The "political opening could then open the door to forces such as nationalism..." No shit? Really? Thank God China's not nationalistic now, eh? He goes on to say:In an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, economist David Hale warned that the peaceful, predictable economic engagement policies of the current Beijing could be undone by the greater democracy the next generation of Chinese leaders might bring, writes Agence France-Presse.
"When a fifth generation of leadership assumes power in ten to fifteen years, China could become more open and tolerate greater dissent," the report said. "Such a political opening could then open the door to forces such as nationalism and populism. There is no way to predict exactly how Chinese politics will evolve in a more democratic era, but it is a development which could produce new challenges for the countries of East Asia after 2020."An authoritarian China has been highly predictable. A more open and democratic China could produce new uncertainties about both domestic policy and international
relations."
Such uncertainties could include military threats to other nations in the region, Hale writes, though he notes that such threats would be likely only if "domestic political instability... produced an upsurge in nationalism and a search for external scapegoats."
Domestic political instability? Upsurges in Nationalism? Threats to other nations? Searches for external scapegoats? Boy, I'm so glad we don't have any of that now!
Evidently this fellow is getting paid to smoke crack while doing analysis. It's incredible that people can write garbage like this. Sign me up! I'll do it for half of what he is doing, and twice as good as well. In the meantime I am off to fall down laughing at the suggestion that it is better that a billion people live in a corrupt authoritarian nightmare because otherwise their foreign policy might become "unpredictable."
Well, unpredictable, at least for people for whom realpolitik has become simply a word for clueless cynicism combined with gross ethical blindness. Since China is so predictable now, perhaps the good Mr. Hale will instruct us on what its next moves will be in the current NUC crisis.
[Taiwan] [Democracy] [China]
not "would", "could"
ReplyDeleteso this is like saying nothing.
ReplyDeleteof course, any change could mean for better or for worse.
but if the probability of 'for better' is higher than 'for worse', one should do it.
the aussie merely said there are 2 possibilities and that the possibility of 'for worse' is not too tiny (and quoted some example and some reasoning). but that is not telling a lot.
Oh, I can assure you that my more conservative countrymen know no bounds when it comes to apologia for authoritarianism, soberly intoned in the language of politics and economics.
ReplyDeleteThey just don't get it.
Thanks for bringing to my attention. I'll file the Australian Strategic Policy Institute under M for Morons.
It's tricky to imagine that a democratic regime could more nationalistic: where people are encouraged to believe war with Japan is imminent. "Very dangerous there", some of my students commented when I told them I was thinking of moving to Japan. Dangerous because of the coming invasion.
ReplyDeleteWhen I told my Chinese teacher that I was moving to Taiwan, he advised, "Be careful. We have many missles".
--
Maybe even a democratic China would threaten the US with nuclear attack? That would never happen under the current regime.
+Since China is so predictable now, perhaps the good Mr. Hale will instruct us on what its next moves will be in the current NUC crisis.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to say what the next move of highly predictable A-Bian will be? -)))
You can leave comments on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's website.
ReplyDeleteA democratic China wherein the freely expressed nationalistic/chauvinistic urges threaten regional stability;
ReplyDeleteor as at present when the party holds the lever on the masses' sentiments. Which one is better in terms of management or resolution in a predictable fashion. Or would you rather deal with one all powerful communist entity who's always ready to deal with one eye on self preservation or would you rather try and reason with a seething headless surging mass bent on your destruction. Take note once the Communist is gone, the usual whipping boys like 'red menace' 'commie dictators' wouldn't be as handily available as now. You may lose an edge there with the media, not that they aren't already staffed chocka block with unreconstructed socialists or failed communists.
Outside of Korean War, never have there had been major direct military conflicts with communist powers, both extant or erstwhile, however intransigent they could be sometimes. If there were to be WW3, it would probably be because of unorchestrated spontaneous religious or nationalistic fanaticism. Something an immature democratic China might find impossible to contain.
When I read comments, I always close sun bin's comments first, because while he thinks more logical than everyone else, he's actually very weak in the rationality department. He's a wannabe Roland of ESWN only suckier.
ReplyDeleteOn topic: This is merely a riff on democratization of radically Islamic countries. Despite its lack of creativity, China has prohibited ANY competitive organization for the last 50 years. This is anything from religious organizations to fraternities to political parties. This is a big fucking deal. What happens when you make the CCP magically disappear? Then what happens? I hope for democratization in China, but what happens if you democratize suddenly? I don't know, but even from Taiwan's case, look at how much people think the goverment will solve all their problems.
Off topic: What in the tar hills is going on with TVBS? They are seriously rabble rousing. They are trying to create riot and chaos. What the hell? Do they SERIOUSLY think imitating the Philipines is a good thing? They want a Philipine economy too?