin from cannibals,— published by the ex-Cabinet-Minister Chi-Kiin-Tsau, reads: "The Ta-Ching having succeeded to the Empire, they are in possession of all the habitable Earth, and there is no corner within or beyond the seas, which is not subject to them."

The Government of China in the 17th or 18th century was no doubt sincerely unable to understand what there was offensive to European powers in its pretensions. The etiquette concerning the reception of tribute-bearers was thus fixed at a time when the tributary princes were for the most part of Chinese nationality, and the alien ambassadors only represented really barbarous tribes. The etiquette established for such receptions is as old as the Chow Li, and until European ambassadors understood in what character they were supposed to approach the Chinese Court, they could not explain clearly and convincingly in what particulars the supposition was erroneous. And, at the same time, till the Europeans had explained their own view of their own position, China could not be expected to understand in what respects the modern foreigners from the West differed from the tributaries and barbarians of antiquity, and from the dangerous barbarian neighbors of recent history.

The belief that the emperor of China ruled the world, so earnestly propagated by the Chinese officials, found additional support from the fact of European ambassadors being sent to Pekin; these being understood by the people to be sent like the ambassadors of the tributary states already mentioned to pay respect and do homage to the Chinese emperor. It was further supported by the fact that no Chinese ambassador had to go to any foreign court.

It is well known that Lord Macartney, whose Embassy to China took place in the 58th year of the reign of Chien-Lung, was received by that Emperor as "a messenger bearing tribute". The next embassy was sent in 1795, under Isaac Tilsingh and A. E. von Braun. They resolved to avoid the errors which had caused the failure of the British embassy under Lord Macartney; he had refused to perform the kotow; they were ready even to improve on the methods of the preceding Dutch embassies, and to make whatever recognition of suzerainty the Chinese might demand. Their mission has been characterised by a sober historian in the following terms: "They were brought to the capital like malefactors, treated when there like beggars, and then sent back to Canton like mountebanks to perform the three-times-three prostration at all times and before everything their conductors saw fit." Their mission was without result, other than to confirm the Chinese in their belief that theirs was the civilization to which all people must conform, and theirs the empire before which all the nations of the world must bow.

Most of China's subsequent misfortunes were in connection with one or other of these tributary states. The principal tributary nations then were Korea, Luchiu, Annam, Burma, and Nepal. In 1658 the Grand Lama was allowed to do homage at Peking, the Chinese emperor having acquired, through the accession of the Mantchu reigning house, a curious sort of protectorate over the established church of Tatary. In the same year the last recognised scions of the Ming Dynasty were put to death, and the lamas, who had been expelled under the later Chinese emperors, applied for leave to return and resume possession of their foundations. The young emperor fell under the influence of these sectaries. Nepal, an independent State on the southern slope of the Himalayas, tributary to China since 1791.

The dynastic records enumerated several others, including even England, but these were more or less accidental. The Chinese affect to treat all countries as tributary that have once sent an ambassador to their court. In their fantastic court calendar, Portugal, Spain, Holland, England, are all tributaries. Lord Macartney's mission of 1793 was described as bringing tribute. An English account of China published in 1795, shortly after Macartney's mission of 1793, ennumerated the states tributary to China as the Kingdom of Corea, the Kingdom of Tonking, Cochin China, the Kingdom of Thibet, the Country or Kingdom of Ha-mi, and the Isles of Lieou-Kieou.
That's how they traditionally saw the world. China was civilized; the rest of the world were barbarians. China was the center of the world and the rest must acknowledge its superiority. The emperor was believed to be the rightful ruler of the world. Relations between China and a foreign country was not one between two equals but between a sovereign and a vassal or tributary. Of course, China no longer has emperors. The Chinese no longer think the rest of the world are barbarians.

But there is still a residual belief among China's leaders that China's rightful place was to be once again, the Middle Kingdom, the country that the rest of the world must acknowledge is preeminent and must bow to. Trump wants America to be Great again. So does Xi. But his idea of Greatness is different. Since the demise of Communism, China's Communist Party is replacing the failed ideology with nationalism. And that implies the restoration of past Greatness.

Second, I want to draw attention to China's shifting borders:



The first point to note in China's long history is that whenever China was strong, it expanded. Whenever China was weak, it contracted or even fractured into smaller states. So its current expansion into the S China Sea is simply a continuation of historical trends. Don't forget, the Ming dynasty sent invading armies into Korea and Vietnam.

The second point to note from the youtube video is that China's periodic breaking up weighs strongly on the minds of Chinese leaders. That is why it can't let Taiwan go. Xi insists on strong central control over every aspect of China. They deem American style Federalism as too risky. So yes, China is a threat to Taiwan, the states of SE Asia and eventually Russia.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

America, which is influenced by its founding documents, is better for the world than China, which is influenced by its history.
Cass,

My congratulations and thanks for a most illuminating post. I wish all your posts were like this, and I learned quite a few things from it.

I may be influenced by the fact that Portugal had a rather different relationship with China. We never conquered any part of China, not evem Macau, which was granted to us as reward for having fought the pirates on the South China Sea. To us, the Chinese were never superior nor inferior, and we were able of admiring there what there was to be admired. Maybe that's the reason why I do not see China as a threat. Not to us, of course, who are very far away, but also not to any Asian country. You see what you call the "expansion into the South China Sea" as proof of China's continued expansionist impulses, but I consider it as pretty irrelevant. Even if China controls all small islands in the South China Sea that will not mean any threat to any other country. Freedom of the seas will be respected, and that's all that counts. On the other hand, China may be justified in her fears of what other countries would do if they controlled those small islands. And knowing the US, I have no doubt that it would try to make them outposts of their crusade against China.

The only issue which concerns me is that of Tibet. I think China was wrong in taking it over. It would have been better to treat Tibet as China treated Mongolia, but I still don't see it as a sign of what China would do to other neighbouring countries. While I can understand other countries being cautious about China, I think that friendly relations with China and refusal to allow any US bases in those countries, would be the best road to peace in Asia.

Post Reply