Chinese Foreign Policy and Other International Things

Wu Wei Wu

Jedi Master
I don't know if the SOTT crew would be interested in carrying my articles, but I'd figure I'd put it out there. After all, I have a lot of niche knowledge that's hard to get, and were I asked if I would like to learn such things I would respond with a resounding YES! It would also expand my readership and further spread this knowledge which would give more people understanding of foreign politics. I study political science and current events religiously and what I see everyday is immense ignorance as to the objective understanding between states and societies. Obviously the SOTT group is familiar with this, given that they post so many articles for exactly the same purpose, namely extending objective understanding of our modern circumstances.

Here are three recent ones I wrote. I try to restrict them to roughly 1000 words so people can learn while making a small time investment. I produce longer works too but I find people get more out of shorter pieces presented in segments. This places the burden of separation and packaging of information on me, which is difficult, but I enjoy writing anyways so it is a happy sacrifice.

_http://ahousewithnochild.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/how-china-subordinates-the-world-tianxia/
_http://ahousewithnochild.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/how-chinas-rise-can-fail-tianxia-follishness/
_http://ahousewithnochild.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/crushing-the-tianxia-dream-is-russias-decision/

The topic here is the idea of Tianxia. I approach it exclusively politically, with regards to Chinese foreign policy and their behavior towards other nations. Most people find Chinese foreign policy mystifyingly confrontational or benevolent, neither of which are accurate. Chinese foreign policy can better be summed in the phrase "hide your capabilities until you are ready, then dominate". Chinese interests are expressly hegemonic and not at all hidden. However the idea of Tianxia is not well understood by almost all westerners, which makes it seem confusing.

Rather than present my analysis here, I will refer readers to the above articles. If the SOTT team decides it is to their liking, I will happily encourage their presentation on the SOTT site and write more for the SOTT team in the future. I'm going to be writing anyways, so it might as well be productive and beneficial to the maximal amount of people.
 
A few comments on one of the articles.
The modern world loves Chinese diplomacy. I don’t blame them for it either. Nobodies from halfway around the world and every imaginable corner take what little money their state can spare and book an economy flight for their ministers to Beijing. The Chinese response? Lavish, million dollar service, ceremony, and ritual. Who wouldn’t enjoy finally getting their time in the sun from legions of exotic foreigners? Even the Polynesian leaders are hosted like kings of old, and many have less power than the average city councilor. They show up and the soldiers make way for them as the Party lavishes them with services, state business opportunities and opulent personal gifts. And I mean truly opulent gifts. Billion dollar loans, no strings attached? If your poor African leader can visit Beijing and sit down with the Chairman, the Chinese will make it happen.

All this can and should be contrasted with diplomacy in other parts of the world. American diplomacy is particularly spartan by comparison. If you go for a meeting in an American embassy, be yee high ranked official or not, don’t count on being provided with a delicious meal. Bet on having to trudge down towards the dank American cafeteria filled with exclusively noxious and greasy American junk foods. And just to let the point sink in, you’ll probably have to pay for your own meal too. Yes, American diplomacy is a no frills experience. Just goes to show having the most money in the world doesn’t make you generous.

This is a shocking disparity, to be sure. China is the world’s rising star, while America is the pinnacle nation. Why the disconnect in diplomatic behaviors between them, or between either country and the rest of the international community?

I doubt if America really has most money in the world.
http://www.sott.net/article/287063-China-has-the-largest-economy-on-the-planet-and-surpasses-the-USA-in-at-least-26-other-ways

Besides "food diplomacy" is an age old custom tied to the cultural fabric of China and other Asian countries. Diplomacy is statecraft and is performed to send out certain messages. In this overall context, treating foreign visitors well does not appear particularly sinister to me.

When considering Chinese diplomacy, two things should be considered. Chinese diplomacy is almost exclusively bilateral. Although China participates in a variety of international organizations and treaties, the great bulk of activity in the Chinese diplomatic corps is one on one. And consider the sheer bulk of this activity: Every day new officials from little-known nations show up at China’s doorstep for the publicity and pretend to talk about business they don’t actually have. The second thing to consider is the ceremonial protocols that the Party loves to employ, no matter the occasion and no matter the stature of the visiting statesment.

And this is the way China likes its diplomacy, very Neo-Confucian. Ordered, polite, mutually beneficial overtly. But there is another aspect at play, one that shows a more honest characterization of the Chinese diplomatic objectives. Tianxia, literally meaning ‘under heaven’, was a political and metaphysical concept devoloped by the early Han dynasty, largely considered one of China’s greatest dynasties. The days of the Han were the days of a Golden Age. Order, stability, careful government, and trade with the barbarians reigned supreme. Or at least, that’s the traditional story.

It’s less widely known that the Han spent a great deal of time and energy subjecting neighbors as tributary states and attempting to avoid that same relationship themselves.

I do not know of any imperialist power in history which has behaved differently. I am no expert in Chinese history, but from cursory reading of western accounts of Han imperialism, it does not seem particularly evil or sinister.

Take the Xiongnu. For many decades the Xiongnu, as rulers of the steppes and master horse archers, dominated the battles between them and the Han dynasty. The Han leaders faced a difficult choice. Their agricultural nation had neither the flexibility, nor the discipline, nor the ferocity of their northern counterparts. Their people were farmers, and when drafted became soldier-farmers. They were no match for the average Xiongnu warrior, men who spent their whole lives hunting and raiding other equally disciplined steppe peoples.

So the Han turned to diplomacy. To subjugate the Xiongnu and other belligerent barbarian nations, they created an elaborate and ceremonial protocol to appease barbarian leaders and establish the Emperor’s dominance. Traditional the Barbarians would bring in gifts of tribute, signifying their obedience and vassalage to the great Han Emperor who embodied the virtue of heavens, hence Tianxia, better translated as ‘all under heaven’. Of course the Emperor is the son of heaven, so you better pay proper homage. They would then give Han gifts in turn, complex manufactured goods that were beyond the craft of the barbarians so as to make them dependent on their Han masters economically. The Emperors were not always in a position of strength though, and would modify the protocol to reflect this. When inviting a powerful opponent, either one significantly stronger or of similar strength, the Chinese Emperor would forego receiving gifts and instead give them lavishly. Great sums of wealth constituting elaborate bribes would be provided to the barbarian peoples, but the subjection intent was always there. Just as they sought to make smaller powers dependent on their goodwill, so they sought to break the back of Barbarianations by introducing them to Han luxuries that they themselves could not produce. Within a few generations the power of the barbarians would wane as they, like the old republican Romans of Europe, became lazy, hedonistic, and unproductive. At that point the gifts would be pulled away, leaving the barbarians weak and diminshed, forcing them to re-align their policy with their former Han partners, soon to be overlords.

Here is what wikipedia says about the Han-Xiongnu war .

These ceremonial relationships also served as public relations extravaganzas for the Han. Numerous foreign peoples would come to the Chinese leadership and prostrate themselves, knowingly or not, to Han custom and protocol. The public would be assured that all was well in the empire and that the mandate of heaven was maintained. The modern expression of this is most clear, with two-bit statesment streaming in from abroad and regularly recieving glowing Chinese praise. Many recognize that they are in turn used as public relations tools by the Party to show the new prestige and power of the Party and to demonstrate that China is once more taking it’s rightful place as ‘the middle kingdom’, the one at the center of the world.

Within this context modern Chinese diplomacy becomes much clearer. Elaborate ceremony and opulent gift giving are in fact subtle attempts at subordination, drawn from a millenial long tradition. Whether the visiting statesmen notice this powerplay is immaterial. The modern Party uses this protocol to attain greater domestic standing and prestige, not international renown. This also explains the inordinate importance the Chinese state places on bilateral relationships. This phenomena has been seen again and again, with the Chinese making normally routine multilateral diplmatic ventures difficult and snailpace because of a refusal to engage multiple parties at once. After all, you cannot establish individual dominance over a multilateral conference, even in show.

The bolded strikes me as odd. China is a member of BRICS as well as many other multilateral international organizations. Do you have data that China is stalling BRICS ventures for example? Bilateral diplomacy among nations is the most common form of diplomacy outside of international organizations - so taking that as an issue specifically regarding the Chinese did not sound convincing to me.

Overall, the logic of the arguments you used did not convince me about any particular badness of China. Is China hegemonic? Very likely. Does it pose a significant threat to the world as it exists today? Very likely not. At least that is my current understanding.
 
Hi Obyvatel, thanks for the response for starters. I'll go through each comment, all of which are good, step by step.

I doubt if America really has most money in the world.
http://www.sott.net/article/287063-China-has-the-largest-economy-on-the-planet-and-surpasses-the-USA-in-at-least-26-other-ways

Besides "food diplomacy" is an age old custom tied to the cultural fabric of China and other Asian countries. Diplomacy is statecraft and is performed to send out certain messages. In this overall context, treating foreign visitors well does not appear particularly sinister to me.

On the money note, the money comment was a stretch. By any parameter I measure it would not necessarily be correct to say America has the most money in the world and it would have been more accurate to say they have the most money to throw around. But I'll convey my reasoning for it regardless. China has enormous an enormous GDP but it cannot translate that GDP into state spending as easily. It is not as efficient. Suppose you have two nations with a GDP of 1 million, and it costs 1 dollar per year to live. One nation has 100,00 citizens and the other has 10,000 citizens. After the first nation covers its living costs it will have 900,000 spread over 100,000 citizens to account for. By contrast, the small nation will have 990,000 to account for. Furthermore it is far more efficient in terms of costs to extract money from 10,000 people than 100,000. This is a gross simplification, but the sheer magnitude of per capita wealth in the USA relative to China ensures they have more money to throw out problems. It would be like comparing Luxembourg to Kenya. Though their nominal GDP per capita is similar, the sheer wealth concentration of Luxembourg ensures that they will have vastly more money to throw around since their 'costs' are dramatically lowered. Luxembourg of course is a tax haven, but the per capita example holds. China's GDP is comparable to America but because they have such higher costs in almost every way, courtesy of their massive population, they have far less money than the USA to fritter away.

I would not call the food aspect necessarily sinister either, and even in the historical Tianxia example China has been a very generous hegemon.

I do not know of any imperialist power in history which has behaved differently. I am no expert in Chinese history, but from cursory reading of western accounts of Han imperialism, it does not seem particularly evil or sinister.

If anything, I'd characterize Chinese imperialism as much lighter in terms of violence than Western imperialism. I don't make the claim that China is a sinister power, but they are expressly dominating in action and intention. If you'd like I could go deeper on that, I could demonstrate that in an entirely separate post. When I undertook this series of articles I underestimated the sheer vastness of the information.

Here is what wikipedia says about the Han-Xiongnu war .

Wikipedia doesn't do the subject justice. The Han-Xiongnu relationship extends beyond the scope of that war and the Xiongnu defeat, which was a very gradual process. The Xiongnu attained dominance earlier, with the scope of their victory seen in the Chanyu, leader of the Xiongnu, taking a Han imperial princess as wife. Considering that Han royalty very rarely married into barbarian families, that is a mark of catastrophic defeat on the part of the Han forces.

The bolded strikes me as odd. China is a member of BRICS as well as many other multilateral international organizations. Do you have data that China is stalling BRICS ventures for example? Bilateral diplomacy among nations is the most common form of diplomacy outside of international organizations - so taking that as an issue specifically regarding the Chinese did not sound convincing to me.

Overall, the logic of the arguments you used did not convince me about any particular badness of China. Is China hegemonic? Very likely. Does it pose a significant threat to the world as it exists today? Very likely not. At least that is my current understanding.

China is indeed a member of the BRICS and other multilateral organizations outside the UN, like the Shangai Cooperation Organization and many others. But that doesn't change the CCP preference for bilateral diplomacy. This is most clearly seen in the Chinese disputes of various islands such as the Senkaku/Daioyu islands and the Spratly and Paracel islands of the South China Sea. In their dealings with every country with competing claims they have constantly pushed for the negotiation of strictly bilateral agreements. Every country with competing claims, which is Vietnam, Brunei, the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Taiwan have pushed for a multilateral negotiation of claims, but the last decade was characterized by constant denial on the part of the Chinese. They wanted bilateral negotiations or they would not renounce their claims.

Only recently, with a great deal of diplomatic pressure from United States as well, have the Chinese government opened themselves to the possibility of multilateral talks. This opening is in the form of the recent Chinese agreement to discuss a multilateral 'code of conduct' which will, in all likelihood, fall through due to intentional Chinese foot dragging. The reason I single out China for bilateral tendencies is because multilateralism over such disputes has become the order of the day. It is unusual for a country to push for bilateral settlement over an area so clearly far and unrelated to the home country. The islands in the south China sea are good example. China is far, far away from them and they are not inhabited by China. It is a strictly historical claim that is dubious, yet the Chinese have been exerting not only heavy diplomatic pressure, but military intimidation in the form of ship ramming and the arresting of competing fishing vessels in these disputed waters.

I should clarify again that I don't think China is 'bad' or 'sinister'. But as you said, they expressly bent on hegemony, at least in their part of the world. The CCP see east Asia as their backyard and have no qualms over infringing on the sovereignty of other nations, as per the Tianxia concept. I myself have a lot of hopes for China, especially as a candidate, along with Russia, India, and Brazil, to displace current American unipolarity which is incredibly destructive and psychopathic.

My intention was mainly to explain the specific attitude of Chinese foreign policy which, separate of Tianxia, is rather difficult to understand. For example, why do the Chinese send goodwill missions one year, and increase border tensions the next intentionally as we see on the Indian border in Arunachal Pradesh? Tianxia helps clarify this picture. There's more at work I'd like to examine and present. It quickly became apparent that this is much larger project than I expected. All of these things should have been explained already.

Further comments and perspectives would be appreciated. Ever mirror I can bounce this off will improve my understanding and presentation.
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
This is most clearly seen in the Chinese disputes of various islands such as the Senkaku/Daioyu islands and the Spratly and Paracel islands of the South China Sea. In their dealings with every country with competing claims they have constantly pushed for the negotiation of strictly bilateral agreements. Every country with competing claims, which is Vietnam, Brunei, the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Taiwan have pushed for a multilateral negotiation of claims, but the last decade was characterized by constant denial on the part of the Chinese

Looking a bit into this I had initially thought China's claim was dubious too, especially since it claims to hold territory right down to the Spratly islands so far south of the Chinese mainland. It certainly seems like a grab for more territory on China's part at first glance.

However wouldnt it be up to those whose longest cultural heritage in that area to decide for themselves who and what they'd want to or not want to align with? I would imagine that this choice would be based on the past and it appears the recent history of atrocities perpetuated on the Moro people who are the inhabits of these islands by the Spanish, the Japanese, the Americans, then the Fillipinos (via the US) gives them enough reason to NOT want these nations dictating who they wish to align with, which appears to be with China.

For a long time also it appears the Moro people have had a lot more to do with the Chinese through trade and support throughout their struggles with would-be colonialists.

Anyway I've not dug into this greatly but there seems to be more than meets the eye here, which is very pertinent now considering the US incursion into the South China Sea just a few days back.
 
Yes, it's a pretty naked power grab. When you see the area that China claims, all the way down to Malaysia, it's a 'Wow' moment.

And there's a lot at stake: Oil, other resources, and most importantly control over the shipping lane which are the lifeblood of the Chinese economy and the means by which the Americans keep China in perpetual fear.

The thing about the locals deciding who controls the sea is that they already have. Every nation in the South China Sea has it's own claims, often conflicting with one another. They all agree that it should be divvied up and not handed to China. But at the same time they all recognize that none of them have the strength to face China alone.

That's why, over the last two years, we've been seeing military coordination between these various small states like the Phillipines, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, as well as they're pulling in of neighbors for support like Taiwan, Singapore, and Australia. The USA is their big trump card, as a force even stronger than China that can slide the dispute in their favor.

It should also be noted that the Chinese settlers in the Phillipines make up roughly 30% of the population and basically run the country, to the chagrin of many other Filipino peoples. And they too ally with the states.

For us in the West, it's clear that the USA is a dying Rome, an empire of evil and psychopathy. But for them across the sea, the USA is the only capable and willing ally of continental scale that can help them resist Chinese encroachment. They are natural allies, despite historical troubles.

I have no idea how this is all going to play out though. The airfield was a naked power grab by China, but it doesn't seem like the USA is going to get too aggressive about it. It looks like they're just going to slight them publicly.
 
In case you haven't seen it, Wu Wei Wu, you may want to read this thread: Pro-China bias? I haven't read your articles, only the excerpts quoted by Obyvatel. But I think that it's very important to take the bigger picture into account when talking about China. The devil is in the details, as they say.
 
Chu said:
In case you haven't seen it, Wu Wei Wu, you may want to read this thread: Pro-China bias? I haven't read your articles, only the excerpts quoted by Obyvatel. But I think that it's very important to take the bigger picture into account when talking about China. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Thanks for the reply Chu.

It's been a while since I wrote this piece, and I am familiar with that forum post.

I do admire the Chinese and the CCP (after Mao) because of the amazing things they did for their country. Things that our elite should have done for the West, but didn't.

But I'm under no illusions that these are good people. The CCP is a violent and domineering entity. They appear good because Israeli-American activities are so nefarious, but that's just relativity at work.

It's like you say. The Devil is in the Details.
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
Tianxia places China in the center of the world. All other states are barbarians to be subjugated, by various means, and brought within the great sphere of Chinese hegemony. Many Chinese policy makers think of this as the natural role for China and the surrounding states.

I'm afraid we cannot publish this on SOTT because we agree with the Chinese policy makers.
 
Niall said:
Wu Wei Wu said:
Tianxia places China in the center of the world. All other states are barbarians to be subjugated, by various means, and brought within the great sphere of Chinese hegemony. Many Chinese policy makers think of this as the natural role for China and the surrounding states.

I'm afraid we cannot publish this on SOTT because we agree with the Chinese policy makers.

I don't mind the non-publishing.

But I'm surprised by that comment. SOTT thinks that China should be at the center of the world?

I trust you realize that the Tianxia system of hegemony, though much softer, was by no a friendly policy. The Chinese have had no reservations about smashing foreign cultures into submission historically via genocide and assimilation especially. That's the reason the Han Chinese occupy such a large territory.

I hope I'm misinterpreting that.

I had thought the SOTT team was in favor of a Multipolar Order of Russia, rather than the Tianxia attitude of Chinese policy makers.
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
I had thought the SOTT team was in favor of a Multipolar Order of Russia, rather than the Tianxia attitude of Chinese policy makers.

It's not really about what we're 'in favor of'; we are disinterested in the outcome.

But we are interested in the ideas, what they represent, and how closely they map to reality.

Anyway, yes, we like the multipolarity concept. No reason then why China can't rule its civilizational pole. With the largest population, it's only natural that China will have a big say in global affairs.

Regarding hegemony, you're confusing regional dominance with global hegemony, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, and particular to Whites/Europeans.

I'm curious, from where did you get such a negative understanding of the term, Tianxia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianxia
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
I trust you realize that the Tianxia system of hegemony, though much softer, was by no a friendly policy. The Chinese have had no reservations about smashing foreign cultures into submission historically via genocide and assimilation especially. That's the reason the Han Chinese occupy such a large territory.

I have a somehow different take on this based on what I was able to experience when living in China for a year. I was in Chengdu (Sichuan), but traveled quite a bit around the YunNan Province, and the Northern regions of Sichuan, which is said to be more Tibetan than Tibet (around the Jiuzhaigou park, lots of Tibetan villages). Well, what I found was many ethnic groups, all living in fairly good conditions, allowed to speak their own dialects, and with the same rights as the Han. At the University where I was teaching, it was the same. There was no "Han domination" as it is often described. People in those ethnic areas actually had a way better quality of life than the crowds in the city, IMO.

So, I think that many people have been programmed to think about the Han Chinese as evil colonizers, but in reality, the assimilation is not a cruel one. I've seen much worse happen to minorities in South America, for example.

Even the History of Tibet needs to be questioned. I am no expert, but it seems quite probably that the CIA had a hand in what happened, stirred young people up in their usual color revolution way, and then blamed the Chinese government for acting. Sure, no government is a saint, but if you compare it with other countries, I don't think it's as bad as that. Just compare their "modern colonization" (i.e., how they develop their economy and have a stronger presence in Africa and the rest of the world economically speaking), and the psychopathic NATO approach of pillaging and destroying countries to take their oil.

The same with Taiwan. The main damage there is caused by the US, not by the Chinese government, AFAIK.

Obviously, this is overly simplified, but I've spoken with many people belonging to minorities in China, and even they agreed with the fact that except for some instances, they were not "assimilated" as it is often depicted. I think it's pretty cool (and as it should be) to be allowed to keep your own culture, values and language, while only being asked to write the same language. It's a practical approach for understanding each other, after all.

Granted, this may not completely reflect the reality, since one year is not enough to get to know a culture deep within. But from an outsider perspective at least, I think the whole Evil Han stories are exaggerated. Even European countries did much worse. Just look at how France practically destroyed their cultural diversity. FWIW.

What seems to be the worst in China nowadays is this obsession with turning into a capitalistic system "à la USA". But notice that that is mostly bought by the people, the richer Chinese elites, and not reflected so much in government policies. OSIT. That's creating a very unhealthy division within the Chinese society. But in terms of the global picture, I don't see China being the Evil player that it is often said to be, and see no reason for that country to have a say in a more multipolar world, instead of the pathological Empire what we have nowadays.
 
Chu said:
Even the History of Tibet needs to be questioned. I am no expert, but it seems quite probably that the CIA had a hand in what happened, stirred young people up in their usual color revolution way, and then blamed the Chinese government for acting.
Maybe that would be better put as "Even the recent history of Tibet needs to be questioned", i.e. to refer to the Tibetan independence protests of the 1990s to present. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao came to power in 1949, after defeating the Kuomintang. In 1950 they sent 30,000 troops into Kham (western Tibet) to begin the "peaceful liberation" of Tibet. They were not sent in to quiet any kind of a "color revolution". In the 1960s Mao's policies caused much cultural destruction and human suffering in Tibet and China.
 
Niall said:
It's not really about what we're 'in favor of'; we are disinterested in the outcome.

But we are interested in the ideas, what they represent, and how closely they map to reality.

Anyway, yes, we like the multipolarity concept. No reason then why China can't rule its civilizational pole. With the largest population, it's only natural that China will have a big say in global affairs.

Regarding hegemony, you're confusing regional dominance with global hegemony, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, and particular to Whites/Europeans.

I'm curious, from where did you get such a negative understanding of the term, Tianxia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianxia

Fair enough. Disinterest is a fair approach to these kinds of politics.

I got my understanding of Tianxia from my study of Chinese history and politics. While the concept is wide (as Chinese metaphysical concepts rightly are) the application of Tianxia in politics, especially in foreign policy, has always been hegemonic.

Keep in mind that for all intents and purposes China, like Europe, considered the world over which they had hegemony the only world that mattered. The idea that global hegemony is particular to Europeans is, I think, pretty silly. Especially considering the Mongols, the Caliphates, and the Ottomans.

As they learned of new cultures, with the expansion of the Silk road and the sea voyages of Zheng He, they attempted to spread their Tianxia there too. Consider the demand for tribute and subordination in throughout south east Asia by Zheng He.

Later dynasties, like the Manchu Qing, were particularly flagrant about this. Tibet, for example, was conquered by the Qing, as was modern day Xinjiang. Neither of these areas are Chinese at all, but both have a multitude of Chinese settlers now. This tension is what makes them useful for American proxy terrorists.

Reading the work of some China hawks, I'm not certain what a future dominated by China would look like. It probably wouldn't be good.

As bad as the flagrantly violent Americans? Probably not. But why pretend that the CCP are the good guys, just because the Americans are so much worse.

On a side note Niall, I hope you don't think the desire to control is limited to Europeans.

Obviously, this is overly simplified, but I've spoken with many people belonging to minorities in China, and even they agreed with the fact that except for some instances, they were not "assimilated" as it is often depicted. I think it's pretty cool (and as it should be) to be allowed to keep your own culture, values and language, while only being asked to write the same language. It's a practical approach for understanding each other, after all.

Modern China has taken huge steps to support minority cultures, insofar as it suits the interest of the PRC.

Historically China has engaged in a policy of either slow or fast genocide. Consider that the Miao were much larger historically than they are now, the Xiongnu have been either exterminated or assimilated into China (along with other turkic populations), the Manchus were forced underground following the Xinhai Revolution, and so much more.

Whether this is good or bad is up to us to decide. The Chinese have all but exterminated Manchu culture, but there's no doubt that they're a more sophisticated civilization anyways.

But that doesn't change the fact that a major foreign policy tool of China historically was genocide. Today China assimilates, and so the nation is more stable and more prosperous, and I'm happy to see that. Still, we should know our history before believing in the CCP.

I personally enjoy the study of China and the sophistication of their culture. I grew up reading 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms', 'The Red Dream Chamber', Confucian's 'Analects' and Daoist material. I grew up around this culture and with Chinese people. I learned this is not an altruistic culture, nor are the Han as altruistic as European peoples, and if we expect them to act as such we will be very surprised.

Anyways, I'm not responding because I want my article on SOTT, the article is now out of date. I just figured that since we're throwing this all out there, maybe we'll help each other by sharing what we know. I, for example, found Chu's comments about Chinese universities very interesting. Thank you for your insights.
 
Wu Wei Wu said:
The idea that global hegemony is particular to Europeans is, I think, pretty silly. Especially considering the Mongols, the Caliphates, and the Ottomans.

Neither the Mongols the caliphates or the ottomans ruled over the entire globe. Far from it. That dubious distinction is held by modern era Europeans and their descendants in the USA and Israel, who do indeed control the vast majority of the globe and its population. You might say that this is merely chance, and were the Chinese or others in the same position today, it would be no different. But we'll never know that, and we deal with what we know. The Anglo-Americans are today the stewards of the global evil empire.
 
Back
Top Bottom