**
Ah, the Reluctant Dragon theory!! Since the collapse of the USSR there’s been some evidence that both the USSR and China had planned on committing troops to the north Korean cause.
**
Well we did change how we dealt with them after they collapsed.
**
The UN’s Declaration of Human rights doesn’t seem to care what nation someone is from. So it goes a bit beyond American ideals.
Marc
Just a cite that attempts to debunk the Reluctant Dragon theory. I didn’t wanna make a claim without a cite.
Marc
Unfortunately, the cite doesn’t work. Maybe the site is blocked from access in China??? Doubtful, but a good one for the conspiracy theorists and those that think blocking a website is an infringement of free speech and by extension human rights.
Asian history studies and polysci classes I took in the US in the 80’s were pretty unanimous that China sent warning messages through India that should the US/UN approach the Yalu river, which China has long considered to be their strategic border, that China would enter the conflict. Miscalculated that India wasn’t the best conduit. That said, in the 1950’s China was on the end on a US containment policy.
Not sure if China is an “expansionist tyranny.” In the past 25 years, China has a) invaded Viet Nam in 1979 and got their butts kicked, b) had a few border skirmishes with India, c) had a few border skirmishes with the USSR, d) have had a some incidents in the South China Sea, most notably the Mischief Reef, and e) some war games and live missle exercises near Taiwan in 1997. [Prior to that, there was the big land grab between 1949 and 1959 into what might be claimed by some as historic Chinese territory such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Liang Shan Mountains, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, and the Korean conflict.]
Certainly, there is a lot of posturing over Taiwan and “historic” claims to the South China Sea. That said, China could have taken back Xiao Jin Men or Little Kinmen Island any time they wanted to in the past 25 years. This would have sparked a big crisis, and indeed would today and is one of the nightmare scenarios that keep NSA, Jane’s and the Economists Intelligence Unit, not to mention Taiwan up at night. China could also have taken back the colony of Hong Kong any time in the past 25 years by shutting off the water, power and food imports from China. They didn’t.
In case any one cares, I’m a California boy who has lived in China and Taiwan for about 15 years.
Maybe we need a new topic as outside of the pit, no one seems to think that containment is worth talking about.
The link does not work for me either but I can tell you so many outside sites are blocked from inside China it is ridiculous. Geocities is one, and you can go on from there. All my friends inside China know to configure their browsers to use a proxy and so, getting around the blockade takes about 45 seconds it takes to configure your browser to use a proxy.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the containment concept. I don’t think anyone has suggested that it is either possible or desirable to contain China’s economic growth. Sure, there have been debates about whether America should give China permanent MFN status and whatnot, but those have all revolved around the idea that MFN status will coerce China into liberalizing its human rights record (unlikely to work, IMO), or that trade sanctions should be made against a tyrannical government as a matter of principle. I don’t think anyone is so naive as to believe that U.S. trade policy can unilaterally “contain” China’s economic expansion.
It is possible, and I believe desirable, to contain China militarily; i.e. to deter it from expanding into neighboring countries, particularly neighboring democratic countries. This is the only meaning of “containment” with respect to China that makes any sense to me. As long as China’s economy continues to grow and prosper, I do not believe that it will make any aggressive moves toward Taiwan, India, or other neighboring democracies. The risk of Chinese military expansionism will come, if at all, after a major economic downturn, as a means of distracting the public, unifying public opinion, and artificially stimulating the economy. Think, for instance, of Galtieri and the Falklands takeover, writ very large indeed.
Such a policy of containment, I believe, should start with the U.S. forging and repairing strong ties with the democracies on China’s border: India, Japan, Russia, and Taiwan. We may hope that China will not resort to military expansionism in time of recession if it is faced with such a coalition. America’s ties with Japan are still strong, but our Indian and Russian policies are mind-boggling. We continue to take every possible action to provoke Russia, and we persist in favoring Pakistan in its rivalry with India, even though Pakistan is a military dictatorship and India the world’s largest democracy. It is questionable whether the pro-Pakistan policy was justifiable even as a Cold War expedient; there is no possible justification for it now.
Since Chinese prosperity is likely to result in Chinese good-neighborliness, one could argue in favor of an engagement policy that does everything possible to encourage Chinese economic growth; certainly, we should avoid doing anything active to damage their economy. I agree with Elvis that containment and “engagement” are not mutually exclusive policies.
P.S. The Reluctant Dragon link doesn’t work from Missouri either. Maybe MGibson could give us some relevant excerpts?
Needless to say, the link didn’t work for me either, but I did go snooping around the site: http://cwihp.si.edu
I haven’t found the article to which MGibson was referring yet, but I did find at least one seemingly well documented article that claims exactly the opposite of what MGibson has:
I found another article that claimed that Mao had decided in October to intervene, on the condition that American troops crossed the 38th Parallel.
Upon preview, I am unable to get any link to an article from the site to work. You guys can do your own digging.
– Jer
<shrug> Why do we ban marijuana and psychadelics, but sell alcohol in grocery stores and mini-marts?
America still has a Cold War, Missile-Crisis mentality about Cuba - “there are Commies 90 miles off our shore!” Also, Cuba doesn’t have a billion people - it’s not as economically important to the US.
I don’t expect our embargo against Cuba to change anytime soon. When Colin Powell flung out some scant praise at a Congressional hearing last week for Castro, conservatives far and wide shit their britches. As with the N. Korea situation and Whitman’s numerous enviro slapdowns, I’m sure Mr. Powell was taken to the carpet by Bush-Cheney for his heresy.
WRT China: What are our options, outide of economic engagement? I’m amused that liberals often denounce the sanctions against Iraq - which have indeed inflicted great harm on the Iraqi people - yet continually criticize our growing economic ties with China. What are our alternatives? Forced liberation?
The slow approach is gut-wrenching for Americans, because we have to sit back and watch dissidents jailed and murdered, people executed for crimes like fraud and so-called “treason,” Chinese citizens residing in American detained in the mainland on unspecified charges, religious worshipers beaten and jailed, the machinations of a court system that presumes guilt, children dying because the school in which they were forced to manufacture fireworks exploded, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
While I’m not otherwise a fan, I like Bush’s somewhat more aggressive stance toward China. He sticks out his tongue when he feels it’s safe, but retracts it just soon enough to prevent the Communists from flying off the handle and bombing the hell out of Taipei.
Just my uninformed opinion. Foreign policy’s not my strong suit. Maybe I’ll go back to the magic threads…
-J-
Okay, posting from Central Illinois. The link as given doesn’t work here, either. Some websites just have it set up so that you can Open Documents, but the URL won’t make a link for other people to use. It’s got nothing to do with Commie Paranoia. Eh, Marc, it’s for this reason that whenever I give a cite, I always include a short snip from the article itself, in case the link doesn’t make. That way people can do a Search. File for future reference. 
Going back one on the URL gives their Document Library http://cwihp.si.edu/cwihplib.nsf/ but since I don’t know what the document says that you’re trying to link to, I can’t find it. Anybody else wanna browse, see what they can find?
When it’s the government doing the blocking to censor unpopular ideas, then yes I think it is an infringement of human rights.
Matt
I agree with you on Cuba. Cuba is one of the best examples of the similarities between the democrats and republicans.
Both sides are full of hypocrisy on that issue.
Seems like no one out there is up for containment, at least economically. The pit people haven’t seen this thread or can’t be bothered.
Maybe we can come up with a better topic to make a new thread on. There are a lot of misconceptions in the US media that we could discuss. I just started to make a comment on the Falungong but decided it will take a lot more room and this isn’t the correct forum.
BTW, thanks for the Korean war cites. Guess what I studied at University 25 years ago hasn’t been revised.
Also, there are plenty of websites directly accessible from China that carry international news and analysis often not favorable to China. For example, Bloomberg and the Far Eastern Economic Press. And yes it’s true, Geocities appears to be blocked.
First time I’ve ever seen anyone sad because the Pit People didn’t infest his Great Debates thread. 
Eh, don’t take it personal, China Guy. It’s actually a compliment–the Pit People never invade the sensible threads.
And anyway, I for one am still not clear on how you would “contain” China, economically. Refuse to buy any more of their Wal-Mart plastic widgets? Not invite them to any more trade discussions? I guess the reason there’s no debate is–there’s no debate. None of these options sounds very realistic, IMO. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Once the Chinese got a taste for Pepsi and Pizza Hut, there’s no looking back–they’re here at the international poker table to stay.
And what would be the point of “containment”? Just to prove that we still could, that Uncle Sam is still the Big Dog? Why not let China play poker with the big boys?
Or are you talking about a trade boycott for human rights issues? I don’t think that would fly with the American consumer public, either. Gotta have those Wal-Mart plastic widgets and that cheap apple juice concentrate…
We can’t tolerate this type of activity from China. They must be stopped!!!
**China Blames U. S. for Yet Another Mid-Air Collision **
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese officials have stated that they are holding the United States, “fully responsible” for today’s mid-air collision, involving several Chinese aircraft and one American craft. This comes just weeks after a similar incident involving a U. S. spy plane.
Officials have stated that at approximately 8:25 a. m., GMT, a squadron of Chinese F-8 fighters collided with an American Goodyear Blimp. The crash left over a dozen Chinese planes downed and the blimp’s electronic billboard damaged. Sources say the billboard’s scrolling “Make 7-Up Yours” marquee had been advertising the soft drink 7-UP, but after the collision, only the words “Up yours” could be seen.
A Chinese pilot who witnessed the collision between his squadron, nicknamed, “Panda Rash” told China’s Xinhua news agency that he saw the American blimp dive out of the clouds and crash into wingman Sum Yung Gui’s F-8 jet.
“I told Yung Gui his tail was all broken. ‘Keep it straight. Keep it straight’”, said the pilot. “He just couldn’t shake the American foreign-devil!” The blimp then reportedly veered hard left and then right, taking out the rest of the squadron.
Pilot Chawp Suey told Xinhua the American blimp is “fully responsible for the incident”, repeating the language Beijing has used in the earlier incident.
China blames this new accident on the Goodyear blimp, saying it rammed the supersonic fighters, and has demanded an apology.
Officials from the Goodyear Company have said it is unlikely that the slow propeller-driven blimp could turn inside and ram a dozen nimble fighters, unless the Chinese were testing chimp pilots.
“The direct cause of the collision was that the American blimp made a sudden big move toward the Chinese planes, making it impossible for the Chinese planes to get out of the way”, Suey was quoted as saying.
“The savage act of American blimps colliding with Chinese planes while conducting spying activities at sporting events makes us indignant”, he was quoted as saying.
[/sarcasm]
Well, unfortunately no one has shown up with some hairball comment about how they are going to vote with their greenbacks and boycott Chinese products nor patronize any company that gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Basically, since we live in a global economy, and there are many players in addition to the US, it would be pretty hard to try containing China economically without at least Europe lending a hand. IMHO that would be about as easy as making chicken feet a popular American dish.
Military containment will be difficult as best because there is no way the US would get involved in a land war. Naval blockages in this day of silkworm missles would be tough to pull off as well.
Actually, I’m only testing out how to use this quote function.
The proper forum for test posts is ATMB so we don’t mess up other threads and forums with tests.
Why not come up with some BS new leap in war technology like the USA did with the russians i.e. star wars, then they will go bankrupt trying to do it.
Perhaps an anti-missile system or somet ?
mmmmm
ORRRRR give them lots of satellite TV and make them think everyone in the west is rich so they think ‘screw this commie idea’ like the east germans ?
its all in the mind you know !
I just had a funny thought.
How funny would it be if there were elections and some other party than the communist party won by a slim majority? Not only would they be in for a challenge of a lifetime in congress, but they’d have no army!
Yes, that’s right. The PLA is a subdivision of the Communist party itself, and has nothing to do with the state or who controls it
— G. Raven