Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[Giz]

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.

{seinfeld mode}

Godwin-Nazi!

{/seinfeld mode}



(and as an aside) Obviously all governments consider their self interest but most western powers also consider (to at least some extent) morality. China appears to pursue its goals untempered by even the most basic moralistic qualms (Sudan anyone?).

Given that most genocides and the like are perpetrated where there has been thorough dehumanization of the "other" I do not find Wolfman's description of Chinese Confucianism to be very heartening... I fear that the world will only wake up and realize how good they had it when the US was top dog once the US is no longer there. Until then they will whine like spoiled teenagers before they are rudely awakened.

 

[trustbutverify]

{seinfeld mode}

Godwin-Nazi!

{/seinfeld mode}



(and as an aside) Obviously all governments consider their self interest but most western powers also consider (to at least some extent) morality. China appears to pursue its goals untempered by even the most basic moralistic qualms (Sudan anyone?).

Given that most genocides and the like are perpetrated where there has been thorough dehumanization of the "other" I do not find Wolfman's description of Chinese Confucianism to be very heartening... I fear that the world will only wake up and realize how good they had it when the US was top dog once the US is no longer there. Until then they will whine like spoiled teenagers before they are rudely awakened.

I agree.

 

[angrysoba]

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!).

{seinfeld mode}

Godwin-Nazi!

{/seinfeld mode}



(and as an aside) Obviously all governments consider their self interest but most western powers also consider (to at least some extent) morality. China appears to pursue its goals untempered by even the most basic moralistic qualms (Sudan anyone?).

Given that most genocides and the like are perpetrated where there has been thorough dehumanization of the "other" I do not find Wolfman's description of Chinese Confucianism to be very heartening... I fear that the world will only wake up and realize how good they had it when the US was top dog once the US is no longer there. Until then they will whine like spoiled teenagers before they are rudely awakened.

I don't think Wolfman is arguing that China's Confucianism lets them off the hook for anything, only that China's belief system guides their foreign policy and therefore if you want to understand China's foreign policy and predict what it will do in situation X or how it will react to situation Y it is a good idea to be clued up on that belief system.

There seems to be a confusion (Confucian? ) between judgments of fact and judgments of value.

In this case, "It is a fact that China's foreign policy is determined partly by Confucianism" is not the same thing as saying "It is good that China's foreign policy is determined partly by Confucianism".

 

[Virus]

I just don't see the difference between Confucian foreign policy and the cynical foreign policy of any other dictatorship with a penchant for massacring its dissidents.

 

[angrysoba]

I just don't see the difference between Confucian foreign policy and the cynical foreign policy of any other dictatorship with a penchant for massacring its dissidents.

Well, it is obviously different to Stalin's Soviet Union.

 

[Toontown]

I just don't see the difference between Confucian foreign policy and the cynical foreign policy of any other dictatorship with a penchant for massacring its dissidents.

You're just not seeing the inscrutable benevolence of Confucian foreign policy.

Take, for example, that valuable lesson the Chinese taught the Vietnamese by invading Vietnam. The Vietnamese learned that it is easy to whup the Chinese. They can eject a Chinese invasion in two weeks, tops.

Now that the Vietnamese know they can whup the Chinese, they no longer have feelings of paranoia about the Chinese, and so will no longer feel compelled to attack Chinese surrogates such as the Khmer Rouge.

Thus has dawned an unprecedented era of trust between China and Vietnam.

So you see, Confucian foreign policy is both subtle and inscrutable. Not at all uncharitable and churlish as it may at times appear on the surface.

 

[angrysoba]

You're just not seeing the inscrutable benevolence of Confucian foreign policy.

Take, for example, that valuable lesson the Chinese taught the Vietnamese by invading Vietnam. The Vietnamese learned that it is easy to whup the Chinese. They can eject a Chinese invasion in two weeks, tops.

Now that the Vietnamese know they can whup the Chinese, they no longer have feelings of paranoia about the Chinese, and so will no longer feel compelled to attack Chinese surrogates such as the Khmer Rouge.

Thus has dawned an unprecedented era of trust between China and Vietnam.

So you see, Confucian foreign policy is both subtle and inscrutable. Not at all uncharitable and churlish as it may at times appear on the surface.

I think what you are required to do is provide an example of China intervening in another country's internal affairs, not to say whether you approve of the policy of non-intervention. You seem to have missed that distinction.

 

[Toontown]

I think what you are required to do is provide an example of China intervening in another country's internal affairs, not to say whether you approve of the policy of non-intervention. You seem to have missed that distinction.

Invading a country, as China has done to South Korea by surrogate, to Cambodia by surrogate, and Vietnam and Tibet by direct invasion, is intervening in the invaded country's internal affairs, since invasion forces the country to do things internally that it would not otherwise do and would prefer not to do.

However, I'm sure all the invaded countries learned valuable lessons.

 

[angrysoba]

Invading a country, as China has done to South Korea by surrogate, to Cambodia by surrogate, and Vietnam and Tibet by direct invasion, is intervening in the invaded country's internal affairs, since invasion forces the country to do things internally that it would not otherwise do and would prefer not to do.

However, I'm sure all the invaded countries learned valuable lessons.

No, the Korean War was not an internal affair.

The Chinese invasion of Vietnam occurred as a response to a non-internal matter: Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and ousting of the Khmer Rouge. (This was a good thing by Vietnam).

Tibet is, rightly or wrongly, (I consider wrongly) claimed by China as part of its terrority and therefore an internal affair for China.

 

[Toontown]

No, the Korean War was not an internal affair.

The Chinese invasion of Vietnam occurred as a response to a non-internal matter: Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and ousting of the Khmer Rouge. (This was a good thing by Vietnam).

Tibet is, rightly or wrongly, (I consider wrongly) claimed by China as part of its terrority and therefore an internal affair for China.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, we agree that China has hardly been a fastidious practitioner of non-intervention.

But that Confucian foreign policy is so inscrutable, one can never be sure if anything is quite what it seems.

 

[angrysoba]

So, if I'm reading you correctly, we agree that China has hardly been a fastidious practitioner of non-intervention.

No, they are fastidious practioners of non-intervention, if we assume their claims to places such as Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkestan, some areas of the East China Sea, which - on the whole - I do not. But certainly they do not seem to intervene in areas which they have no claim over.

But that Confucian foreign policy is so inscrutable, one can never be sure if anything is quite what it seems.

No. It seems to be only you who is enchanted by the word "inscrutable". "Inscrutability" is a quality that was often held to be a very "Asian" thing by people who got too carried away with ethnic differences ever for or against.

I think the idea of non-intervention is perfectly intelligible. It is one that I think has certain virtues but one that I don't always agree with.

My own view of intervention vs. respect for national sovereignty is probably far more inscrutable than that of the Chinese.

 

[Giz]

No, they are fastidious practioners of non-intervention, if we assume their claims to places such as Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkestan, some areas of the East China Sea, which - on the whole - I do not. But certainly they do not seem to intervene in areas which they have no claim over.

Another way to describe it would be: they only really throw their weight around in areas to which they can project power. So far that has meant that their interventions have been in their back yard.

Now they are building an open water navy and upgrading their airforce. Where will they be intervening in 10 years time? It may turn out that China feels attached to some rather far flung places...

 

[Toontown]

No, they are fastidious practioners of non-intervention, if we assume their claims to places such as Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkestan, some areas of the East China Sea, which - on the whole - I do not. But certainly they do not seem to intervene in areas which they have no claim over..

So, they intervene, but they don't think they're intervening when they intervene, because they think they have some claim which you do not, on the whole, think they have?

Inscrutable, man. Real inscrutable.

I think the idea of non-intervention is perfectly intelligible. It is one that I think has certain virtues but one that I don't always agree with.

My own view of intervention vs. respect for national sovereignty is probably far more inscrutable than that of the Chinese.

You know what? Nevermind.

For the record, I was being sarcastic about the inscrutability. I don't really find them inscrutable at all. I consider that I can read them like a cheap paperback novel.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Note the classic strawman "so" construction in which a poster attempts to dishonestly represent what someone else has said:

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

Raise your game, would you?

 

[angrysoba]

Another way to describe it would be: they only really throw their weight around in areas to which they can project power. So far that has meant that their interventions have been in their back yard.

Now they are building an open water navy and upgrading their airforce. Where will they be intervening in 10 years time? It may turn out that China feels attached to some rather far flung places...

Yes. It is possible that it is all a ruse and that they fully intend to start intervening all over the place once they get the chance.

That is not what anyone is arguing about.

The argument is over whether or not their policy vis-a-vis Syria is determined, at least in part, by a long-standing policy of non-intervention.

The vetoing of the UNSC resolution would appear to be in keeping with that even if it is also in their interests. Wouldn't you say?

 

[angrysoba]

So, they intervene, but they don't think they're intervening when they intervene, because they think they have some claim which you do not, on the whole, think they have?

No, obviously that is not what I said.

You know what? Nevermind.

Won't you be able to keep up the pretence of being confused any longer?

 

[Giz]

Raise your game, would you?

Sorry, you're defending too many dictatorships on too many different threads for me to keep up!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry, you're defending too many dictatorships on too many different threads for me to keep up!

Yet another lie from Giz.

How droll.

Pay very close attention: I'd rather see a Sunni take over in Syria, even though my heart tells me that Alawites and Christians and a few other minorities there would get a face full of ethnic cleansing in the process.

Note what happened in Iraq when the "progressive" autocrat got knocked off. His brutality was at an end, and his people then promptly turned to brutalizing one another. Some of them were clever enough to fight with the Americans who knocked him out, so we killed a load of them as well. We are leaving, and they're still killing. I expect the same to happen in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

Libya: to soon to tell how that will play out in the end.

 

[Virus]

Yes. It is possible that it is all a ruse and that they fully intend to start intervening all over the place once they get the chance.

That is not what anyone is arguing about.

The argument is over whether or not their policy vis-a-vis Syria is determined, at least in part, by a long-standing policy of non-intervention.

The vetoing of the UNSC resolution would appear to be in keeping with that even if it is also in their interests. Wouldn't you say?

It's determined by the long-standing policy of not giving a fig if a fellow dictatorship massacres protesters especially if they're a good customer for your arms exports.

 

[angrysoba]

It's determined by the long-standing policy of not giving a fig if a fellow dictatorship massacres protesters especially if they're a good customer for your arms exports.

Yes.