Speaking about Superpowers..... CHINA?!

I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about CHINA, in light of their political views, their nationality or any other factors that influences your view.

I think that the Chinese language is very cool, and I know that Chinese people are hardworking and industrious.

• But is China as a super power going to be good, evil or neither?
• Does Russia, the USA or any other country have anything to fear from China?
• How do Americans feel about China as their sugar daddy / creditor?
• How do Russians feel about China being a neighbour super power, the fake Communism there or anything else that you have reflected on? China and Russia have been on/off enemies for centuries if I am not mistaken!

There really are some pretty serious restrictions on the press there - I came across it today at work. They are blocked from ALL video streaming sites for example. The censorship is really very efficient. I saw with my own eyes that they missed nothing, and it's really pretty cleverly set up. Working around it takes a fair amount of technical skills.

Is China a sinister country that is plotting for influence in Africa and the Middle East, as many are saying, or are they a remarkably decent super power that keeps its hands to itself and refrains from meddling in other countries?

I have not got a lot of experience with Chinese people from Mainland China, but it feels there is a quite a big cultural difference, a bit like with Indians.

I think that China is a colossus with feet of clay. Although it is very powerful and may even look frightening, its well-being is very dependant on the ability of the Chinese government to feed that horde of people. Any instability might cause China to fall apart like USSR did some time ago. China might seem homogenous from the outside, but technically it's can turn into a very loose federation or even confederation of 20+ different territories. If that happens, that will be a global catastrophe, because it will create a very explosive situation in the whole South-Eastern Asia.
From the other hand, further growing in strength might give the Chinese government some peculiar ideas about making its way in the international politics more like its Western, 'more civilized' opponents. This, of course, will too bring the world on the brink of a new world war. Either way, I can't see any good solution to the 'Chinese problem'. Perhaps their leaders will have wisdom to find a better, safer way to develop further, there is always hope.

From my point of view, China is progressing very rapidly, thanks to their leaders. And it is rather peaceful country by nature. Besides, they have many domestic problems, and wishing to continue their development.
Of course, when it become superpower #1, there could be temptations to fix the world order. And there is possibility, that some crazy man will come to rule in China.

Very interesting responses from both of you. I had not thought of those things; that China has the prerequisite to disintegrate like the USSR did, or the effects on the rest of the world if something happened to the manufacturing industry there.

After reading your comments, it occurred to me that the leadership there is pretty clever and may be looking after their citizens a lot better than what they get credit for - at least in Western media.

The censorship, executions, forced abortions and pollution is PART of the story, but not all of it. If I was an average Chinese and was living a 5 times more comfortably than my parents I would not necessarily be upset just because I could not go on Youtube or have a large family.

About 10 years ago, I worked with a Chinese girl who forcefully defended Chinas politics to all colleagues who could not resist asking her about them. She had both sides of the story, and choose to stick with China's position. I remember her defending the policy of families having only one child, very strongly and eloquently. Of course - this girl was practically a genius, sent abroad to gain work experience. Perhaps her views were part of the reason she was sent on this work exchange. Nevertheless, she impressed me a lot with her near perfect English and fantastic productivity.

Allowing China to disintegrate and fall into chaos, could be worse than keeping a very tight and sometimes ruthless reign on things. Perhaps if China disintegrated, things would be much worse than they were for the USSR - and affect other countries too.

China has not done anything that *really* upsets me outside its own current borders, so according to my worldview, I give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being...

What are the major outlines of China's conflicts and relationship with Russia?

China consists of many nations. They have many internal problems. They still use hieroglyphs, because it doesn't keep phonetics. There are many languages inside China. China provides assimilation politics. So in Tibet and East Turkestan locals fight (death is common) with settlers.
If you show this map in China you can go to prison. http://s.lurkmore.to/images/1/1b/China_map.jpg
Only one child is permitted in family (you should pay for others). So when it is girl, they often do abortion. There are one girl for 5 boys in China today.
China is buying Africa. When all were looking to Libya, France made 4 revolts to establish puppets.
About military strength, "China can not into war". They have never won wars. They are buying middle Asia (exUSSR republics). You can read about First Socialistic War (Vietnam-China).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

And it is rather peaceful country by nature.

---

Peaceful?

Quote:

---

On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59 dead, including a senior colonel, and 94 wounded.

---

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

But is China as a super power going to be good, evil or neither?

---

Like all the states - pragmatic.

Quote:

---

There are one girl for 5 boys in China today.

---

that's an exaggeration. Maybe 1,15 boys for 1 girl. There are exceptions for this rule (one family - one child), but it will lead to a demographic crisis if it is not changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramil

I think that China is a colossus with feet of clay. Although it is very powerful and may even look frightening, its well-being is very dependant on the ability of the Chinese government to feed that horde of people. Any instability might cause China to fall apart like USSR did some time ago. China might seem homogenous from the outside, but technically it's can turn into a very loose federation or even confederation of 20+ different territories. If that happens, that will be a global catastrophe, because it will create a very explosive situation in the whole South-Eastern Asia.
From the other hand, further growing in strength might give the Chinese government some peculiar ideas about making its way in the international politics more like its Western, 'more civilized' opponents. This, of course, will too bring the world on the brink of a new world war. Either way, I can't see any good solution to the 'Chinese problem'. Perhaps their leaders will have wisdom to find a better, safer way to develop further, there is always hope.

---

Any country must feed its citizens. China is very strong and it will probably become the main country in the world soon. There won't be a big war because of nuclears weapons.

Yes, Basil, peaceful. Otherwise it was not the group but 1000000000 men :)

$2/an hour!
60 hours a week!
Suicides!

No Apples for me.
Apple Chinese Factory Foxconn Nightline FULL 15 MIN VIDEO - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

Any country must feed its citizens.

---

Yeah, but food is growing more scarce and more expensive with each passing year. Scientists predict that even developed countries might soon be facing this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

China is very strong and it will probably become the main country in the world soon.

---

A colossus on clay feet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

There won't be a big war because of nuclears weapons.

---

Yes, what about nuclear weapons? All Russian and American nuclear forces combined wouldn't probably be able to disable China's potential even now.
Nukes cannot maintain peace any more.

They let ALL school leavers go through some kind of elementary military service as part of the regular school curriculum, and I believe they also have compulsory military service. Seems like they want to be prepared for whatever the future may bring...

I don't view China as militarily aggressive right now, but like Maxim said, this might change in the future...
Another risk is that China becomes commercially aggressive, similar to the USA.

I don't think anyone would as stupid as starting a war with nuclear weapons but the truth of the matter is, I don't even know whether China has nukes, officially or unofficially... Does anyone know?

Horrible video in Lampada's video!!! Really makes you think.
I saw a story on the BBC where they showed an Apple worker in China some Apple products in a finished state. She had never seen what the finished products looked like, despite having worked for a long time in an Apple factory, and there was no possibility whatsoever of her ever being able to afford an Apple product. Compare with factory workers in Europe and the USA.

China has had nuclear weapon since 1964. It has officially. The military service is obligatory, but relatively few people go through it and it is considered desirable by people.

Quote:

---

I remember her defending the policy of families having only one child, very strongly and eloquently.

---

I fully agree with that policy.
They had a very good reason for that - to prevent overpopulation.
This is actually a global problem (except in some parts like ex-USSR) - more countries which have too high population growth (especially in Africa) should follow this Chinese policy.

Some countries (like Latvia) don't have enough people. They can open borders to Chinese and Indian people :)

Russian Far East also is kinda empty - Chinese can start populating this area first (it is also right next to China) :D
Latvia can wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulle

I fully agree with that policy.
They had a very good reason for that - to prevent overpopulation.
This is actually a global problem (except in some parts like ex-USSR) - more countries which have too high population growth (especially in Africa) should follow this Chinese policy.

---

It might come soon enough. And, yes, of course it makes practical sense, if you look at it from a strictly utilitarian perspective.

But I thought you were 100% for freedom & liberty and the rest of the flagship values of "the West".

And now you are suddenly defending the extremely intrusive and oppressive law of a communist dictatorship - a law that is critisized by Amnesty and hundreds of human rights and Christian organisations....!

Surely you have heard that the Chinese sometime perform forced abortions on some women who are found to be breaking this law? That many parents deliberately abort or abandon female foetuses in order to get a boy rather than a girl, and that the Chinese now have a noticeable imbalance between young men and young women - to the degree that some men in rural areas simply buy a wife from a poorer area, or get someone from another country.

Like I said, I personally don't think it's a nice law, but I understand and respect that China felt it was necessary. It is not my business although as a woman and as a Christian I am totally apalled and disgusted at the idea of forced abortions.

But this is EXACTLY the sort of policy that you would have spit venom on for ages if the USSR had come up with, in fact, you have critisized considerably less intrusive policies of the USSR.
Imagine if your mother, sister, wife or girlfriend was dragged off by the police and your baby aborted, leaving her traumatised for the rest of her life.

And Africa is the LEAST populated continent, there is no need for population control there! The reasons for occational bouts of starvation there are related to the skewed agriculture which is largely aimed towards export, and the fast change in lifestyle which was caused by colonialism, and the problems caused by randomly drawn national borders. If those things could be alleviated, then there would be no starvation at all there.

The most overpopulated continent of the world, is actually Western Europe. http://www.wpclipart.com/geography/e..._square_km.png

BTW, in Russia there is the government program to boost population growth. It's called "материнский капитал". Mothers are given money for each newborn (or adopted) child, starting from the second one. Current amount is 387640 roubles (10000 euro), adjusted for inflation every year. This sum of money can be used in three ways only (fully or partly):
- as a payment for child's higher education in the future;
- as a payment for housing improvement (e.g. mortgage payment);
- or as a pension contribution for mother (note: Russian women currently retire at the age of 55).

I hope these measures will make Russian birth rate go up.

Perhaps Russia could accept some immigration to the far Eastern parts, from China?
I mean, for example allowing people that fit certain criteria to immigrate. I assume things are better in Russia than in most of China and that there'd be people interested in immigrating...
Or would you disagree with that on the cultural/racial grounds?

Personally I'm not against controlled immigration from China to Russia. But we should ask our Far East residents, because western Russians may have never encountered Chinese people apart from this Chinese salesman who became an Internet phenomenon in Russia because of his funny appearance and pronunciation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFf3uazyXco

Awesome video! Although I am not at "far east", I would say that it is OK for Chinese to have 3-5 percent of population. The problem is: very few people are living on our eastern lands. May be, Moscow could allocate a couple million men to there? ;-)

Quote:

---

Surely you have heard that the Chinese sometime perform forced abortions on some women who are found to be breaking this law

---

If government performs forced abortions - that is a bad thing - and civilized countries should not do that.
But I see nothing wrong in population growth control - If my government can try to boost it - Chinese can try to reduce it (forced abortions are not the only way).
Globally population control is needed, because in last ten years world population grew by 1 billion.
And after 10 years there will be another one billon.
But world resources are running out and are becoming more expensive.

Western Europe is not a problem, because there population growth rate already is low or negative:
Population growth rate by country - Thematic Map - World

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) - YouTube

Quote:

---

I would say that it is OK for Chinese to have 3-5 percent of population

---

How about 30-50 and Chinese as official language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulle

How about 30-50 and Chinese as official language?

---

No, thanks, I am not inspired with such perspective :-P
However, it can become the reality: if Russia does not develop its huge territories, then someone else can come and do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

No, thanks, I am not inspired with such perspective :-P
However, it can become the reality: if Russia does not develop its huge territories, then someone else can come and do that.

---

No military action can accomplish that, but if they seep gradually across the border then there soon will be more Chinese-speaking villages and towns in Siberia (there are several already). This process cannot be stopped. The only possible way is to try to assimilate and 'Russify' them (or their children, at least).

Quote:

---

The only possible way is to try to assimilate and 'Russify' them (or their children, at least).

---

Городок - Учи язык! - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanna

Another risk is that China becomes commercially aggressive, similar to the USA.

---

Could you define "commercially aggressive", please? I'm a little puzzled by your perception that this phrase does not already apply to China.

I mean, I think that flooding world markets with ultra-cheap goods produced under sweatshop conditions, and throwing business investments at Third-World nations on the condition that they officially oppose Taiwanese independence, both might qualify as examples of "aggressive commerce."

By the way, Hanna, I realize that nulle has some strong biases, but I don't think that you, personally, have the slightest business jumping on him for bias, inconsistency, hypocrisy, myopia, or whatever. It's not like you're guiltless in these departments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

...they officially oppose Taiwanese independence...

---

BTW AFAIK Taiwan ("Republic of China" as they call themselves) in its turn officially opposes the independence of continental China as well. So both Chinas has a consensus about uniting, the contradiction is in detail: who will be in charge of the united China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

By the way, Hanna, I realize that nulle has some strong biases, but I don't think that you, personally, have the slightest business jumping on him for bias, inconsistency, hypocrisy, myopia, or whatever. It's not like you're guiltless in these departments.

---

Hanna has biases, but nulle just consists of biases. He doesn't have principles which his ideology is built on but just likes or dislikes certain countries and builds everything on it. He doesn't even write about anything else, about the Russian language, for example (or Latvian or any other language).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Could you define "commercially aggressive", please? I'm a little puzzled by your perception that this phrase does not already apply to China.

I mean, I think that flooding world markets with ultra-cheap goods produced under sweatshop conditions, and throwing business investments at Third-World nations on the condition that they officially oppose Taiwanese independence, both might qualify as examples of "aggressive commerce."

---

Commercially aggressive is when you instigate economic sanction against countries that have a political system that you don't like, prop up right wing dictatorships, or conspire to overthrow dictatorships or democracies that you do not like, in order to further the economic agenda of your own local corporations. Or when you invade countries that have plentiful natural resources that you need.

Britain and to a lesser extent other European countries used to do these types of things (or the historical equivalent).. The USA is doing it today.

I don't particularly support Chinese sweatshops. But at least profits from the sweatshops there are surely but slowly helping growing the Chinese economy and benefiting the population.

That's more than what could be said for foreign-owned sweatshops in Central America, Mexico etc! They had sweatshops for many decades without living conditions improving. If I were you, I'd worry more about what goes on on my doorstep, in Central America, instigated by American companies, than what China gets up to on the other side of the globe, within its own borders!

By the definition that I gave, China is not particularly economically aggressive.

As for sweatshops:
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy their products!
I, for one, prefer locally made products where possible, where I can afford it. I prefer to buy clothes that are manufactured in the EU for example, supporting economies like the Portugal and the Baltics rather than China. I deliberately choose European products where I can - I do not believe it is economically or environmentally healthy to be dependent on import from the other side of the globe. Obviously I make exceptions for electronic gadgets.

What goes on between China and Taiwan is essentially an internal matter. Both places are populated by Chinese people. The Chinese communists may have made many mistakes and have many faults, but the Kuomintang were certainly no angels either. They were guilty of some horrible war crimes and treated the local population terribly when they arrived on Taiwan after fleeing Mao.

What China DOES do, that could potentially be said to be somewhat economically aggressive is refusing to revaluate their currency and doing "infrastructure-for-natural resources" deals in the third world. But apparently the third world countries themselves appreciates what China has to offer (new roads, hospitals etc) for mining and oil deals. And surely they can do what they like with their own currency?

As a European it seems to me that what China is doing is more sensible (and possibly more decent) than what we are doing, i.e. just pouring endless national aid money into corrupt African states, while buying their agricultural produce for a pittance and manipulating the prices of African goods on European stock exchanges.

I would change my mind on China's aggressiveness the moment they invaded a foreign country for anything that could be construed as financial rewards.

Speaking of China... Well, according to Reuters "China has significant economic stakes in Afghanistan" !!! UPDATE 1-NATO head calls on China, Russia to help fund Afghan forces | Reuters

What significantly economic could have there possibly been in Afghanistan????? Afghanistan is a very poor country. Could anybody shed some light? (Ramil, please don't mention drugs... ;) )

All that's being mentioned by Wiki is that:

"After the fall of the Taliban regime after the United States intervention in 2001, however relations between China and Afghanistan had greatly improved and were reestablished. [...] In January 2002, Chairman Karzai visited China ,and met respectively with Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji. The two sides exchanged the notes of China providing 30 million yuan of emergent material aid and US$1 million in cash to Afghanistan. President Jiang Zemin announced that China would provide US$150 million-worth of assistance to Afghanistan for its reconstruction. The 30 million yuan of emergent material aid had been delivered to Kabul by the end of March 2002."

Well, those millions are not that much elsewhere, but in Afghanistan that is a lot of money. Why? Could anybody explain?

I've come to wonder about that amidst another puzzle - when the US troops were in Afghanistan, it seemed that everybody hated the US for that, but now as the US is seriously preparing to withdraw everybody is concerned. Including Russia. BBC Russian - Лента новостей -

So, after all it turns out it was not that bad the US was doing the dirty job, and it was also honorable to despise the US for that. All those famous: "Open up! The democracy had come!" posters... But now, there are concerns over the withdrawal too... Seems like the US is evil either way. What do you think, Hanna? Does it seem like the double-standards to you? ;)

I think the USA is trying to undermine the Chinese government currently, not least by Tibet and Muslim separatism...

I think it is really interesting how the Africans PREFER doing business with China over the West.
Sad, because we have poured SO much money into their countries in aid money. But perhaps understandable too, because of colonialism and current economic exploitation. China seems to treat them fairly and equally, and both parts are happy in the exchange.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wzLHFaBHo&feature=relmfu


For the record, I think that Russia's legacy from the USSR days is still appreciated by some Africans too. That help was quite genuine and respectful, although of course, with a political agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=r18IPkI6WT0