Skip to comments.Why Ukraine Crisis Has China in a Bind
Posted on 04/16/2014 1:56:00 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Editor's note: Christopher S. Chivvis is a senior political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and expert in European and Eurasian security issues. You can follow him @cchivvis. Bonny Lin is an associate political scientist at RAND and an expert on Asia-Pacific security issues. The views expressed are their own.
At Sunday night's emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, Western countries denounced Russian efforts to destabilize eastern Ukraine. Depending on your reading of its statement, China either refused to do the same, or refused to back Russia. Either way, the meeting was just the latest example of how the Ukraine crisis has put China in a bind.
Russia has tried to parry U.S. threats of isolation by talking up the possibility of a closer Sino-Russian alliance. But while there is some concern that Chinese hardliners could seek to use Crimea as a precedent for moves against disputed territories in the Asia-Pacific has others worried, Sunday's meeting suggests concerns should not be overplayed.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ...
Oh, please! China doesn’t have much at stake here and can afford to await events. Pretty much any way this goes, they benefit.
China should implement the Putin standard in Siberia, and take it over to protect the interests of the Sino-phile population.
They will do, as always, what is best for China and screw humanitarian ideals. It's a Judeo-Christian concept anyway, foreign to them. It will always be foreign to them as they believe in only TWO things: luck and money.
Note the absence of God and a morality in their belief system.
There are Christians in China; missionary work proceeds.
In time, they may retake Outer Manchuria the same way they retook Hong Kong.
Outer Manchuria is in light red on this map. Some also consider the island of Sakhalin to be part of Outer Manchuria.
Hmmn - so China's Mongols (renamed Uighur) go full Mongol on China.
Followed by Russia's Mongols doing the same?
Sure, and Mexico does the same, and then where are we?
You are correct. Yes, it does. The biggest portion of them come out of Hong Kong. It's a much older point of Christianity.
1. Getting past the Chinese culture is the tough part. Christianity requires a certain submission to forces other than luck and money. Those two things are SUCH a huge part of Chinese society.
2. The other part of China that will take just as long to change is their abysmal attitude toward women. Female babies were LONG discarded, left on the street...and worse.
Males are worshiped; females are too often aborted as fetuses. The Commies have had a TOUGH time getting couples to NOT abort the ONE girl, the ONE child they are allowed to have.
At one time there were so many female fetuses aborted (thanks to amniocenteses) that an entire generation of males had no women to marry. Those unmarried men were called the Bare Branches.
China will make sure THAT doesn't happen again.
China has been around a l-o-n-g time, like India, and both countries have a superiority complex. It DOESN'T matter than neither country has a pot to piss in, they revel in their ancient heritage. SO, getting the Chinese to change their male-adoration attitude isn't going to happen any time soon.
Work proceeds, as you say. They are going to need a MASSIVE kick-in-the-butt about females, via Mary, from the Holy Spirit. HE can do it
What do you mean, "the same way they retook Hong Kong?" The United Kingdom had a contract with China regarding Hong Kong, and the City reverted to China in 1997 as part of that contract. For better or worse, the U.K. voluntarily ceded Hong Kong back to mainland China as part of an agreement struck a century before. Is there such an agreement between China and Russia?
Hong Kong, including Kowloon south of Boundary Street, was ceded to the Crown in perpetuity. Kowloon north of Boundary Street was leased for a century.
At any rate, China did not take it by force, and the U.K. did it voluntarily. If they hadn't decided to transfer back, would China have tried to take it back by force. It seemed as thought the majority of the population was not in favor of the return.
Thatcher walked out of a meeting with Deng in a daze. My guess is that Deng told her she could hand it back, or China would take it by force. Hong Kong isn't defensible against Chinese attack without a superhuman logistical effort and a huge manpower commitment. Let's say Britain wins. What has it gotten? A city in ruins. And at what cost? Hongkongers believed then and apparently believe now that they would be better off as a Crown Colony. But China isn't Argentina, and Hong Kong isn't the Falklands, separated from the mainland by 400 miles of open water.
I heard a story from a Chinese tourguide. According to the story, Deng said that by the letter of the contract (and it was a forced one at that), the UK could hold Hong Kong in perpetuity. Then he said, “Do you know what ‘Hong Kong’ means in Chinese?” “It means fragrant harbor.” “We have no contract specifying that we supply fresh water or other utilities to Hong Kong. How long do you think it will stay fragrant.”
Just a story I heard.
Most post-hostility treaties benefit one country at the expense of another. China has grabbed huge chunks of land from its neighbors after beating them in battle.
The water theory doesn't hold water. Countries without fresh water have been figuring out how to supply themselves since forever. The principal problem relates to agriculture, which requires huge amounts of essentially free water. Singapore used to rely on Malaysia for cheap water. It has now weaned itself off. The Gulf emirates have never had cheap water, but they have somehow made do.
Well, it was a nice story.
More likely, the Brits recognized that the balance of power in the region had shifted in China’s favor and accepted the “one country, two systems” solution as a face-saving compromise. I’ve long felt that was the case.
China should implement the Putin standard in Siberia, and take it over to protect the interests of the Sino-phile population.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
China wrote the book on this strategy in Tibet. Ukraine is mere mimicry.
China’s role is to watch as the world is engrossed in The NATO / Russia stand-off, quietly expanding and securing more territory in the Western Pacific , while Japan and Taiwan squeal. Australia is watching carefully.
We are adhering to the Pro-Totalitarian-Kleptocratic-FReeper standard set out by Varmintman.