Peter wrote:
“US wars”
Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West is the book to read. There’s also a film for the less faint-hearted.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
As to China’s future role in the world that is a far more difficult question. It seems to me we have preserved relative peace for as long as we have because the world has accepted the need to confirm to certain international norms, … but these are long established rights when the world was a different place … The fact that we enslaved people 100 odd years ago is not an excuse for doing it today.
Do you see the break in your own reasoning yourself?
Fact is: If we believe that all people (and not only all European, German, Uk or US people) should have equal rights and if we believe in Democracy, the people of China should have a much stronger role in global politics than China has today – about double the weight that US and EU have together! They clearly have not!
You justify that reality by the fact that the rights of play in global politics have been distributed 100 yrs ago when China obviously did not claim these rights for their people. On the other hand you also claim that we must not take into consideration what US or European countries did 100 yrs ago in order to establish exactly this global power distribution, because it’s 100 years ago…
Talking about “long established rights” w/o giving people that are currently living the right to question and change these is what monarchs and dictators did for ages – but doesn’t fit into a modern world.
And it’s not at all about forgetting what the US did in WW1 or 2. But that is history – the reality is now!
If we accept that the people of China (and by the way soon to come the people of Africa) don’t have the role and say they deserve in a world that claims to be rooted in the “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” principle but on the other hand fear the chaos and conflict which historically came with redistributing the world, it would be our duty to propose a way that gives them their fair share without conflict.
Telling them “bad luck you haven’t asked for that 100 years ago because now we don’t want to share any longer” is not a way into a conflict free future.
" In all dealings with China the starting point is dont believe a word thay say"
That is how I now approach UK and US media. And Government statements.
As an Android user, the movement tracking is impressive. Although I can not access my “Timeline” since 21/12/2019, I can still access earlier records. E.G. how long I was in a bank in Banbury in September.
I am sure the tracking continues, although no longer accessible.
It’s just something we have to live with.
The google tracking is what enables google maps to be such a good free driving (satnav) app. Personally I could not care less because google probably don’t know who I am (by name+address, etc), and GSM phones have always (for 20-30 years) been tracked and that system knows exactly who you are and the position is stored every ~10mins, and kept essentially for ever, all SMS messages are stored essentially for ever, and the endpoints of all voice calls (number, IMEI, phone locations) are also logged and stored essentially for ever… That system is heavily used for police activities.
Peter wrote:
Personally I could not care less because google probably don’t know who I am (by name+address, etc)
You can be absolutely sure google does! (But personally I don’t care anyways)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Do you see the break in your own reasoning yourself?Fact is: If we believe that all people (and not only all European, German, Uk or US people) should have equal rights and if we believe in Democracy, the people of China should have a much stronger role in global politics than China has today – about double the weight that US and EU have together! They clearly have not!
You justify that reality by the fact that the rights of play in global politics have been distributed 100 yrs ago when China obviously did not claim these rights for their people. On the other hand you also claim that we must not take into consideration what US or European countries did 100 yrs ago in order to establish exactly this global power distribution, because it’s 100 years ago…
Talking about “long established rights” w/o giving people that are currently living the right to question and change these is what monarchs and dictators did for ages – but doesn’t fit into a modern world.
And it’s not at all about forgetting what the US did in WW1 or 2. But that is history – the reality is now!If we accept that the people of China (and by the way soon to come the people of Africa) don’t have the role and say they deserve in a world that claims to be rooted in the “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” principle but on the other hand fear the chaos and conflict which historically came with redistributing the world, it would be our duty to propose a way that gives them their fair share without conflict.
Telling them “bad luck you haven’t asked for that 100 years ago because now we don’t want to share any longer” is not a way into a conflict free future.
By that reasoning no territorial boundaries are sacrosanct.
By the same reasoning the world has not progressed, and it should remain a free for all, the biggest bully wins.
That was my point earlier. The world has moved on. We have agreed on certain norms because we realised not to do so was a road to disaster. Many contries have handed back territory when there was clear evidence countries wanted independence.
A few countries however still feel they should exist in a world where land grabs are justified.
It is the same point as to why although we enslaved people 100 years ago we dont do so today, and the same reason why it is no longer right others do.
It is the same reason we realised that an arms race achieves nothing, other than to lead us to the brink of disaster.
History is littered with lessons, but there is only one important lesson – dont make the same mistakes twice. With respect that is the course your argument risks, and why it will always be true that because you did it, so can we.
There is another anaology and a good rule in business. If you cut a business contract it needs to be good for me, but, as important, good for you. We are alll tempted to boast about the wonderful business deals we have just done, often because it is biased in our favour. We have got one over, in short. It may work to your advantage, but it will often not stand the test of time when the other party realise they have been shafted.
This is another lesson China should learn. There policy of controlling the resources of many other poorer countries and their belief that the West is dependant on China is a fallacy. It works all the time both parties beleive they are getting a fiar deal. However, as soon as China puts the screws on one party, as they are doing, it will not last. Many of the African countries will simply boot them out when push comes to shove. There is every chance the West will get fed up with China’s poor quality goods, even if they are cheap. There is a cue of countries who can do better.
China believed the west was reliant on their 5G technology. It isnt. There are other providers that can do the job as well, probably better. The rest of the world will adapt, and will adapt quickly, if China pursue their current course, and once they have done so, they will not return to China, and China will increasingly become isolated.
Personally I suspect we may have arrested this slide just in time. I think China almost had got itself into a position where extracating ourselves would have been far more challenging. 5G is the best example.
China may have missed a trick because they have pushed too hard, too soon, and for that I am grateful, and I hope the West realises it is a bullet we may have just dodged as long as we keep up the pressure, because I am in no doubt China will use every trick in the book to divert attention.
That isnt I suspect what China wish, but it is the path on which they are headed.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
By that reasoning no territorial boundaries are sacrosanct.By the same reasoning the world has not progressed, and it should remain a free for all, the biggest bully wins.
By your reasoning, boundaries that have been drawn early/mid last century are sacrosanct simply because we are on the side of the winners for that very biassed drawing of boundaries. And you are the one reasoning here, that the world should remain in the shape from 70 years ago and should not progress.
But we are not even talking about territorial expansion here! We are talking about global power and influence. And you haven’t answered to my core question why you think that 1.4 billion Chinese should not have more influence in the world than 700million Europeans and US combined? Just because they haven’t claimed it 70 years ago and you now are not willing to accept that the world does progress?
Talking of resources and the “policy of controlling of resources of poorer countries”: Ever thought about UK/US/Australien Mining companies? US/EU oil companies?
That’s again the applying two different standards of “exploitation of poorer countries is ok as long as it’s done by US/EU but completely unacceptable as soon as the Chinese try the same”.
Malibuflyer wrote:
By your reasoning, boundaries that have been drawn early/mid last century are sacrosanct simply because we are on the side of the winners for that very biassed drawing of boundaries. And you are the one reasoning here, that the world should remain in the shape from 70 years ago and should not progress.
Yes, that is about it. Taking over other territories unless the people wish to be taken over, isnt progress. We call it invasion these days.
Malibuflyer wrote:
But we are not even talking about territorial expansion here! We are talking about global power and influence. And you haven’t answered to my core question why you think that 1.4 billion Chinese should not have more influence in the world than 700million Europeans and US combined? Just because they haven’t claimed it 70 years ago and you now are not willing to accept that the world does progress?
Influence should no longer come about in the way China believes. My point is we are trying desperately to move away from bully boy tactics. Of course I think they should have democratic influence, the way they are going about it is not even close to democratic. Changes take time. That may be frustrating, but it is for good reason. If China rushes in, it will simply have longer to regret its actions. Strangely it is very much part of their early history to accept that the wheel turns slowly.
Anyone we have had a good debate. We appear to be some way apart. I respect your view but I doubt either will be persuaded sufficiently if there really is as big a gulf as it appears. It is bit like us and China. I get the feeling that China is set on a course with complete disregard to what the vast majority believe. Again, that is all very well, but I suspect it has little prospect of success for China, unless they believe they can bully everyone to their way of thinking.
Peter wrote:
Well, try extending that to WW1 and WW2… the US saved our skins, lost 250k men in WW2 doing it, and then rebuilt the place.
That was only half the job, which actually ended in 1990. At that point the US could start disengagement from Europe, but like most such activities it carries risk that the same problems will once again recur.
The primary US defense role for Europe is now the protection of shipping and energy supplies, an activity still paid for by the US taxpayer at great expense.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I get the feeling that China is set on a course with complete disregard to what the vast majority believe
We must not forget: Compared to even EU/US combined, China is the vast majority!
But in one point we are in wild agreement: It’s a great debate even if we don’t agree!
