Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[WildCat]

China does not acknowledge or support any international law that infringes on the sovereignty of any state to operate as they please within the confines of their own borders.

That's a good policy for a country that brutally represses its own citizens to have. It's consistent, and morally reprehensible.

 

[WildCat]

Where did you get yours?

PressTV, prisonplanet, globalresearch.ca... you know, only the most reliebale news sources.

 

[timhau]

Indeed Ghadaffi raped Lybia.

Kinky.

 

[trustbutverify]

The rape of Libya is the most heinous crime of this century.

The Ahmadinejad-Left rides again. Supporting tyrants, sadists and infantile conspiracy theories all in the service of their never ending make believe battle with the NWO and the Illuminati!

 

[Wolfman]

That's a good policy for a country that brutally represses its own citizens to have. It's consistent, and morally reprehensible.

Whereas the U.S. enforces such laws on other countries, but resolutely refuses to be bound by them itself. Not saying China's right...just questioning which is better...a country that holds a consistent position (that is wrong), or a country that hypocritically seeks to punish other countries according to laws that it refuses to subject itself to?

 

[trustbutverify]

PressTV, prisonplanet, globalresearch.ca... you know, only the most reliebale news sources.

Russia Today, Veterans Today, Counterpunch, American Free Press...

 

[WildCat]

Whereas the U.S. enforces such laws on other countries, but resolutely refuses to be bound by them itself. Not saying China's right...just questioning which is better...a country that holds a consistent position (that is wrong), or a country that hypocritically seeks to punish other countries according to laws that it refuses to subject itself to?

I have yet to be convinced that China's actions are related to some ancient Confucian philosophy rather than China simply choosing the option that best suits China's interests.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I guess it really is about the "Ka-ching Ka-ching".

 

[Wolfman]

I have yet to be convinced that China's actions are related to some ancient Confucian philosophy rather than China simply choosing the option that best suits China's interests.

Hmmm..."I remain unconvinced, so I can A) just continue to reject such a claim or B) educate myself".

I assume you'd go for choice "B"...so how about doing a little actual research about Confucianism? Or research on modern Chinese culture (not just gov't policies, but common society, also)?

Examples:

* A recent, highly publicized case where a young girl was hit by two trucks and left dying in the street, but numerous passersby did nothing to help her. Chinese people themselves, commenting on it, said that it was wrong, but that it is normal Chinese practice not to get involved with people to whom you don't have a relationship or obligation.

* Singapore -- a democratic country that likewise tends to follow Confucian values -- likewise follows a consistent policy of non-involvement in internal issues. This cannot be blamed on Communism, or any other such concept.

* Confucianism itself divides human responsibility and obligation into very clear spheres. Within a particular sphere, responsibility and obligation are absolute (so for example, children should obey parents unquestioningly, even if told to do something wrong; and parents should sacrifice everything for their childrens' welfare); but outside of those spheres, one has little or no responsibility whatsoever (and getting involved is actually wrong).

I wrote an article for the China Daily newspaper which addresses this issue...the fact it was published (and later translated into Chinese and published in a national magazine) should be an indication that they agree with my sentiments. Here is the relevant excerpt:

You see, when I started trying to raise money to support our organization's projects, I found that most Chinese simply weren't interested. It wasn't because they didn't have enough money, many of the people I talked to were very successful businesspeople. It was because they simply felt no responsibility to help. Their reaction was generally along the lines of "I think what you're doing is really good, and I wish you lots of luck, but I'm not going to help." If you talk to other non-profit organizations in China, I'm sure you'll hear similar stories. Foreigners, by contrast, were often both interested and eager to donate money and supplies to help us out.

This led me at first to a rather cynical view of Chinese, as being selfish and only caring about themselves. But with time, I came to realize that wasn't always true. Many of my Chinese students, after they graduated university, would send the majority of their income to help their families. There were frequent stories about rich Chinese businessmen who returned to their hometowns to build schools, hospitals, etc. They weren't being selfish...so why wouldn't they help us, too?

It is because of a fundamental cultural difference. In Western culture, we tend to have a sense of equal responsibility towards everyone. That's certainly my attitude -- I'm human, and the people I help are human. I don't see it as "I'm Canadian, and they're Chinese". It is the simple fact of shared humanity that gives me a responsibility to help others, regardless of whether I know them or not. But in Chinese culture, based largely on Confucian values, there is a tendency to feel a very strong responsibility towards those close to you; but the less connected they are to you, the less responsibility you have for them. Thus, there's a very strong responsibility to help your family; a fairly strong responsibility to help friends; a moderate responsibility to help people from your hometown, or your ethnic group; etc. But for people with whom you share little or nothing in common, there is little or no responsibility to help them.

In some ways, this can be a good thing; it means that families and communities can rely more strongly on each other. But in other ways, I consider it a weakness, and a significant impediment to China's continued growth and development. China would grow much faster, and develop much more effectively, if its citizens felt a stronger responsibility to help everyone...not just the people they know.

And recently, I've been seeing a very big shift in this regard, a fundamental change in Chinese culture, particularly in the younger under-25 generation. It started with the terrible Sichuan earthquake in 2008. I've been witness to a number of tragedies in China, and prior to 2008, the reaction was always pretty much the same. The government would tell people how much money they should give, or what they should do, and they would do it. But beyond that, very few people would do anything at all. When I talked with people about it, they'd generally say, "It's the government's responsibility, not mine."

In 2008, that suddenly changed. Thousands of people from all across China -- mostly young people -- suddenly started volunteering to help. They didn't wait for the government to tell them what to do; they didn't do things just because that was what they were told they should do. They gathered food, clothes, and water to help the earthquake victims. Some of them actually traveled there to work as volunteers, helping the local people. They donated their own money, their own time, and their own energy to help people that they didn't know at all.
Since then, I've noticed a big shift in Chinese attitudes towards helping others. Among the older generation, the change is not so great; but among the younger generation, I find an entirely new perspective. I'm regularly contacted by young Chinese -- university students, or people who've just started working -- asking how they can help us, how they can get involved. Many of them don't have much money to give, but are willing to volunteer their time and energy to help us however they can.

Please note that I think this situation is changing with the younger generation; but it's gonna' take decades before those people are in control of the gov't.

There's much more detailed discussion of this, and other related issues, in this thread.


ETA: To clarify...I'm not arguing that China's international policy is not also influenced by political issues...obviously it is. Just as America's is. Just as every other country on the planet is. But Confucianism does play a significant contributory role, also (ie. even if they were a democracy, they'd still tend to have a similar attitude).

 

[angrysoba]

Wolfman, I don't mean to be rude, but I don't find your anecdote convincing. The reason why I say that is because you don't actually argue for Confucianism being central to most people's motives for giving, or not, to charity but rather assume that explains the reason using a personal example of you collecting money for a minority group that you personally have a huge interest in and came to be very close to by living with them.

Surely, it can't be too difficult to grasp that the people you asked money from simply hadn't lived with the Mosuo people and may not have felt the same enthusiasm that you did for the cause that you personally adopted. After all, you set up your organization after living with them and feeling some kinship that presumably didn't exist before you went. I'm jus' sayin'.

It seems that you were puzzled by the attitudes of Chinese people not wanting to help. Why not? If you cut them do they not bleed? etc... Could it be because they held Confucian values very peculiar to the Chinese and other East Asians that we Canadians don't understand? Or could it be that your particular Canadian attitude to human suffering is the more unusual? Now, if the people you had asked money from had quoted the Analects back at you you would have had a point but in my experience people in most places are also not that willing to fork out for some - to them - fringe interest in a people about which they know nothing.

On the other hand there could be other reasons for them thinking this.

I am pretty sure that if I went from door-to-door in Japan saying that I am raising money for the homeless or ... the burakumin I would probably get an embarrassed smile and a "That sounds like a great thing you're doing but I am not sure that I right now can quite give anything that...oh, look at the time... I must pick up the kids from school even though I never do that and they always come home by train..."

I might conclude that this reveals their prejudicial Confucian attitudes of concern for and responsibilty to their own children while neglecting a universal responsibility towards the homeless that they could afford to do more to help.

Or I could realize that the conversation sounds a little bit like:

"Excuse me, could you help give me some money for the victims of your national shame?"
"I don't know you from Taro. How do I know the money is going to be put to good use and I've got lots of other things to worry about right now."

Adam Smith once gave a very, apparently Confucian, analysis for the theory of moral sentiments which sounds quite apt here:

Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's try Occam's Razor.

A UN veto is worthless if you don't exercise it now and again, just because you can.

Russia and China saw what went on when they didn't veto the Libya thing, and have decided to preclude the UN running amok in Syria, because they can, and to prove a critical point: they are Powers, and Powers to be reckoned with. Their opinion matters. I'd say each head of state came to that conclusion independently, but it is also possible that a little tea and biscuits was shared by the Russian and Chinese reps, in a quiet parlor, before the vote.

That is all the reason anyone in their capitals needed to call this one: listen up, folks, we have muscles to flex.

It may be more complex than that, and possibly is, but it doesn't need to go any deeper than that.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, I don't mean to be rude, but I don't find your anecdote convincing. The reason why I say that is because you don't actually argue for Confucianism being central to most people's motives for giving, or not, to charity but rather assume that explains the reason using a personal example of you collecting money for a minority group that you personally have a huge interest in and came to be very close to by living with them.

A few points in my defense:

1) This isn't just an opinion expressed by me; it is an opinion that was published in English in a national Chinese newspaper, and in Chinese in a national Chinese magazine. If you go to the link in question, you'll see in the comments section that there were Chinese people who agreed with my comments, and I received a great many more emailed comments from other Chinese stating that they agreed with me entirely. So you can disagree with me if you want, I'll take the Chinese response more seriously. Personally, I'd tend to think that if the Chinese considered this to be just some ignorant foreigner's position, then a national newspaper controlled by the government wouldn't have printed it (or re-printed it in Chinese for an even larger audience); and most certainly Chinese would have written to say how much they disagreed.

2) The whole "they don't know them but you do" argument makes some sense, if you ignore entirely the point I raised in that article that foreigners in China (with even less of a connection to the Mosuo than the Chinese have) were much more willing to donate money to help us. There is obviously a difference in attitudes, and it's not 'just me'.

I've got 19 years of experience in China, a degree in cross-cultural studies, 10+ years working as a cross-cultural consultant (including being chosen as the speech writer for the Mayor of Beijing during the bid for the 2008 Olympic Games, due in large part to my reputation for understanding Chinese culture)...

...and your qualifications are...?

Now, if the people you had asked money from had quoted the Analects back at you you would have had a point but in my experience people in most places are also not that willing to fork out for some - to them - fringe interest in a people about which they know nothing.

I'm sorry...but that's stupid. North Americans are largely affected by a strong Judeo-Christian heritage that, even if they are not themselves Christians, still has a significant impact on their culture. The fact that every Canadian who donates money to a charity doesn't quote Jesus doesn't serve to demonstrate that their actions weren't influenced by a cultural environment shaped for hundreds of years by a Judeo-Christian ethic.

I don't so much mind people disagreeing with me; what bothers me is when people claim that I lack evidence for my claims, yet they themselves have far, far less evidence for the claims they are making. If you can present evidence that is equal to or greater than the evidence I present, then I'll certainly take your arguments seriously; lacking that, well...good luck.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm just saying I didn't find it convincing. That's all.

2) The whole "they don't know them but you do" argument makes some sense, if you ignore entirely the point I raised in that article that foreigners in China (with even less of a connection to the Mosuo than the Chinese have) were much more willing to donate money to help us. There is obviously a difference in attitudes, and it's not 'just me'.

Foreigners living in another country are a self-selecting group though. There's something different about them to begin with (especially those who are not economic migrants). One of those things is a higher level of interest in different types of people.

However, I have been looking around at some of the incursions by Chinese vessels into the waters claimed by their neighbours, and some of what you say does seem to be borne out by the Chinese government's reactions to incidents which happen in disputed waters and those which occur in waters indisputably of their neighbours. The recent one in South Korea where a Chinese fisherman stabbed a Korean coastguard to death was met by a bit of handwringing from the Chinese saying they do try to instruct their fishermen to respect international boundaries.

 

[Pardalis]

...and your qualifications are...?

Pedantic as usual.

Is Russia's decision to veto also influenced by their Confucianism?

 

[WildCat]

that it is normal Chinese practice not to get involved with people to whom you don't have a relationship or obligation.

And this applies to Syria how? And isn't a veto "getting involved"? In fact, I'd say the veto involves them neck-deep in protecting Assad. Abstaining would be "not getting involved".

And I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that Syria is close allies with Iran, another despotic regime China is quite eager to sell arms to and get oil from even as the rest of the world shuns them.

 

[Wolfman]

And this applies to Syria how? And isn't a veto "getting involved"? In fact, I'd say the veto involves them neck-deep in protecting Assad. Abstaining would be "not getting involved".

And I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that Syria is close allies with Iran, another despotic regime China is quite eager to sell arms to and get oil from even as the rest of the world shuns them.

1) This applies to Syria in that, at present, it is a purely internal issue, from the Chinese perspective. As I've explained several times.

2) A veto is getting involved in the UN, yes. It is a vote to not get involved in Syria, because it's an internal issue. I'm obviously not saying that the Chinese philosophy is "get involved in nothing". The UN is proposing an international policy...that is not an "internal" issue, and therefore China gets involved.

3) Actually, yes, it is largely coincidental. Were it not a coincidence, if this demonstrated a pattern of favoritism, then we would see situations where China interferes in 'internal issues' in countries that it opposes, but does nothing when they are allies. The fact is, China's policy towards all countries, friend or foe, is quite consistent in this regard. It is the U.S. that ignores abuses in its allies (thinks Saudi Arabia, or Saddam Hussein), but condemns them in its opponents.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you honestly don't get it. China's policies regarding 'internal issues' of sovereign states is consistent, across the board. It is a policy of non-interference. It doesn't matter if they are an ally, or an enemy...China remains uninvolved. Claims that "its because they're an ally" (or in this case "because they are friends of an ally") are plainly demonstrated to be rather lacking in merit.

And once again -- I'm not saying that I support or condone China's actions. I don't. I wish that they would care more about human rights, both for their own people, and for people in other countries. However, the question in the OP was why China would veto the UN resolution...and I'm explaining, from the Chinese perspective, why they did so.

Your lack of ability to understand doesn't represent lack of validity to my statements.

 

[WildCat]

1) This applies to Syria in that, at present, it is a purely internal issue, from the Chinese perspective. As I've explained several times.

2) A veto is getting involved in the UN, yes. It is a vote to not get involved in Syria, because it's an internal issue. I'm obviously not saying that the Chinese philosophy is "get involved in nothing". The UN is proposing an international policy...that is not an "internal" issue, and therefore China gets involved.

Uh-huh, and since China gets to define what is an 'internal issue" and what isn't they can formulate a policy that just by coincidence advances China's economic and political power for the sole benefit of China. China gets to pretend to be both involved (UN membership, security council veto power) while also pretending not to be involved when it suits them.

Like the Church lady would say "Isn't that special"?

3) Actually, yes, it is largely coincidental. Were it not a coincidence, if this demonstrated a pattern of favoritism, then we would see situations where China interferes in 'internal issues' in countries that it opposes, but does nothing when they are allies. The fact is, China's policy towards all countries, friend or foe, is quite consistent in this regard. It is the U.S. that ignores abuses in its allies (thinks Saudi Arabia, or Saddam Hussein), but condemns them in its opponents.

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

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you honestly don't get it. China's policies regarding 'internal issues' of sovereign states is consistent, across the board.

Except, of course, when it isn't. The 1979 war with Vietnam as a case in point.

It is a policy of non-interference. It doesn't matter if they are an ally, or an enemy...China remains uninvolved.

Except when they don't, like vetoing UN resolutions, selling arms to other countries (yet another example of non-involved involvement), or invading Vietnam to "punish" them.

Claims that "its because they're an ally" (or in this case "because they are friends of an ally") are plainly demonstrated to be rather lacking in merit.

I'm sure, just ask them and they'll tell you so!

And once again -- I'm not saying that I support or condone China's actions. I don't. I wish that they would care more about human rights, both for their own people, and for people in other countries. However, the question in the OP was why China would veto the UN resolution...and I'm explaining, from the Chinese perspective, why they did so.

Your lack of ability to understand doesn't represent lack of validity to my statements.

Occam's Razor says there's a far more plausible explanation of China's actions: China is doing what's bets for China, the rest of the world be damned.

 

[Wolfman]

Uh-huh, and since China gets to define what is an 'internal issue" and what isn't they can formulate a policy that just by coincidence advances China's economic and political power for the sole benefit of China. China gets to pretend to be both involved (UN membership, security council veto power) while also pretending not to be involved when it suits them.

Like the Church lady would say "Isn't that special"?

"Only affects people within that country" equals "internal issue"

"Affects people outside that country, or represents a threat to people outside that country" equals "external issue"

It's a pretty easy differentiation. Iranian development of nuclear weapons represents a threat to outside countries, and China has supported some of the sanctions to prevent Iran from doing so (despite the fact they're a "Chinese ally"). Syrian abuse of its own people affects only the people within that country, so it is an "internal matter".

I could have sworn China was allies with N. Korea...

yes...and? When did I ever claim that China doesn't have allies? In regards to N. Korea's treatment of its own people (internal issue), China has been steadfast in not getting involved; in regards to N. Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, China has been active in drafting and passing punitive measures against North Korea, despite being an ally; and has also been active in negotiations with N. Korea to try to keep them under control.

and that they have issues with Vietnam (even attempting to invade in 1979).

Yes...after Vietnam had invaded Cambodia. Please read my definitions above: "Affects people outside that country, or represents a threat to people outside that country" equals "external issue". Invading another country is most certainly more than "just an internal issue"...and since my argument is that China remains uninvolved when it is only an internal issue, your point is pretty much entirely moot.

Except, of course, when it isn't. The 1979 war with Vietnam as a case in point.

Except, of course, that it wasn't an "internal issue". Vietnam invaded Cambodia. China jumped into the fight, which was not internal.

Except when they don't, like vetoing UN resolutions, selling arms to other countries (yet another example of non-involved involvement), or invading Vietnam to "punish" them.

Once again, you seem terribly confused. You seem to be entirely unable to differentiate between "domestic" and "international" issues.

China sells weapons...to any country that will buy them. There's no preferential policy, no attempt to get involved in how the people who buy those weapons will use them. This is plainly demonstrated in Libya...where they sold weapons to Gaddhafi, and now they're selling weapons to the forces who defeated him. It doesn't support any particular government; it simply sells to whoever will pay them. Not a good thing; but also not indicative of getting involved in local politics.

Occam's Razor says there's a far more plausible explanation of China's actions: China is doing what's bets for China, the rest of the world be damned.

That's part of the truth, yes. Like every country will do. But such a simplistic and naive attitude doesn't get at many of the other factors involved.

As you've stated, China is probably North Korea's biggest ally. When it comes to internal human rights issues, China will not do anything, and will veto any UN resolutions and oppose any international efforts to interfere in this. But when it is an external issue, one that represents a threat to other countries, then China joins with the international community to try to prevent it. It has nothing to do with whether they are an ally or not; it is the issue of whether it is internal, or external.

Simple decision-making chain:

Does this country's/government's actions represent a threat to outside people/countries?

If yes: take action.

If no: leave them alone.

Ally or non-ally makes no difference. Decisions will be pretty much the same, made based on this criteria.

If you disagree, again, then give evidence. And please...better evidence than things like the Vietnam thing.

 

[Giz]

ETA: To clarify...I'm not arguing that China's international policy is not also influenced by political issues...obviously it is. Just as America's is. Just as every other country on the planet is. But Confucianism does play a significant contributory role, also (ie. even if they were a democracy, they'd still tend to have a similar attitude).

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

 

[WildCat]

"Only affects people within that country" equals "internal issue"

"Affects people outside that country, or represents a threat to people outside that country" equals "external issue"

So Syria's involvement in the Hariri murder is an "internal issue"? Their support of Hezbollah in carryoing out attacks on Israel is likewise an "internal issue"?

It's a pretty easy differentiation. Iranian development of nuclear weapons represents a threat to outside countries, and China has supported some of the sanctions to prevent Iran from doing so (despite the fact they're a "Chinese ally"). Syrian abuse of its own people affects only the people within that country, so it is an "internal matter".
yes...and? When did I ever claim that China doesn't have allies? In regards to N. Korea's treatment of its own people (internal issue), China has been steadfast in not getting involved; in regards to N. Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, China has been active in drafting and passing punitive measures against North Korea, despite being an ally; and has also been active in negotiations with N. Korea to try to keep them under control.
Yes...after Vietnam had invaded Cambodia. Please read my definitions above: "Affects people outside that country, or represents a threat to people outside that country" equals "external issue". Invading another country is most certainly more than "just an internal issue"...and since my argument is that China remains uninvolved when it is only an internal issue, your point is pretty much entirely moot.

So why doesn't China support action against Syria for their meddling in Lebanon and role in attacking Israel?

The ony thing consistent with China's actions is they act in China's interests.