Thread: Speaking about Superpowers..... CHINA?!

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?

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 - YouTube

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?

Originally Posted by nulle

How about 30-50 and Chinese as official language?

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

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

No, thanks, I am not inspired with such perspective
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).

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

Городок - Учи язык! - YouTube

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.

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.

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).

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.




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.