Depends on who you mean as “the PRC” - I believe there are a number of factions competing for control in Beijing, some with stronger commitments to different ideologies than others.
Why, without a more direct and credible threat requiring more world support? The “sides” would be clearer and easier to understand, sure, but how much good is that, really? The status quo has made for good business for both sides. Taiwan has no more reason to antagonize its major business partner by declaring independence than does China for intimidating its major business partner.
A-, B+, Whatever. He did it right, if not perfectly. There are a lot of knee-jerk Bush haters out there having an unpleasant realization that they’ve allowed themselves to miss the man while reviling the icon. Bush is a highly skilled and shrewd politician, and will do what’s necessary, as he sees it. He also has principles (you don’t have to approve of them, but they are there), which give him guidance, but he’s no slave to them. You may not like him, you may even hate him, but never discount his ability.
Having said that: Now that he’s achieved the immediate goal of returning our people, whom are far more expensive than the aircraft, and far less expendable, he can now ‘loosen up’ a little, and play to all his audiences, including those on the right fringe of our political system (to whom he owes his office). I wouldn’t be too concerned: He’s just playing the game, and we’ve seen that he has good advisors, and can follow good advice when it’s presented. He even over-ruled the hawks, including Cheney.
BrianBunnyhurt:
Going back to the OP: Being an ‘adult’ doesn’t mean you must do everything for yourself. GWB obviously belongs to the ‘Delegate, Direct, Decide’ school of leadership, and it seems to work pretty well for him. You seem to mistake his leadership style (and his willingness to seek advice) as immaturity. I think most would call it one of his better traits, and a mark of mature confidence. Of course, I could be wrong… Nah.
I’m of the opinion that an effective President needn’t be a slave to principles, and even may find adherence to principle to be a handicap. Nixon and Carter, for example: Nixon was rather… Hmmm… Flexible, and was quite effective, while Carter, a man of great integrity, was essentially a failure as President. Now, as a Statesman, it seems to go the other way…
This doesn’t mean that a President with great integrity can’t succeed, just that it’s d*mned hard. I’m of the opinion that to be an effective President, you have to be willing to be a real hard-ass SOB at times, have strong values, and strong character, but you’ve also have to flexible enough to go against your nature when the times call for it. Only the truly great can perform that hardest of all jobs with complete integrity and principle, and the great ones only come around occasionally <Insert Jackie Gleason joke here>.
GHB is a man of character, but of little principle. That’s why he was a one-term President. Carter was a man of character and principle, but lacked flexibility, and he got tossed, too. Nixon had character, some principles, but too little integrity…
I disagree. Bush’s record is not exactly exemplary. He has very limited experience in diplomacy and next to no experience in foreign affairs, which are pretty important if you’re a politician. When it comes to deal-making, Bush has had some success (this ability served him well in the events leading up to his election), so you can argue that he is shrewd. But a skilled politician??
I’ve mentioned this in other threads, I’ll mention it again. China is in a tough spot. They know their flavour of communism will not last or work. They are focusing on economic reforms before political reforms in order to avoid what happened to the Soviets. A new political system without a sufficiently solid economic foundation results in collapse. If people could stop focusing on idiocies like the Falun Gong and look at the real issues, it’s evident China has made real progress in terms of government. Sure, the old guard commies are still there and will be for a while yet, but China has been preparing itself for a new order for years. There are many in the government who oppose this evolution, and it is a sophisticated game of power and face. But it’s happening.
Hong Kong could have been a colony for much longer, had it not been thrown at Deng Xiaoping by the British 30 years ago in a moment of stupidity. What the rest of the world has realized only in recent years is that China wants to be ready for its challenges, which is the reason there were and are so many business restrictions in China, why Macau was accepted only last year, why Hong Kong could have remained British for longer, why democratic changes are happening slowly, etc.
I don’t pretend to know (or justify) what the Chinese think they are doing in Tibet, for example, but the anti-Chinese inflated rhetoric (e.g. about the Falun Gong or the commie oppressors) is something I hope the world can grow out of soon.
Abe’s view of China looks inconsistent with anything I’ve seen or heard. A few days ago there was an article about a large group of Chinese troops who fired their guns into an unarmed group of farmers, who were protesting high taxes. Two were killed and 18 were wounded. This incident has not been reported to the Chinese people.
Abe – can you provide cites supporting your rosy view of imminent Chinese freedom? Can you explain how recent massacre fits into your view?
Yup. Inexperience in international politics doesn’t preculde him having skill: Witness how fast, and how effectively, he corrected his tack on the EP-3 issue. Experience comes with time and exposure, skill allows you to avoid making a hash of things while gaining the experience.
I don’t see how your report compromises my statements on China. To begin with, the example given supports no point. A few days ago in Quebec City, several hundred people were protesting against the harmful effects of free trade. Police forces hospitalized several demonstrators and bystanders with tear gas, plastic bullets, concussion grenades, water cannons and if I remember a report correctly even high-pressure snowblowers. A protest is a protest, only some forces are better equipped and better trained to deal with it without actually killing the protesters.
At any rate, one such ubiquitous incident is not going to change the fact that China is struggling to make solid progress towards democracy, first with economic reforms, then political ones. As I said earlier, members of the old guard are still present and powerful, and may even have ordered troops to fire on the protesting farmers. I don’t know. But China is immeasurably more complex than you can grasp in a news report.
If you want to demonize the Chinese I suggest doing it on valid and established topics, like their rape of the environment or their invasion of Tibet. No one is saying China is a paragon of democracy, but at the same time it is foolish to ignore whatever progress is made in such a complex situation.
How about announcing that the U.S. would not apologize before all the facts were in place (still aren’t, actually)?
I support the president’s decision not to apologize. As near as I can tell, no wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. has been or can be proven. But declaring that we would never apologize was retarded. It sounded “strong” but appears only to have been provacative. That alone probably added a week to the whole mess. Once he backed himself into a corner, there was no choice but to hash over a weasel worded “un-apology” that would satisfy both countries, somehow. Now the Chinese get to say, “Look! They apologized!” and all we can say in response is, “Nuh-uh!” or “Had my fingers crossed!” I think that makes us look like schmucks. China has come away from this with many prestige points, which frankly they don’t deserve.
Nope. The rest of the world is thinking (for the most part):
D*mn, but I wish the Americans would stop pissing people off.
D*mn, but the Chinese are a buncha jerks.
D*mn, but I’m glad everyone came to their senses.
Gotta remember, Bush was playing to a world audience, not just the Chinese, and not just us. The rest of the world could give a rat’s *ss about our pride, or Chinese dignity. They just don’t want a shootin’ war between two of the world’s larger powers.
Hmm. Touche, to a certain extent. I withdraw the part about Chinese prestige points, but your point #1 above just reinforces my comments. If the rest of the world finds U.S pride and sabre rattling annoying, why make a point of refusing to apologize? If he’s playing to a world audience, wouldn’t that just alienate them? Moreover, why make that refusal a higher priority than finding the real facts behind the incident? In my amateur analysis, I think the probability that the U.S. plane rammed the Chinese plane is very low, but non-zero. Wouldn’t it make more sense, and be less likely to provoke the Chinese, if his statement had been something like, “The U.S. cannot offer an apology over an unclear situation,” or even, “It is not appropriate for China to demand an apology when they have not even allowed us access to the evidence”?
This incident should have been about finding out what actually happened. Instead it became all about whether the president would apologize. A more cautiously worded initial response might have saved a lot of people a lot of aggravation. I still think he made us look like schmucks.