Western influence at the UN waning

[Winner]

Trade with China is making it wealthier and more powerful and more capable of providing such regimes support, whatever the West thinks. Consider Burma.

True, but the alternative is a poor country plagued by famine, widespread poverty and radicalism. You choose what's the lesser evil for the Western world.

Face it, Walmart is more important in reality than human rights. The Olympics is more important than what goes on to make it so grand.

I don't have to face anything, I am perfectly aware of the situation. The point is that while we can't do much about China without causing harm to both sides, we can very well pressure the less powerful countries to adhere to democratic standards.

The UN, in its present form, is useless - it's no longer faithful to its original goal. It has some uses as an agency distributing aid, but that's it.

I say scap it and try again, this time without undemocratic regimes of any kind. Let's build a true community of democratic nations belonging to all cultures.

 

[aelf]

True, but the alternative is a poor country plagued by famine, widespread poverty and radicalism. You choose what's the lesser evil for the Western world.

China was like that for 40 years. You guys didn't have much of a problem with that. The real reason for the beginnings of cooperation lie in Cold War paranoia, in wanting to isolate the already weakening Soviet Union.

Anyway, I don't see you advocating cooperation with Sudan in order to make it less of a third world hellhole. It's more like sanctions.

I don't have to face anything, I am perfectly aware of the situation. The point is that while we can't do much about China without causing harm to both sides, we can very well pressure the less powerful countries to adhere to democratic standards.

The West let it come to a situation where it would also cause them harm to do anything substantial. If you grow dependent on an abusive husband by choice, you share part of the blame. And there's no convenient arbiter or enforcer to help you here.

The UN, in its present form, is useless - it's no longer faithful to its original goal. It has some uses as an agency distributing aid, but that's it.

I say scap it and try again, this time without undemocratic regimes of any kind. Let's build a true community of democratic nations belonging to all cultures.

And what would it do?

 

[Winner]

China was like that for 40 years.

Sure, so what? That was the Cold War.

You guys didn't have much of a problem with that.

Who's "you guys?"

The real reason for the beginnings of cooperation lie in Cold War paranoia, in wanting to isolate the already weakening Soviet Union.

That was political cooperation. Trade and economic cooperation started when the regime in Peking decided to reform the Chinese economy from central planning to market economy.

Anyway, I don't see you advocating cooperation with Sudan in order to make it less of a third world hellhole. It's more like sanctions.

Actually I'd like to see some bombs falling on the heads of those genocidal militiamen, but that doesn't matter. Sudan is defying the West because it has nothing to lose. China, which trades extensively with the West, has much stronger motivation not to provoke the Western public opinion. We can't force them to become democratic, but we can at least influence the regime in Peking. The more ties we have with China, the better. You can't isolate 20% of world population.

The West let it come to a situation where it would also cause them harm to do anything substantial. If you grow dependent on an abusive husband by choice, you share part of the blame. And there's no convenient arbiter or enforcer to help you here.

Wrong analogy. China is not abusive against the West, it abuses its own people. You're right that trade makes the West vulnerable too, but the point here is that both parties now have a reason not to provoke each other. China needs Western investments and markets, West needs China's cheap consumer goods. That's why China won't invade Taiwan and the West won't move a finger for Tibet (trendy flying of Tibetan flag once a year doesn't count).

Now imagine how would China act if it had no stakes in the West. We'd probably have WW3 on our hands by now. Or worse, China would be a failed state like North Korea where millions of people would starve to death each year. Or it would collapse in another civil war, flooding the whole world with tens of millions of refugees.

And what would it do?

That what the UN was supposed to do.

 

[RedRalph]

Russia has a declining population. China and India have too many internal problems. These countries have big populations and resources but I cultural and political influence? No.

I'll tell you what. When the day comes when people want to migrate to places like Russia, China in masses then we'll say the pendulum has swung. How about that?

Go and check migration to Russia, come back and apoligize.

Edit: here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population I presume you now admit the pendulum has swung? No? some reason why this dosent matter?

 

[RedRalph]

Bast would you mind addressing the above statistics?

 

[Winner]

Go and check migration to Russia, come back and apoligize.

Edit: here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population I presume you now admit the pendulum has swung? No? some reason why this dosent matter?

Uhm, what would that prove? Certainly not that the Russian problems with demographics are gone or that it has now become a sought-after country for immigrants I am not exactly sure that importing more Chinese to Siberia is in long-term Russian interest. One day the Chinese will give all these people their passports and claim that they have to protect them from Russian oppression.

Gee, they had to learn that somewhere, but where?

 

[Rashiminos]

You start a couple of wars for oil and all of a sudden the world doesn't trust you anymore.

 

[RedRalph]

Uhm, what would that prove? Certainly not that the Russian problems with demographics are gone or that it has now become a sought-after country for immigrants I am not exactly sure that importing more Chinese to Siberia is in long-term Russian interest. One day the Chinese will give all these people their passports and claim that they have to protect them from Russian oppression.

Gee, they had to learn that somewhere, but where?

dont be stupid man. Bast obviously thought no one emigrates to Russia, when in fact the only country more people emigrate to is the US. she was completely wrong and should admit it.

 

[silver 2039]

dont be stupid man. Bast obviously thought no one emigrates to Russia, when in fact the only country more people emigrate to is the US. she was completely wrong and should admit it.

Don't wait for it. Once her claims are challenged she runs away never to be seen in the thread again.

 

[RedRalph]

Don't wait for it. Once her claims are challenged she runs away never to be seen in the thread again.

I know, I just like highlighting it for all to see, even though of late I've started to mellow towards Bast

 

[aelf]

Sure, so what? That was the Cold War.

Yeah, and that seemed fine. Nothing bad seemed to have happened to you.

Who's "you guys?"

Figure of speech. Referring to the West, of which you are part, no?

That was political cooperation. Trade and economic cooperation started when the regime in Peking decided to reform the Chinese economy from central planning to market economy.

Well, I say that's rich. Political cooperation was followed by economic cooperation. When you end the sanctions and isolationism, guess what, trade starts. They are certainly connected. How come Beijing could switch to capitalism? Because political factors allowed it to.

Actually I'd like to see some bombs falling on the heads of those genocidal militiamen, but that doesn't matter. Sudan is defying the West because it has nothing motivation not to provoke the Western public opinion. We can't force them to become democratic, but we can at least influence the regime in Peking. The more ties we have with China, the better. You can't isolate 20% of world population.

You know why you can't force them at all? The blade cuts both ways.

Wrong analogy. China is not abusive against the West, it abuses its own people. You're right that trade makes the West vulnerable too, but the point here is that both parties now have a reason not to provoke each other. China needs Western investments and markets, West needs China's cheap consumer goods. That's why China won't invade Taiwan and the West won't move a finger for Tibet (trendy flying of Tibetan flag once a year doesn't count).

They abuse your values, which you should be steadfast in. And they are telling the world that they can get away with it too.

And it's not like they are really running on Asian values instead.

Now imagine how would China act if it had no stakes in the West. We'd probably have WW3 on our hands by now. Or worse, China would be a failed state like North Korea where millions of people would starve to death each year. Or it would collapse in another civil war, flooding the whole world with tens of millions of refugees.

If you didn't trade, China wouldn't have the resources. During 40 years of being isolated, China didn't seem so scary.

I'm not saying the West should simply have let the Chinese people live on that way. But it is all to happy to profit from cooperation, while making mere gestures at the oppression they see.

That what the UN was supposed to do.

Seems to be doing what it's supposed to do, with limits you can expect. Nobody claimed to have made a perfect organisation.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

When it comes down to it, nations like people will more often than not do what is in there best intrests and not for the greater good of humanity. Is anyone really suprised that the UN can not manage to really accomplish anything worth it's budget and " importance " in the world? I have the feeling we will see the end of the UN as a world body in our lifetime.

 

[aelf]

Apparently the US is doing a better job. NATO?

If you don't want to do things according to your own principles, then you can't preach. That's the problem, you see? Nobody will believe you and nobody will play along if they can get away with it.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Apparently the US is doing a better job. NATO?

If you don't want to do things according to your own principles, then you can't preach. That's the problem, you see? Nobody will believe you and nobody will play along if they can get away with it.

I know you can't resist plugging your agenda and opinion any chance you get but we are talking about the UN. Work with me here. We have a million and one things in the world that the UN could be doing more to help... for lack of a better term, fix.

Africa in many, many regards. Burma in regards to the slaughter taking place there. Poverty, dissease and hunger. These are the basics that from what I understand the UN makes a big deal of " taking seriously " and ya better watch out cause when the UN rolls up it's sleaves it's going to? Thats right, talk and vote and spend money yet get nothing done. It's own members, due to conflict of intrest, can not even get the ball rolling on hundreds of topics. The US is just as gulity of it as anyone for sure, yet it's not just the US. It's the world. The security council is a joke and pretty damn powerless. The comissions? Please. It's grown fat and content from it's budget and it's red tape. The people involved in the UN in many cases are comfortable and afraid to take risks or have strong opinions that will rock the boat. That may cost them these high paying jobs were they really don't have to do anything but talk.

I think that imho, when the UN does break up the world is going to be in for a pretty harsh reality check in a lot of regards. It's sad imho, I'd love to see the UN really accomplish a lot of good things for humanity as a whole, yet you would have to remove the humans from the UN to make that happen. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Winner]

dont be stupid man. Bast obviously thought no one emigrates to Russia, when in fact the only country more people emigrate to is the US. she was completely wrong and should admit it.

Well, Russia doesn't receive the same kind of immigrants as the West, so I'd say she was just partially wrong. The nature of immigration to Russia a lot different. What she meant clearly was that countries like China or Russia are not targets for the same kind of migration the West experiences (driven mostly by hopes for a better life in free and "rich" West, the people are coming from all around the world). People who are coming to Russia are mostly from ex-Soviet republics and China. I think even you can see the difference, if you try so instead of being childishly happy about "winning"

 

[RedRalph]

sorry winner, but you dont get to move the goal posts, she was just wrong. she didnt say "tell me when Russia gets the exact same demographic of immigrant as the US" she said

When the day comes when people want to migrate to places like Russia, China in masses then we'll say the pendulum has swung. How about that?

, which I conclusively proved is already happening, beyond any possible denial. Jesus man are you so desperate to argue with me that you'll try this pathetic angle? give it up, dont hitch yourself to Bast on this one, shes just plain wrong.

 

[Winner]

Yeah, and that seemed fine. Nothing bad seemed to have happened to you.

Again, who's you? During the Cold war, my country was in a bit different bloc of countries, so don't mind me when I find it a bit puzzling. And no, it wasn't fine, that's why all the communist countries either collapsed or reformed (with the crazy exception of DPRK, in which the collapse will be really spectacular if it comes).

Figure of speech. Referring to the West, of which you are part, no?

Sure, but presumably you're too (I think), so it seems strange when you're reffering to me as "you guys".

Well, I say that's rich. Political cooperation was followed by economic cooperation. When you end the sanctions and isolationism, guess what, trade starts. They are certainly connected. How come Beijing could switch to capitalism? Because political factors allowed it to.

Not at all. These two events were not directly related. Political reapproachment between the US and Maoist China began after Sino-Soviet border skirmishes in the late 60's and it was driven mostly by strategic interests of both countries (both opposed the Soviets, though their aims were very different). Mao was still alive and no economic liberalization followed. It was his death and the end of Cultural Revolution and the rise of Deng Xiaoping's regime what brought up the economic liberalization and boom in trading with the US.

You know why you can't force them at all? The blade cuts both ways.

Uhm... you're saying the same thing

They abuse your values, which you should be steadfast in. And they are telling the world that they can get away with it too.

They abuse them at home, not in the West. And the West often criticizes that. I fail to see what more could it do. The notion that some sort of sanctions would force the regime to become democratic is ridiculous. Poor China would probably be even more totalitatarian.

If you didn't trade, China wouldn't have the resources. During 40 years of being isolated, China didn't seem so scary.

No? I'd say it was scary enough to force the Americans to accept cease-fire in Korea and it was scary enough to force the US to guarantee Taiwanese independence.

About the resources - since when are the Arab sheikhs and African warlords part of the West? Because it's them who's selling most of the resources (they and the Russians and Australians).

I'm not saying the West should simply have let the Chinese people live on that way. But it is all to happy to profit from cooperation, while making mere gestures at the oppression they see.

And what's wrong with that? Again, this is not like the West has any other realistic choice.

Seems to be doing what it's supposed to do, with limits you can expect. Nobody claimed to have made a perfect organisation.

It doesn't, read its Charter. The main purpose (protecting peace and collective action against the aggressor) is entirely unenforcable so long as countries like China and Russia have a say in the Security Council.

 

[Traitorfish]

I know the guardian is bigtime commie, so this wouldn't surprise me.

Firstly, I don't think "centre left" really equates to "big-time commie"; secondly, how does pointing out the Wests' waning power equate to an anti-Western bias?

 

[aelf]

I know you can't resist plugging your agenda and opinion any chance you get but we are talking about the UN. Work with me here. We have a million and one things in the world that the UN could be doing more to help... for lack of a better term, fix.

Africa in many, many regards. Burma in regards to the slaughter taking place there. Poverty, dissease and hunger. These are the basics that from what I understand the UN makes a big deal of " taking seriously " and ya better watch out cause when the UN rolls up it's sleaves it's going to? Thats right, talk and vote and spend money yet get nothing done. It's own members, due to conflict of intrest, can not even get the ball rolling on hundreds of topics. The US is just as gulity of it as anyone for sure, yet it's not just the US. It's the world. The security council is a joke and pretty damn powerless. The comissions? Please. It's grown fat and content from it's budget and it's red tape. The people involved in the UN in many cases are comfortable and afraid to take risks or have strong opinions that will rock the boat. That may cost them these high paying jobs were they really don't have to do anything but talk.

I think that imho, when the UN does break up the world is going to be in for a pretty harsh reality check in a lot of regards. It's sad imho, I'd love to see the UN really accomplish a lot of good things for humanity as a whole, yet you would have to remove the humans from the UN to make that happen. Again, just my opinion.

I don't really know what you are saying. It seems that you have refuted nothing that I've said.

Again, who's you? During the Cold war, my country was in a bit different bloc of countries, so don't mind me when I find it a bit puzzling. And no, it wasn't fine, that's why all the communist countries either collapsed or reformed (with the crazy exception of DPRK, in which the collapse will be really spectacular if it comes).

Now you are part of the West. You assume its identity. Climb into its skin, so to speak.

Sure, but presumably you're too (I think), so it seems strange when you're reffering to me as "you guys".

No, I'm not. I belong to the authoritarian part of the world, though not China.

Not at all. These two events were not directly related. Political reapproachment between the US and Maoist China began after Sino-Soviet border skirmishes in the late 60's and it was driven mostly by strategic interests of both countries (both opposed the Soviets, though their aims were very different). Mao was still alive and no economic liberalization followed. It was his death and the end of Cultural Revolution and the rise of Deng Xiaoping's regime what brought up the economic liberalization and boom in trading with the US.

Yes, I know my timelines. What makes you think rapproachement was a monolithic event anyway? It started during Mao's time and progressed since then. When Deng came to power China had the option of starting to integrate itself into the rest of the world. China did its part and ended its isolationism when the branch has been offered.

Uhm... you're saying the same thing

Yes, I am, but with a view of both sides of the coin.

They abuse them at home, not in the West. And the West often criticizes that. I fail to see what more could it do. The notion that some sort of sanctions would force the regime to become democratic is ridiculous. Poor China would probably be even more totalitatarian.

I think you argument gets muddled up here. I'm thinking in terms of ideological struggle (not exactly in the Cold War sense). I presume there is an ideology the West believes in and which it wishes would prevail. I'm aware that in the real world there are other concerns, but this is frequently the official picture adopted anyway. And there is some truth in it. Many Westerners do believe in what they believe in, sometimes blindly, and there is a struggle between those who promote them and those who resist them.

Now, sanctions would not necessarily force China to go the other way. It can, however, topple unstable totalitarian governments. Who is to say China could remain Communist forever? In fact, Deng recognised that China had to reform if the CCP was to remain in power for long. If it didn't have the option to reform, what could have happened?

I personally don't believe only in sanctions and the application of force. A mixed bag of policies could be followed, depending on the particular situation (for example, basic humanitarian aid with no concessions to the government).

No? I'd say it was scary enough to force the Americans to accept cease-fire in Korea and it was scary enough to force the US to guarantee Taiwanese independence.

It was scary in Korea only because it could throw a million men at the front. In fact, MacArthur wanted to attack China itself after the UN counterattack pushed them back. If not for the Soviet Union, it could have been a viable military plan. It wasn't even scary enough in Taiwan to give Americans much of a pause till quite recently. China had a lot of manpower and nothing else, and it had little ability to project force.

Later on they started to have nukes, but using them first would be an extremely losing strategy.

About the resources - since when are the Arab sheikhs and African warlords part of the West? Because it's them who's selling most of the resources (they and the Russians and Australians).

Sure, without income from the trade with the West (including Australia), China would be nearly as strong as it is now

And what's wrong with that? Again, this is not like the West has any other realistic choice.

You sure about that? It seems pretty happy to profit from it. There was no willingness to do all it could.

It doesn't, read its Charter. The main purpose (protecting peace and collective action against the aggressor) is entirely unenforcable so long as countries like China and Russia have a say in the Security Council.

I said with expected limits. The League of Nations didn't have the disliked countries in it. It sure worked wonderfully.

 

[Winner]

No, I'm not. I belong to the authoritarian part of the world, though not China.

Oh. For some reason I thought you were from Finland, but I probably confused you with someone.

Yes, I know my timelines. What makes you think rapproachement was a monolithic event anyway? It started during Mao's time and progressed since then. When Deng came to power China had the option of starting to integrate itself into the rest of the world. China did its part and ended its isolationism when the branch has been offered.

That's one point of view, I guess. I don't think that the two processes were interdependent. It would probably work the other way round, though.

I think you argument gets muddled up here. I'm thinking in terms of ideological struggle (not exactly in the Cold War sense). I presume there is an ideology the West believes in and which it wishes would prevail.

Sure, it's just not any kind of singular, well-defined ideology. The West wants to spread 3 things (basically): democracy as a form of political system; liberalism as the best way how organize the society by providing individuals with a lot of personal freedom; and capitalist market economy as the best way how to increase the wealth of the society.

The Western leaders and scholars believe, that if all countries fulfiled all these conditions, there would be no wars in the worlds, because such countries don't wage wars against each other.

I'm aware that in the real world there are other concerns, but this is frequently the official picture adopted anyway. And there is some truth in it. Many Westerners do believe in what they believe in, sometimes blindly, and there is a struggle between those who promote them and those who resist them.

True, partially.

Now, sanctions would not necessarily force China to go the other way. It can, however, topple unstable totalitarian governments. Who is to say China could remain Communist forever? In fact, Deng recognised that China had to reform if the CCP was to remain in power for long. If it didn't have the option to reform, what could have happened?

Let's say for a moment this could happen and the Communist regime would collapse. Then we'd either have a huge civil war there (China has a particularly colorful history of civil wars following the fall of ruling dynasties) or a new, even more authoritarian regime would arise, this time probably based on extreme nationalism as its founding ideology. I fail to see how would that help the Western cause in any way.

Democracy and liberalism best prosper in countries with strong middle class. Capitalism is a way how to form that strong middle class. I think most Westerners simply hope, that as China gets richer and richer, the population will demand more and more say in the government. So eventually, the country will transform into some sort of democracy on its own. It may take decades or even longer, though.

Sure, without income from the trade with the West (including Australia), China would be nearly as strong as it is now

Sure, but that doesn't mean it would be less of a threat. I'll repeat what I said earlier: unstable, poor and isolated China would be much bigger threat to the world than a developing China which needs the West for variety of reasons. And you don't bite the hand that... is helping you to get out of a pile of manure, unless you're an idiot.

You sure about that? It seems pretty happy to profit from it. There was no willingness to do all it could.

Sure we're happy to profit from that. The West is killing two birds with one stony - we're helping China to become free and while we're at it we're also making huge money. That's hard to resist.

I said with expected limits. The League of Nations didn't have the disliked countries in it. It sure worked wonderfully.

LoN was a first try in a world completely unprepared for something like it.
UN is the second try, and it too failed, for different reasons.
Third time's the charm