China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

[escobar]

What is the US core interest? Nobody knows.

Syria is certainly not US core interest

No one doubts American military might but many people have started to doubt American resolve and what constitute American core interest.

Exactly, because of US overacting on many issues in the world and Trump became President

Beside if you declared something as your core interests, are that mean you are willing to compromise for every else. That is a very bad foreign policies.

Yes, so you should not declare something core interest if it is not.

America also did a lot of ambivalent threats all over the world and failed to back up these threats.

Exactly, US have a lot of failed IR policies and are paying for it.

I think you have too much black and white view for international relationship and geopolitical conflicts.

Certainly not. China need a dynamic & flexible IR policy.

 

[KYli]

Syria is certainly not US core interest

Yes, so you should not declare something core interest if it is not.

If not, how about other ME countries? Are they US core interest? When you made explicitly clear to your opponents what constitute your core interests then your opponents would take advantages of this declaration. Come and take over ME as these countries aren't my core interests and I would not defend them.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Like China on taiwan, right? After all China say taiwan is a core issue.

Nope, reading comprehension is needed for debate. You said one should only react to red lines while I said one should react anywhere for any benefit. Pertaining to Taiwan, China reacts to everything. This is a good example for me, not for you.

So you just admit China is on the defensive there.

This was never in contention; don't make up things for me to "admit." Taiwan is stolen property full of brainwashed fools; of course when you want to retrieve your property, you are on the defensive. When you want to take other people's property, you are on the offensive.

You like so much doing cherry picking.

I refute every argument and example you make, no cherry picking. Your cherry picking is so severe, it goes into the realm of imaginary events when you cannot find actual events that suit you.

You have issue understanding that IR policy is a skillful management of whole package of deterrence, competition, cooperation, PR, etc..

Meaningless sentence

US Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, 2020

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity, but it does not help your argument at all. So some guy named Zenz said China is committing genocide. So what? Should China do a Saudi Arabia and send people to kill him? LOL Or have some people write that the US is committing genocide on black people? This is garbage.

You are in the superficial. Who could really escalate more? Which side really show it can play more card?

No, you are superficial. Look at trade numbers; they always favor China. In May, America's trade deficit with the world and with China grew again. This is substance. Everything you are saying is superficial.

Both can escalate; judging power/success by escalation is for superficial people like you. Results are for substance-based people like me and that's how I judge power/success. It's clear that America cannot escalate without harming itself more than China so what is escalation worth?

You really have issue understanding.

You have bad English, bad logic, incoherent argument. Rational people like me will not understand you.

China having a great IR policy in the past does not mean it is doing great currently.

You're the one who asked for "IR history." I didn't realize that you think that "history" means recent events LOL. The chart is from 2019. Learn to read dates.

Lol, Go back read how the debate evolve

You said China's foreign policy is incoherent, then we found out that you don't know what incoherent means (among other words), and you've been trying to make up imaginary events using broken logic to try to put off embarrassment ever-since. LOL

 

[escobar]

If not, how about other ME countries? Are they US core interest? When you made explicitly clear to your opponents what constitute your core interests then your opponents would take advantages of this declaration. Come and take over ME as these countries aren't my core interests and I would not defend them.

The others ME countries have more value especially SA.
When you made explicitly clear to your opponents what constitute your core interests that mean you are going to fight and die for it.
Il your opponents try to take advantages you are going to fight. You made that clear to you opponents and to the whole word.

If you can't be explicitly clear about what constitute your core interests then it is probably because you are weaker than your opponents.
You can't really really deter if you are not clear. Even North Korea understand that.

Now on some IR issues, it may be good to not be explicitly clear. like What US do with taiwan

 

[KYli]

The others ME countries have more value especially SA.
When you made explicitly clear to your opponents what constitute your core interests that mean you are going to fight and die for it.
Il your opponents try to take advantages you are going to fight. You made that clear to you opponents and to the whole word.

If you can't be explicitly clear about what constitute your core interests then it is probably because you are weaker than your opponents.
You can't really really deter if you are not clear. Even North Korea understand that.

Now on some IR issues, it may be good to not be explicitly clear. like What US do with taiwan

My point is that it isn't the first time that the US has declared something as its core interests and later capitulate. The Syria situation isn't the first and won't be the last. This hasn't stopped the US from declaring more core interests that it claimed it would defend upon. Does it mean the US is weak?

By saying a country needs to explicitly declare and clearly state what constitute its core interests as a sign of strength is absurd. US has drawn many red lines and later retracted them. It doesn't seem to diminish the US status in the world.

 

[escobar]

My point is that it isn't the first time that the US has declared something as its core interests and later capitulate. The Syria situation isn't the first and won't be the last. This hasn't stopped the US from declaring more core interests that it claimed it would defend upon. Does it mean the US is weak?

By saying a country needs to explicitly declare and clearly state what constitute its core interests as a sign of strength is absurd. US has drawn many red lines and later retracted them. It doesn't seem to diminish the US status in the world.

Never said that declaring and clearly state what constitute core interests is a sign of strength. I'am saying don't declare if your are not really ready to deter. Better be in grey zone. Deterence = Capability x Resolve x Belief. When one the three equal 0, your deterence fail. That is what hapen everytime anyone overacting by declaring core interest

 

[KYli]

Never said that declaring and clearly state what constitute core interests is a sign of strength. I'am saying don't declare if your are not really ready to deter. Better be in grey zone. Deterence = Capability x Resolve x Belief. When one the three equal 0, your deterence fail. That is what hapen everytime anyone overacting by declaring core interest

It is a test of will. How else you know they have more resolve than you do. Beside, you still need to answer to your citizens that you are doing something.

 

[Pmichael]

China absolutly fails at selling itself as a trustworthy ally and a geopolitical/economical newton for both parties like the USA did to even their war enemies (West) Germany and Japan.
The same way that the Warshaw Pact states fear Russia in such a way that Germany is seen as the better alternative than the idea being a puppet of Russia

But that's the fundamental flaw of a totalitarian state vs the Kissinger defined pragmatism of the USA. Despite Trump being a geopolictical idiot - China completely failed to form a geopolitical alternative.

 

[zgx09t]

It rather sounded like some people here are tasking China to lead the West, by the West standards, of the West standards, for the West standards; completely forgetting different sets of values and norms and historical contexts brought them up to where they are now. Chang'an wasn't Rome ; Taoism and Confucianism aren't Christianity. The pathways to modernity will be multiple - there is no single definitive route for all states and society. It will be very much based on historical and real-life contexts to find and improve their own paths. Adaptation to modernity is not outright copy and paste ; transplanting a whole system of institutions and so-called values in a completely different contexts and historical backgrounds is completely delusional. Why some people want respect and prestige, popularity by extension, so much and so fast, from West no less? China's main goal is to reach modernity - interpret it as you will, you will probably be as right as the next guy - and have as many options and pathways open as possible. We don't need to deracinate thousands of years of our cultures, values and learning. We'll improve them to fit our own modernity. If one pathway is closed or becomes so treacherous, we'll find 10 more pathways to get there. It's not by the providence of some deity or gods; it's by the national aspirations, leadership vision and damn good amount of hard work. All people don't necessarily need to like China for what she is trying to do, so why does it matter what their opinions are one way or the other on what she is doing, her pathways and current status.

 

[Pmichael]

It rather sounded like some people here are tasking China to lead the West, by the West standards, of the West standards, for the West standards; completely forgetting different sets of values and norms and historical contexts brought them up to where they are now. Chang'an wasn't Rome ; Taoism and Confucianism aren't Christianity. The pathways to modernity will be multiple - there is no single definitive route for all states and society. It will be very much based on historical and real-life contexts to find and improve their own paths. Adaptation to modernity is not outright copy and paste ; transplanting a whole system of institutions and so-called values in a completely different contexts and historical backgrounds is completely delusional. Why some people want respect and prestige, popularity by extension, so much and so fast, from West no less? China's main goal is to reach modernity - interpret it as you will, you will probably be as right as the next guy - and have as many options and pathways open as possible. We don't need to deracinate thousands of years of our cultures, values and learning. We'll improve them to fit our own modernity. If one pathway is closed or becomes so treacherous, we'll find 10 more pathways to get there. It's not by the providence of some deity or gods; it's by the national aspirations, leadership vision and damn good amount of hard work. All people don't necessarily need to like China for what she is trying to do, so why does it matter what their opinions are one way or the other on what she is doing, her pathways and current status.

That's actually a lot of nothing. China itself abandoned the Chinese way after the disasters of Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution.
China economical and political situation improved after adapting western thinking and measure itself with western standards. China is incapable of formulating an alternative to the old established power structures - it has massive economic power but there is no Chinese Way for other states to follow.