Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[angrysoba]

So Syria's involvement in the Hariri murder is an "internal issue"?

To be fair, China voted to investigate Hariri's murder along with everyone else on the Security Council:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1595

 

[Wolfman]

So it's not that they ignore morality when formulating policy, it's that their culture is actually amoral?

No, its that they have different morals. It may surprise you, but not everyone shares the same moral values; and not sharing your values doesn't make them amoral. Confucianism is rife with moral teachings. They're just different from the moral teaching of, for example, the Bible.

 

[Wolfman]

To be fair, China voted to investigate Hariri's murder along with everyone else on the Security Council:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1595

And in other cases, China may vote to veto not because it opposes action, but because it opposes the particular actions being proposed. Just as the U.S. will do sometimes, also. China has a tendency to point towards the massive mess that the U.S. has made out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and suggest that continuing to follow similar policies might not be the best idea. In cases where there are resolutions regarding external issues, China may veto...but will also tend to offer alternative solutions. It is therefore willing to get involved...just not to get involved in the way that Americans want.

North Korea is a good example of this...China vetoed several UN resolutions against North Korea, but then proposed and brokered a UN resolution to enforce sanctions on N. Korea that was passed by the full Security Council. The simple act of vetoing does not implicitly mean that they advocate non-involvement; it could mean simply that they oppose the particular kind of involvement being proposed.

 

[BNRT]

I'd also like to say that not getting involved in other states' internal affairs is pretty much the norm. The US doesn't say: "Well, Netherlands, we think someone else should be prime-minister." Which is a good thing, as states should be 'their own bosses', so to speak. No state has the right to order another state to govern in a specific way, or to say who should be in the government. I say again: this is a good thing.

However, sometimes a government oppresses their people in such a way that many (more or less) innocent lives are threatened. Then the UN has a responsibility to protect these civilians from their government. Which leads to it's own difficulties. When is something a legitimate political protest? When is it terrorism or other criminal activity? Who gets to decide? Any government is allowed to use violence against the latter, not against the former.

 

[Pardalis]

I could have sworn China was allies with N. Korea... and that they have issues with Vietnam (even attempting to invade in 1979).

Not to mention their brutal interference in Tibet.

 

[WildCat]

No, its that they have different morals. It may surprise you, but not everyone shares the same moral values; and not sharing your values doesn't make them amoral. Confucianism is rife with moral teachings. They're just different from the moral teaching of, for example, the Bible.

If China wants to be a major player on the world stage they have to show themselves to be responsible and empathic human beings. And frankly it doesn't appear they have even a sliver of that in them. Their MO, in everything from poisonous additives to baby and pet food, to IP piracy, to oppresisive dicatorships next door seems to be hands off until they threaten China's interests. Only then does China spring into action.

And I note that China's limited support of Iranian sanctions results in China buying discounted oil from Iran.

 

[Giz]

No, its that they have different morals. It may surprise you, but not everyone shares the same moral values; and not sharing your values doesn't make them amoral. Confucianism is rife with moral teachings. They're just different from the moral teaching of, for example, the Bible.

In that case perhaps I should have said that their culture is immoral, rather than calling it amoral.

 

[Toontown]

If China wants to be a major player on the world stage they have to show themselves to be responsible and empathic human beings. And frankly it doesn't appear they have even a sliver of that in them. Their MO, in everything from poisonous additives to baby and pet food, to IP piracy, to oppresisive dicatorships next door seems to be hands off until they threaten China's interests. Only then does China spring into action.

And I note that China's limited support of Iranian sanctions results in China buying discounted oil from Iran.

Confucious say poison babies. Confucious say steal IP's. Confucious say support North Korea, support Khmer Rouge, invade Vietnam, support Assad.

Was that Confucious a genius, or what. Never have I seen such a consistent foreign policy. Well, except for invading Vietnam. that was kind of inconsistent.

 

[Giz]

Confucious say poison babies. Confucious say steal IP's. Confucious say support North Korea, support Khmer Rouge, invade Vietnam, support Assad.

Was that Confucious a genius, or what. Never have I seen such a consistent foreign policy. Well, except for invading Vietnam. that was kind of inconsistent.

I wonder if Wolfman would be as understanding if there was a European power/dictatorship that was growing in power while pursuing a ruthless foreign policy, denying that there are any moral considerations due to "others", feeling that it is not getting the respect that it is due, and following a policy of re-armament… after all, they could always claim to be following the teachings of Machiavelli*.



* or Neitchze (to grab me extra Godwin points!).

 

[WildCat]

China wants all the benefits due to a world leader, but none of the responsibilities.

 

[Toontown]

I wonder if Wolfman would be as understanding if there was a European power/dictatorship that was growing in power while pursuing a ruthless foreign policy, denying that there are any moral considerations due to "others", feeling that it is not getting the respect that it is due, and following a policy of re-armament… after all, they could always claim to be following the teachings of Machiavelli*.



* or Neitchze (to grab me extra Godwin points!).

Wolfman should be made to wear earphones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp-ZqdwqDvw

 

[crimresearch]

If China wants to be a major player on the world stage they have to show themselves to be responsible and empathic human beings. And frankly it doesn't appear they have even a sliver of that in them. Their MO, in everything from poisonous additives to baby and pet food, to IP piracy, to oppresisive dicatorships next door seems to be hands off until they threaten China's interests. Only then does China spring into action.

And I note that China's limited support of Iranian sanctions results in China buying discounted oil from Iran.

Doesn't that describe America (and before them others) during its period of dominance? DDT? Agent Orange? Paraquat? Bay of Pigs? Vietnam? Central America? Stealing blues and rock from the Brits?

OK, scratch the last bit ;-}

China is going to be a major player because power and momentum dictate it to be so, not because of worldwide admiration for their business and government practices.

There is all sorts of evidence that they will undergo changes in their society along the lines of other countries... history repeating itself would imply that there will be a movement away from the old and into a 'kinder gentler' progressive era...

Can you point out something about Chinese people that makes them immune to the axioms about human behavior?

 

[WildCat]

Doesn't that describe America (and before them others) during its period of dominance? DDT? Agent Orange? Paraquat? Bay of Pigs? Vietnam? Central America? Stealing blues and rock from the Brits?

What was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago no longer is. The world is changing, and China is going to have to change with it.

 

[trustbutverify]

No, its that they have different morals. It may surprise you, but not everyone shares the same moral values; and not sharing your values doesn't make them amoral. Confucianism is rife with moral teachings. They're just different from the moral teaching of, for example, the Bible.

So you would agree that the never ending attacks on the US for vetoing UN resolutions condemning Israel for Palestinian abuses are the result of ignorance and insensitivity of American moral values?

How dare all these self righteous clods accuse the US of tolerating, and even supporting, horrible human rights abuses in order to advance their national self interests!

 

[crimresearch]

What was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago no longer is. The world is changing, and China is going to have to change with it.

The reasons that those things were acceptable to American policy makers, and before them British, French, Spanish, and so on ad infinitum, is due to the axioms of the human condition... power corrupts and all that.

There is no evidence that in the last 50 years the world has actually 'changed' those axioms, except for the Chinese.

There is no evidence that other countries aren't doing exactly the same thing (making decisions based on their own perceived self interests) as the Chinese.

There is no evidence that it is required or even possible for a country to become a major player by getting the rest of the world to like them.

China gets the attention because of its size, so when they embrace imperialism and condone counterfeiting, torture, repression, etc. it has a noticable effect in the rest of the world.

That would seem to reinforce the notion that when they move away from the old regime, that this too will also have an impact.

Unless someone can explain exactly what it is about being a Chinese person that makes them exempt from the same things that drive the rest of the human race?

 

[WildCat]

The reasons that those things were acceptable to American policy makers, and before them British, French, Spanish, and so on ad infinitum, is due to the axioms of the human condition... power corrupts and all that.

There is no evidence that in the last 50 years the world has actually 'changed' those axioms, except for the Chinese.

There is no evidence that other countries aren't doing exactly the same thing (making decisions based on their own perceived self interests) as the Chinese.

There is no evidence that it is required or even possible for a country to become a major player by getting the rest of the world to like them.

China gets the attention because of its size, so when they embrace imperialism and condone counterfeiting, torture, repression, etc. it has a noticable effect in the rest of the world.

That would seem to reinforce the notion that when they move away from the old regime, that this too will also have an impact.

Unless someone can explain exactly what it is about being a Chinese person that makes them exempt from the same things that drive the rest of the human race?

It's 2012, not 1960. Not 1910.

Propping up tin pot dictators is soooo last century. There are ways to look after your own intersests wihthout increasing the world's misery quotient.

 

[crimresearch]

It's 2012, not 1960. Not 1910.

Propping up tin pot dictators is soooo last century. There are ways to look after your own intersests wihthout increasing the world's misery quotient.

Feel free to answer the question any old time now.

 

[WildCat]

Feel free to answer the question any old time now.

You had a question I haven't answered?

 

[BNRT]

[...]they could always claim to be following the teachings of Machiavelli [...] or Neitchze (to grab me extra Godwin points!).

1. Nietzsche
2. Godwin's Law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."^WP Just mentioning Nazis or Hitler does not earn you Godwin points.
3. Nietzsche was not a Nazi.

The reasons that those things were acceptable to American policy makers, and before them British, French, Spanish, and so on ad infinitum, is due to the axioms of the human condition... power corrupts and all that.

There is no evidence that in the last 50 years the world has actually 'changed' those axioms, except for the Chinese.

There is no evidence that other countries aren't doing exactly the same thing (making decisions based on their own perceived self interests) as the Chinese.
There is no evidence that it is required or even possible for a country to become a major player by getting the rest of the world to like them.

China gets the attention because of its size, so when they embrace imperialism and condone counterfeiting, torture, repression, etc. it has a noticable effect in the rest of the world.

That would seem to reinforce the notion that when they move away from the old regime, that this too will also have an impact.

Unless someone can explain exactly what it is about being a Chinese person that makes them exempt from the same things that drive the rest of the human race?

Indeed, I think most countries/states make decisions based (mostly/largely) on their perceived self interests. Not solely or exclusively. But hey, any government that doesn't think about the interests of their own country, wouldn't be a very good government.

 

[crimresearch]

1.Nietzsche
2.Godwin's Law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1". Just mentioning Nazis or Hitler does not earn you Godwin points.
3.Nietzsche was not a Nazi.
_______________________________________________________



The false Godwin's meme deserves its own name.


I propose the 'Argumentum ad Reicheum' fallacy.