China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Ken White]

Democratic views are wrong or chaotic.

Not necessarily wrong but, if essentially a democratic nation, the views will be divergent, sometimes strikingly so.

A Parliamentary system of government accepts divergent views but the the government of the day will decide on a course of action and generally implement that. In the US with our three arm Republican governmental system, The Legislative branch will not reliably support the government of the day. That is particularly true if those branches are of different parties but it can even occur if both are of the same party. The third branch, the Judiciary will not reliably support either of the other two branches and can effectively overrule one or both.

Thus one can be confronted with the Administration or the Congress announcing a policy which is then disavowed by the Congress or Administration. The Admin can implement a foreign policy and Congress can refuse to fund it. Congress can pass a law that says 'X' and the Administration can just not implement or enforce it. An Agency may be directed by the Admin to do 'Y' and drag its feet, waiting for a new Administration. ANY US citizen can take the issue to Court and, if given a bit of success can stall things for years. All democracy is, as you say, chaotic -- we are particularly so and usually slow to decide (when not rushed into knee jerk reactions... ).

Could you explain the Chinese moves in CAR, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, South China Sea, Afghanistan, even Xinjianng and Tibet (there is no dispute that it is a part of China) , changing the course of water in the Mekong and Brahmaputra and relate it to its 'Peaceful Rise'?

Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...

[Ray]

Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...

If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.

[Ken White]

If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.

The 'facts' that I know are that China is large and has internal problems. Those facts are gained through open source material and your source are probably more varied then mine. The possibly factual things of which I'm aware are accounts which, in total, suggest all the things you cite and more as indicators that the Chinese are doggedly and aggressively pursuing both resource and a degree of economic investment and return if not hegemony worldwide to include in both Americas. Again, that's all open source and in sum appears reasonably factual but I certainly have not traveled enough lately to say much is indeed fact..

Long observation has led me to believe that a series of events tend to aim toward a logical culmination. The logical culminating event here would seem to be sole superpower. *

So I have no collection of facts, merely a series of reasonably plausible indicators and, as the Intel Wallas say, "Indications lead me to believe..."

* That may be the aim, may not be. If it is, even my limited math skills are adequate to say both your nation and mine can jointly or separately deter that should we wish -- and I do not mean militarily -- and I know (As I'm old...) that unforeseen things can intrude on the best of plans...