Our flyers are free, how did Dubya do?

Great Debates
21

He used words like “competitor” instead, but his meaning was clear, and the results are nearly indistinguishable from what they’d have been if he HAD said “enemy”.

One step at a time. I was referring to the longer term. With the Chinese people getting more control and responsibility over their financial lives, I believe their taking more control and responsibility over their public lives would have (and may yet) follow. But Bush’s belligerence may be reinforcing the militarist/autocratic factions in the government instead, setting the process back.

I know (thanks, Flyboy88, btw). I was referring more to the post-landing events - instead of being able to work it out like adults, there was an unnecessary confrontation first. Bush shares part of the blame for creating the atmosphere that caused that, IMHO of course.

[quote]
4. China has jailed its own citizens who belong to the religious group Falun Gong. other examples
[/quoteThese moves are not caused by American hostility and mistrust; they cause it.[/quote]

Of course the Chinese government shares a lot of the blame. But engaging them more in the world community’s standards of governing is more likely to have desirable long-term results than isolating them, don’t you think?

And that contradicts what I’ve said how?

No, I thought I was clear about saying their worldviews are shaped by Cold War thinking and are too inflexible to deal with today’s world. I have never said they’re unintelligent - neither are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Something else I thought I was clear about. His words, especially SINCE the crew’s return, have been pretty hostile and belligerent, to no obvious end except perhaps to throw his own righter-wing some meat. All the talk about the need to sell more weaponry to Taiwan is part of that. One can “rattle a saber” without moving a single ship (and how do you know he hasn’t?)

Interesting tack you’ve been taking - defining the facts you want to deal with narrowly enough to call someone using them in their broader sense “wrong”. That’s in addition to accusing me of making insults about Bush and his handlers that I haven’t made. Care to try again?

22

I just realized I’m agreeing with Sam Stone about something. Mark your calendars.

23

…cause I’m agreeing as well.

I think Bush did Ok on this one. I don’t think it was especially tough, but I’m happy that he didn’t bomb the plane the minute our people were out of there.:slight_smile:

I’m onboard with this statement 100%. Athough Elvis and me might disagree on the justification of declaring them the “bad guy,” I think we have just seen a turning of the tides in US China relations. It will take several years to see if we escalate the tension into a full fledged us Vs. them mindset, or if things just kind of maintian a wary status quo.

Let’s just say that I understand why the Chinese were giving so much to Clinton/Gore:)

24

I’m hearing an awful lot of, “Well, Bush stumbled out of the gate …” or, “Bush, started out poorly, but ended up handling this well.”

What are you talking about?

I assume it’s when he demanded that we be able to see the EP-3 crew. Do you recall that for the first day, day-plus, we were allowed no contact? We weren’t even shown a photo, that they were all right? Were you aware that China wasn’t returning diplomatic contacts and inquiries during this period (read the Washington Post link I provided)?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - how was demanding to see the crew inappropriate? No president of any political affiliation would have done anything else.

What would have been a surer sign of capitulation and weakness - what Bush did, or saying, “Well, we haven’t seen the crew. We don’t know where they are. We don’t know if they’re injured, or OK, or what’s being done with them. China won’t even talk to us. But … I’m pretty sure they’re OK. Whenever China is ready, I’m sure they’ll get back to us on it.”

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**

Elvis expressed an opinion that’s widely held, but is it too optimistic? Consider the examples of Germany and Italy. In the 1930’s they had private industry and were a part of the world community, but mevertheless became fascist dictatorships. Singapore today has private industry and is prosperous, but their government is repressive. On the other hand, Taiwan had private industry for several decades and has now become a democracy.

Also consider whether hosting the Olympics would help to “civilize” China. The 1936 Berlin Olympics sure didn’t improve Hitler’s government. Perhaps it even encouraged them.

These are tough questions, beyond my expertise…

26

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
2. Free enterprise may be emerging in the PRC, but democracy sure isn’t.

Actually, China has experimented with elections at the local level, although the Communist party is still intent on maintaining its monopoly of power at the national level. Here’s an analysis from the Taiwanese perspective:
http://taiwansecurity.org/TT/TT-02012000-Local-Elections.htm
Sample quote:
“While the CCP continues to control the lives of the populace with no direct accountability for its use of power, discretion nevertheless spreads more widely through many sectors of society. Discretion has been decentralized so that some local officials, such as those at the township level, often reportedly play the lower levels against the higher. Closet democrats hope that direct elections of townships chiefs might someday appeal to the CCP for providing accountability for official conduct, if not for fostering representative self-government. But the truth is that the two go together.”

27

Only if you start out anti-Bush and a slave to anti-Republican rhetoric.

28

Arg. 1) The preceding article was written by an American, for a Taiwanese newspaper, quoted on a website focussing on Taiwanese security issues.

  1. I think I may have overstated the extent of China’s democratization somewhat. Clearly, the Communist party wants to maintain a monopoly on political power at all levels of their society. My understanding is that although 90 percent of all local bodies have elections, the conduct and fairness of these elections vary. Only CCP members (and occasionally some independents) can run for office. (Source: Freedom House, 1996)
29

IMO, Dubya wanting to see the crew was not a problem – it was the way he expressed it, especially the “demanding” part. In diplomacy (especially with a country as touchy as China), language is everything.

I don’t have any direct quotes to work from here, but I remember that Bush’s initial sound bites and speeches were heavy on the threats and short on the diplomatic respect. Every Asian-American I talked to in the first 72 hours of the crisis had the same reaction – “Is Bush trying to piss off the Chinese government?” I can only speculate that he didn’t know any better, and thought that looking tough was the best response.

Unfortunately, now that the airmen are home, Bush (and the rest of his administration) are ratcheting up the rhetoric again. Oy.

30

rjung –
If the US were holding 24 Chinese airmen hostage, would you blame the leader of the PRC for “ratcheting up” if he simply demanded that their reprentatives be able to see the crew? I think not.

31

Brian Bunnyhurt, what are you talking about?

I can’t get anything out of your post related to this situation other than the sentiment that Bush should not have apologized. OK, what should he have done? Let the nukes loose? Please, some concrete examples if you would.

As far as your comment about China controlling us through cheap imports, I think they need our business much more than we need cheap imports - there are other places to manufacture these things, including right here at home if we so choose. But that’s another discussion…

And Brian, try not to ‘go corporate’ :rolleyes:

32

Depends. Are we talking about–

“We are naturally concerned and worried over the status of our airmen and would like to speak with them as soon as possible”

or

“Return our patriotic crew back, you capitalist dung-eating swine, or face the full force of our unrestrained fury!”

As I said before, wording is everything – as any married man knows, you don’t apologize to the wife by saying “Look, I’m sorry – okay?” (well, not unless you like getting into more trouble, but…)

33

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
**
[QUOTEDepends. Are we talking about–

“We are naturally concerned and worried over the status of our airmen and would like to speak with them as soon as possible”

or

“Return our patriotic crew back, you capitalist dung-eating swine, or face the full force of our unrestrained fury!”
**[/QUOTE]

My newspaper omitted the article about Bush calling the Chinese, “dung-eating swine.” I shall write them a stern letter.

34

IIRC, the collision occurred on 3/31. News stories of 4/1 through 4/3 portrayed the US as taking a firm line, which may very well have offended Chinese sensibilities and delayed resolution of the incident.

Early tough talk:
U.S. Diplomats Head for Stranded Plane in China

Another interesting link:
US tells China: Don’t Board Plane

That last position has been shown to be a bit of a stretch.
As I indicated in another thread, I had far fewer problems with the administration’s stance after Wed, 4/4. So two cheers for W, but not three.

35

Dubya gets a B for keeping his trap shut and toeing the line. He would have gotten an A if he would have listened to the people running the country from day one though.

It seems that the real issue here is that this is only the beginning. Will Dubya continue EP 3 flights now that our soldiers are home? Will he authorize fighter escorts for protection? Will he authorize those fighters to engage the PRC air force if they resume their harassment? Stay tuned.

36

The US contended that a plane which has made an emergency landing on foreign soil should be treated as sovereign territory. I’ve been told that this is a proper interpretation of international law and of US-China treaties, but is that correct? Any foreign policy or legal experts out there who can clarify this matter for us?

37

I was intrigued by a speech Jiang Zemin gave last year in which he said he expects China to be “substantially democratic in 50 years”.

Flowbark suggests the view that China has been slowly becoming more democratic along with more free-enterprising may be overoptimistic, and there are certainly no guarantees. However, the surest way to prevent that from occurring, IMHO, is to provide the reactionary factions in Beijing with support for their positions. As much as the US right wing may see China as an “enemy” (or whatever words the Spoofes of the world would prefer) to be feared, there is much more basis for China to fear the US (for example, who is able to recconoiter whose coastal military installations with impunity?). The last thing we, or the Chinese people, need is to provide a factual basis for that fear.

Unrelatedly, it’s not widely-enough understood that Beijing and Taipei have their own extensive, but private, two-way relationship that doesn’t involve Washington or anyone else. It almost gets amusing to look in the Business sections of world (and often even American) publications to read about the latest cross-strait business deals, lifting of trade and travel restrictions, and even military talks, while the front pages are full of the same old denunciatory speeches. I have to sympathize with the people who have to make the real relationship work in ways that don’t force each other to lose face by letting go of the old rhetoric they’re each trapped in, but that’s their situation. Their job only gets harder when some clumsy, saber-rattling meddlers from halfway around the world get involved. But one thing we Americans have never been much good at is butting out, right?

No, I can’t see any scenario in which China would really attack their arguably-most-valuable business partner short of a complete collapse of the government and a coup by a military faction that would try to legitimize itself by something dramatic. Even then, there’s no real probability that enough PLA forces would follow orders enthusiastically to make it work. And look, if they haven’t done so in over 50 years, why would they do it now? They didn’t even try to take back Hong Kong until forced to do so, even though a single infantry division would have done it. Even at the height of the Cultural Revolution, Portugal tried to GIVE them Macao and they wouldn’t take it. So let’s get back to reality, folks.

One more thing: It’s a little sad to see the worldview of the current White House occupant (at any time, not just now) be so widely and uncritically accepted as the norm. That’s a sure way for a citizenry to get into trouble.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**

Elvis is correct that there is trade and economic investment and growing travel between Taiwan and the PRC. However, I’m not sure he’s correct about the possibility of armed attack. The elected leadership of Taiwan have a better perspective. They want to buy our advanced defensive weapons, so they seem to think there’s a real risk of military action by the PRC. Having once made a 9-day trip to China doesn’t give me the background to dispute them. I doubt whether Elvis has enough expertis to ignore their opinion, either. Lord knows the PRC has been taking a number of warlike actions toward Taiwan. e.g. I read that they have some substantial number of missiles aimed at them.

I find Elvis’s certainty hard to justify. Maybe he’s right. Maybe the PRC would never mount an armed attack at Taiwan under any circumstances. But how can he be sure?

BTW Elvis is correct that the PRC turned down Macao, when Portugal first offered it to them. However, I disagree that, “They didn’t even try to take back Hong Kong until forced to do so.” It’s true that a long-term lease had run out, but the PRC could have signed a new lease or even sold the island to its residents. They were never forced to take back Hong Kong. They wanted it.

39

December, I’m not as certain as my previous posts might sound; I just feel confident that I’m more right than the old Cold Warriors here. Remember how they thrashed around after the fall of the USSR, playing up first North Korea and then a resurgent Iraq as the new enemy before settling by default on China?

You’re right that Taiwan has requested more US weaponry, but that may be best seen in their own caution about the future stability of the Beijing government and the collapse/chaos scenario I described. I admit it’s possible, just unlikely. All studies I’ve seen of the PLA’s structure and capabilities suggest that it in all respects is designed more to deter and suppress civil revolts at home than to engage in any offensive action outside of China.

What I meant by the PRC being “forced” to take back Hong Kong referred to face. With the New Territories lease in place, there was an acceptable excuse for not taking action that would antagonize the Western countries the PRC needed, even in the depths of its isolation, and create millions of refugees in the process. But, having made an issue of restoring the country’s geographical integrity after the insult to its national pride left over from the Opium Wars, there was really no option to simply sign a new lease even if that would have been in their best interests. I think keeping face did indeed force the PRC to take HK back, although the terms they agreed to were as gentle as they could get away with.

40

Elvis – I now understand your POV better. However, everything I’ve seen and a few Chinese people I’ve spoken to suggest to me that the PRC has a big, long-term commitment to unifying what they see as all of China, including Taiwan.

IMHO it would make sense for the ROC to declare itself a separate country – a move that I believe the PRC would find incredibly unacceptible.