| <https://tinyurl.com/yyndnv3w> scmp.com
|
| China has not benefited from the war in Ukraine, which is going to
| undermine the international legal framework .. Yan Xuetong, dean of
| the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University,
| said the war has accelerated the reverse of globalisation, which is
| not conducive to China's trade ..
China is a big and diverse formation, and interests of misc groups
within this formation may differ. Since the mid-1980s, developments in
China proceeded with involvement of American and other Western
investments. For the recent decades, many Chinese big companies have
grown due to market cooperation with American, other Western companies,
which contributed to personal careers and wealth of the people engaged
in these businesses. It's natural that such people are interested in preserving or prolonging the mode and situation that served beneficial
for them before.
In other words, certain pro-Atlanticist lobby naturally exists within
China. These guys may be refraining from openly / loudly criticizing
the China's government and CPC, but it still leaves enough room for
reasoning against or in favor of certain policies. It also may well be combined with China-centric patriotic-nationalist narratives, given
that the China's national interest allows a multi-dimensional variety
of interpretations.
One could also notice that the SCMP outlet traditionally provides a
platform for these pro-Atlanticist lobby folks where they can express
their vision and reasoning (some other China's outlets do as well).
The fact is that continuation of the China-West economic cooperation
mode in a way as 'harmonious' as it was before (in the 2000s-2010s) is becoming hardly possible nowadays. It would be unfair to blame Russia
for that. Rather the opposite, the Soviet-West and then Russia-West contradictions for quite a long time served as a lighting-conductor
for China, since Russia attracted to itself much of the evil
Atlanticist energies, deflecting them from China. It contributed to prolongation of the China-West economic 'harmony'. However, the nature
of the contemporary Atlanticism is so that it can not tolerate
something big and independent which is not under Atlanticist control.
So when they started noticing that China has grown too big, behaves
too independently, they started changing policies toward China (while continuing their habitual obsession with Russia too).
When Trump had started his economic crusade against China, many still
sought to interpet it as an American particularly right-wing freakery.
There were hopes for Biden among some Chinese, some especially "wise" commentators interpreted the election of Biden as "Chinese win over
Russia" (given that the American "liberal left" desperately tried to symbolically attach Trump to Russia). While the post-Trump America's government has somehow softened rhetorics towards China, it has not
changed the Trump's policy in substance (has not removed the Trump's
tariffs on Chinese goods etc). Right now, American surveys show that
85% of the Americans see China as a threat (little lesser negative in comparison to how they see Russia) <https://tinyurl.com/y3hnengu>.
That's greater than at the time of Trump iirc. Such a large percentage
means that not only the American right-wingers hate China (because of
their racism etc), but "left liberal" American media also indoctinate
the regular Americans with negative attitudes towards China.
It indicates that in the US, there's a bipartisan consensus on
"containing China", and their media work to ensure that some policies intended to harm China would be supported by the American voters.
With regard to "international legal framework", a honest observer may
notice that this framework had been undermined many times before. In
the post-Cold War period, it first had happened in the Yugoslavia case.
Then there were those Atlanticist unilateral intrusions in the Middle
East. The fact "leading scholar" didn't note it, naturally means these
deeds did not impact China much, so they can be overlooked. Still, any precedental violation makes next violations more probable.
In the recent world history there were examples when the Atlanticism
- up to some moment - respected some independent "regimes", recognized
their governments legal/legitimate, dealt with them well economically.
There was time when Lybia's Muammar Gaddafi was a distinguished guest
in the European capitals, with all due honors as it should be when you
host a respected foreign leader. But one day they got an opportunity to
dump Gaddafi, and they squashed him mercilessly (which brought nothing
good neither to the regular Lybians nor to the regular Europeans).
Then, Ukraine's Yanukovich. European observers depicted the day he
had become elected president as a triumph of democracy in the Ukraine <https://www.osce.org/node/51888>. However, when he showed himself to
be independent, he was labeled as tyrant, and the coup against him had
been organized (which brought nothing good to the regular Ukrainians).
Similary, the Atlanticism may respect China at present, but they won't
miss any opportunity to harm China, if only they got such an occasion.
The fans of "international legal framework" should look at things more broadly and realistically: the Atlanticism would try to contain Chinese developments anyway, regardless of any Russian action. The only way to somehow change it is "to persuade" the Atlanticist policy makers that
they need to respect not only themselves.
Any conflicts always suck up resources for a non-productive spending,
which makes all conflicting parties relatively weaker against the non- conflicting rest. Thus the Ukraine-related conflict will make all the
parties - Russia, Europe and the US - relatively weaker against the
rest of the world. In the longer-term perspective, it benefits China
(also, from this perspective, it would be beneficial for both China
and India to settle their territorial disputes in some peaceful way).
In the short-term, the impact on trade may be somewhat discomfortable
indeed. And such trends started earlier, and regardless of Russia.
| <https://tinyurl.com/yyndnv3w> scmp.com
|
| China has not benefited from the war in Ukraine, which is going to
| undermine the international legal framework .. Yan Xuetong, dean of
| the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University,
| said the war has accelerated the reverse of globalisation, which is
| not conducive to China's trade ..
China is a big and diverse formation, and interests of misc groups
within this formation may differ. Since the mid-1980s, developments in
China proceeded with involvement of American and other Western
investments. For the recent decades, many Chinese big companies have
grown due to market cooperation with American, other Western companies,
which contributed to personal careers and wealth of the people engaged
in these businesses. It's natural that such people are interested in preserving or prolonging the mode and situation that served beneficial
for them before.
In other words, certain pro-Atlanticist lobby naturally exists within
China. These guys may be refraining from openly / loudly criticizing
the China's government and CPC, but it still leaves enough room for
reasoning against or in favor of certain policies. It also may well be combined with China-centric patriotic-nationalist narratives, given
that the China's national interest allows a multi-dimensional variety
of interpretations.
One could also notice that the SCMP outlet traditionally provides a
platform for these pro-Atlanticist lobby folks where they can express
their vision and reasoning (some other China's outlets do as well).
The fact is that continuation of the China-West economic cooperation
mode in a way as 'harmonious' as it was before (in the 2000s-2010s) is becoming hardly possible nowadays. It would be unfair to blame Russia
for that. Rather the opposite, the Soviet-West and then Russia-West contradictions for quite a long time served as a lighting-conductor
for China, since Russia attracted to itself much of the evil
Atlanticist energies, deflecting them from China. It contributed to prolongation of the China-West economic 'harmony'. However, the nature
of the contemporary Atlanticism is so that it can not tolerate
something big and independent which is not under Atlanticist control.
So when they started noticing that China has grown too big, behaves
too independently, they started changing policies toward China (while continuing their habitual obsession with Russia too).
When Trump had started his economic crusade against China, many still
sought to interpet it as an American particularly right-wing freakery.
There were hopes for Biden among some Chinese, some especially "wise" commentators interpreted the election of Biden as "Chinese win over
Russia" (given that the American "liberal left" desperately tried to symbolically attach Trump to Russia). While the post-Trump America's government has somehow softened rhetorics towards China, it has not
changed the Trump's policy in substance (has not removed the Trump's
tariffs on Chinese goods etc). Right now, American surveys show that
85% of the Americans see China as a threat (little lesser negative in comparison to how they see Russia) <https://tinyurl.com/y3hnengu>.
That's greater than at the time of Trump iirc. Such a large percentage
means that not only the American right-wingers hate China (because of
their racism etc), but "left liberal" American media also indoctinate
the regular Americans with negative attitudes towards China.
It indicates that in the US, there's a bipartisan consensus on
"containing China", and their media work to ensure that some policies intended to harm China would be supported by the American voters.
With regard to "international legal framework", a honest observer may
notice that this framework had been undermined many times before. In
the post-Cold War period, it first had happened in the Yugoslavia case.
Then there were those Atlanticist unilateral intrusions in the Middle
East. The fact "leading scholar" didn't note it, naturally means these
deeds did not impact China much, so they can be overlooked. Still, any precedental violation makes next violations more probable.
In the recent world history there were examples when the Atlanticism
- up to some moment - respected some independent "regimes", recognized
their governments legal/legitimate, dealt with them well economically.
There was time when Lybia's Muammar Gaddafi was a distinguished guest
in the European capitals, with all due honors as it should be when you
host a respected foreign leader. But one day they got an opportunity to
dump Gaddafi, and they squashed him mercilessly (which brought nothing
good neither to the regular Lybians nor to the regular Europeans).
Then, Ukraine's Yanukovich. European observers depicted the day he
had become elected president as a triumph of democracy in the Ukraine <https://www.osce.org/node/51888>. However, when he showed himself to
be independent, he was labeled as tyrant, and the coup against him had
been organized (which brought nothing good to the regular Ukrainians).
Similary, the Atlanticism may respect China at present, but they won't
miss any opportunity to harm China, if only they got such an occasion.
The fans of "international legal framework" should look at things more broadly and realistically: the Atlanticism would try to contain Chinese developments anyway, regardless of any Russian action. The only way to somehow change it is "to persuade" the Atlanticist policy makers that
they need to respect not only themselves.
Any conflicts always suck up resources for a non-productive spending,
which makes all conflicting parties relatively weaker against the non- conflicting rest. Thus the Ukraine-related conflict will make all the
parties - Russia, Europe and the US - relatively weaker against the
rest of the world. In the longer-term perspective, it benefits China
(also, from this perspective, it would be beneficial for both China
and India to settle their territorial disputes in some peaceful way).
In the short-term, the impact on trade may be somewhat discomfortable
indeed. And such trends started earlier, and regardless of Russia.
On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 1:07:20 PM UTC-4, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
| <https://tinyurl.com/yyndnv3w> scmp.com
|
| China has not benefited from the war in Ukraine, which is going to
| undermine the international legal framework .. Yan Xuetong, dean of
| the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University,
| said the war has accelerated the reverse of globalisation, which is
| not conducive to China's trade ..
China is a big and diverse formation, and interests of misc groups
within this formation may differ. Since the mid-1980s, developments in China proceeded with involvement of American and other Western
investments. For the recent decades, many Chinese big companies have
grown due to market cooperation with American, other Western companies, which contributed to personal careers and wealth of the people engaged
in these businesses. It's natural that such people are interested in preserving or prolonging the mode and situation that served beneficial
for them before.
In other words, certain pro-Atlanticist lobby naturally exists within China. These guys may be refraining from openly / loudly criticizing
the China's government and CPC, but it still leaves enough room for reasoning against or in favor of certain policies. It also may well be combined with China-centric patriotic-nationalist narratives, given
that the China's national interest allows a multi-dimensional variety
of interpretations.
One could also notice that the SCMP outlet traditionally provides a platform for these pro-Atlanticist lobby folks where they can express
their vision and reasoning (some other China's outlets do as well).
The fact is that continuation of the China-West economic cooperation
mode in a way as 'harmonious' as it was before (in the 2000s-2010s) is becoming hardly possible nowadays. It would be unfair to blame Russia
for that. Rather the opposite, the Soviet-West and then Russia-West contradictions for quite a long time served as a lighting-conductor
for China, since Russia attracted to itself much of the evil
Atlanticist energies, deflecting them from China. It contributed to prolongation of the China-West economic 'harmony'. However, the nature
of the contemporary Atlanticism is so that it can not tolerate
something big and independent which is not under Atlanticist control.
So when they started noticing that China has grown too big, behaves
too independently, they started changing policies toward China (while continuing their habitual obsession with Russia too).
When Trump had started his economic crusade against China, many still sought to interpet it as an American particularly right-wing freakery. There were hopes for Biden among some Chinese, some especially "wise" commentators interpreted the election of Biden as "Chinese win over
Russia" (given that the American "liberal left" desperately tried to symbolically attach Trump to Russia). While the post-Trump America's government has somehow softened rhetorics towards China, it has not
changed the Trump's policy in substance (has not removed the Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods etc). Right now, American surveys show that
85% of the Americans see China as a threat (little lesser negative in comparison to how they see Russia) <https://tinyurl.com/y3hnengu>.
That's greater than at the time of Trump iirc. Such a large percentage means that not only the American right-wingers hate China (because of
their racism etc), but "left liberal" American media also indoctinate
the regular Americans with negative attitudes towards China.
It indicates that in the US, there's a bipartisan consensus on
"containing China", and their media work to ensure that some policies intended to harm China would be supported by the American voters.
With regard to "international legal framework", a honest observer may notice that this framework had been undermined many times before. In
the post-Cold War period, it first had happened in the Yugoslavia case. Then there were those Atlanticist unilateral intrusions in the Middle
East. The fact "leading scholar" didn't note it, naturally means these deeds did not impact China much, so they can be overlooked. Still, any precedental violation makes next violations more probable.
In the recent world history there were examples when the Atlanticism
- up to some moment - respected some independent "regimes", recognized their governments legal/legitimate, dealt with them well economically. There was time when Lybia's Muammar Gaddafi was a distinguished guest
in the European capitals, with all due honors as it should be when you
host a respected foreign leader. But one day they got an opportunity to dump Gaddafi, and they squashed him mercilessly (which brought nothing
good neither to the regular Lybians nor to the regular Europeans).
Then, Ukraine's Yanukovich. European observers depicted the day he
had become elected president as a triumph of democracy in the Ukraine <https://www.osce.org/node/51888>. However, when he showed himself to
be independent, he was labeled as tyrant, and the coup against him had
been organized (which brought nothing good to the regular Ukrainians).
Similary, the Atlanticism may respect China at present, but they won't
miss any opportunity to harm China, if only they got such an occasion.
The fans of "international legal framework" should look at things more broadly and realistically: the Atlanticism would try to contain Chinese developments anyway, regardless of any Russian action. The only way to somehow change it is "to persuade" the Atlanticist policy makers that
they need to respect not only themselves.
Any conflicts always suck up resources for a non-productive spending,
which makes all conflicting parties relatively weaker against the non- conflicting rest. Thus the Ukraine-related conflict will make all the parties - Russia, Europe and the US - relatively weaker against the
rest of the world. In the longer-term perspective, it benefits China
(also, from this perspective, it would be beneficial for both China
and India to settle their territorial disputes in some peaceful way).
In the short-term, the impact on trade may be somewhat discomfortable indeed. And such trends started earlier, and regardless of Russia.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 129:32:54 |
| Calls: | 9,585 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,673 |
| Messages: | 6,146,759 |