Fire with Fire

[JMA]

Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...

Ken you want to do a little research into the Feb 2010 visit to the US by the Dalai Lama. The concessions made by the White House (no TV coverage, an explanation that they are only meeting him as religious leader etc etc) were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.

What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.

[Fuchs]

...and a few days ago Washington gave Beijing its cold shoulder when they protested against U.S.-ROK navy manoeuvres in their backyard.

It takes much more to prove your point because you made a quite far-reaching statement, JMA.



Almost all states have major troubles and challenges, and almost all states have to consider the position of other governments in international issues.
That's life. Even Washington woke up and understood it's not really that much "exceptional" as it believed.

Nevertheless, some states are in greater troubles and especially in other forms of troubles than others. The predominant form of troubles are domestic troubles - that's good news, for domestic troubles can be addressed and solved with good policies.

[Ken White]

Ken you want to do a little research into the Feb 2010 visit to the US by the Dalai Lama...

What happened was quite obvious to all. OTOH, how some happen to wish to take it:

...The concessions made by the White House ... were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.

is only slightly less obvious.

What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.

I'm not at all sure that conclusion is correct. The Dalai Lama for example is NOT a world leader, though he may have slightly more moral stature than does the Archbishop of Canterbury -- also not a world leader -- or Jean-Claude Duvalier -- also a former but deposed national leader. The Lama's 'constituency' is larger than that of the latter but is far smaller than that of the former. The Pope OTOH is a world leader and even if the Vatican is tiny, he's still in charge of it for now...

As for the "own," yep, they do own a lot of paper -- and they have a very strong interest in that paper being worth something. They also really like the US import market a bunch. Thus, they'll express their opinions and feelings but they won't push too hard. At the risk of stereotyping, Orientals are quite correctly noted for shrewd bargaining. So, come to think of it are Persians.

The amount of accord those Chinese opinions are given will vary. That's partly dependent on which US domestic lobby is ascendant in Washington at the time (pro or anti China) and partly on the collegiality quotient of the Administration in office. In the case of the Dalai Lama, both those aspects were in congruence for a minor, almost cost free kow-tow in China's favor.

Sort of like the bow to Hu -- or Abdullah. Don't read to much into bowing. Or kow-towing. Or into apparent economic demise; we've been there before. Disappointed all the wishful thinkers before, likely will this time and a few more times. Implosion will certainly eventually occur but not in my lifetime. I strongly doubt it will occur in your lifetime and probably not that of your children if any.

The recipient of the bow below is the Mayor of Tampa, Florida, a mid size city not in China. She also is not a world leader. She does lead a city whose MSA population is about on par with that of all Tibet...

[JMA]

The Dalai Lama for example is NOT a world leader, though he may have slightly more moral stature than does the Archbishop of Canterbury -- also not a world leader -- or Jean-Claude Duvalier -- also a former but deposed national leader.

The Dalai Lama has magnificent moral stature... probably more that the combined total of all national leaders put together. The problem is when coming from a western culture where "everything is negotiable" we tend to elect slime-balls like us as presidents and prime ministers rather than men of moral stature and integrity. Britain has an excuse as the cream of Britain were killed off in the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars. Some countries don't have this excuse.

[Rex Brynen]

The Dalai Lama has magnificent moral stature...

This certainly isn't meant to refer negatively upon the current (very impressive) Dalai Lama, but it is perhaps somewhat easier to maintain your moral stature when you don't govern and have very few actual decisions to make.

Even the Dalai Lama, I suspect, sees the logic in the USG meeting with him quietly rather than poking China in the eye with a stick by doing so in a high-profile way (which would have no discernable effect on Chinese policy in Tibet).

[JMA]

This certainly isn't meant to refer negatively upon the current (very impressive) Dalai Lama, but it is perhaps somewhat easier to maintain your moral stature when you don't govern and have very few actual decisions to make.

Even the Dalai Lama, I suspect, sees the logic in the USG meeting with him quietly rather than poking China in the eye with a stick by doing so in a high-profile way (which would have no discernable effect on Chinese policy in Tibet).

Why would the US be worried about what China thought about the US president meeting with the Dalai Lama?

Boy how things are changing.

How did China get to control Tibet? To sell out the Tibetans is too easy.

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

etc etc

[Ken White]

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

Is it China or North Korea that is getting the softly softly treatment? Some would say the latter at the specific behest of South Korea who have some interest in how silly the North might become if their paranoia is aroused.

Easy for me or most Americans to say we think that's not a major problem but then we don't live there and our Capital is not 35 miles from the border with the north -- and in Artillery range of those Northeners.

[Rex Brynen]

Easy for me or most Americans to say we think that's not a major problem but then we don't live there and our Capital is not 35 miles from the border with the north -- and in Artillery range of those Northeners.

What's more, Ken isn't going back there to save them again this time. (As for Chuck Norris... well, let's face it, he's just not Ken...)

[William F. Owen]

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

Not an act of War. NK merely breached the cease fire. It is at War with the South. You may want to bring yourself up to speed on North Korean Chinese relationships.

In a wider strategic context look at how US actions in Vietnam were shaped by issues concerned with Chinese intervention. China is strategically relevant. What is so hard to understand about that?

[JMA]

Not an act of War. NK merely breached the cease fire. It is at War with the South. You may want to bring yourself up to speed on North Korean Chinese relationships.

Exactly, they are still at war therefore sinking a naval ship of the other side with a torpedo is an act of that ongoing war.

In a wider strategic context look at how US actions in Vietnam were shaped by issues concerned with Chinese intervention. China is strategically relevant. What is so hard to understand about that?

Its a proximity issue. China certainly does not want the US navy (carriers and all) hovering around close to its territorial waters on navy maneuvers or patrols. Who can blame them (certainly after the US had the Monroe doctrine).

The question is to what extent the US will kowtow to China on this matter.