PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Oct 24, 2014.

  1. taxiya
    Offline

    taxiya Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    8,320
    Recalling an ambassador in common diplomatic sense is an act of temporarily "downgrade" the diplomatic relationship which is to make a political statement (point 4). All other points are normal acts not being regarded to have any special meaning.

    That "downgrade" is not official true downgrade, but rather symbolic, therefor the "statement of displeasure".

    Although in this case, it won't happen, but in diplomatic terms, Iron Man is right that "recalling ambassador" is a serious act.
     
    #2501 taxiya, Sep 23, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
    N00813 and Hendrik_2000 like this.
  2. taxiya
    Offline

    taxiya Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    8,320
    A "recalling ambassador" is a very serious act, but is not the final step. After "recalling ambassador", the step is to "downgrade the diplomatic relationship to level of chargé d'affaires ad interim". Recalling ambassador only means that the ambassador is personally not at his post, but relationship is still on the highest level.

    Example is downgrading of the relationship to chargé d'affaires ad interim before the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1980s.
     
    bruceb1959, N00813 and ougoah like this.
  3. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I know, that is why I said one of the final. It is certainly the case that recalling an ambassador is right near the end of the escalatory cascade of responses to diplomatic crises. In the current case of US vs China, neither country is anywhere near this upset.
     
  4. jobjed
    Offline

    jobjed Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    5,693
    That's not correct, fzgfzy actually said "I'm only talking about the confirmed numbers, not eventual numbers."
     
    by78, N00813 and SinoSoldier like this.
  5. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    7,038
    Thanks for the correction.
     
  6. Ali Qizilbash
    Offline

    Ali Qizilbash Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    196
    lol. What a bunch of fools these US policy makers seem to be....
     
  7. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    The USA seems to think they can repeat their playbook against Japan in the 1980s. They forced Japan to open its market to more products and business activities; also to increase the value of the yen. This led to a decrease in the growth rate of Japan, in their opinion, but in my opinion because Japan had already reached USA levels of GDP per person their economy basically peaked and those changes made little to no difference. As for the industries the USA sought to protect against Japan, most of them ended up leaving the USA regardless. They just went to other countries in Asia. One example would be the DRAM business. I doubt it will happen with this China though. They are far from reaching those levels of GDP per capita and there is a lot of infrastructure yet to build in China. Hydropower plants, canal and waterworks projects to increase their agricultural land area, cleaner energy, and cleaner water, etc. The switch from coal to natural gas power on the cities will be part of this initiative. China, in my opinion, could be still spending money on infrastructure for another decade at least. Look at what happened in 2007-2008. A lot of people claimed Chinese construction investment would stop, because they had built a lot of houses and highways, but they just invested more on high-speed-rail and subways on all major cities. I think that was a wise investment because it reduces Chinese need for oil, increases their strategic mobility, and the subways can double as shelters making Chinese cities much harder to conquer.

    The sanctions on Chinese weapons purchases on Russia equipment are to put it mildly quite ridiculous. Also the way this USA government flip-flops its political discourse makes them look like an unreliable partner. The major imports that China needs are food and energy. Russia is a much more logical business partner in this than the USA and they already made strides in that regard by both selling land in the Far East for China to develop and working on supplying them with natural gas. I also think the recent Caspian Sea agreement might lead to some interesting developments in that area but we'll have to see.
     
    #2507 gelgoog, Sep 23, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
  8. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,547
    Likes Received:
    27,619
    manqiangrexue likes this.
  9. Brainsuker
    Offline

    Brainsuker New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    44
    I'm curious, what is the military sanctions that US did to China?
     
  10. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    4,211
    The US targeted the buying offices of the PLA and the individuals within. Sanctions meaning no US company is allowed to deal with them and the individuals herewith, and assets in the US owned by these individuals are frozen. It seems pointless, since I would doubt these PLA bureaucrats having properties in the US, unless they were corrupt and stashing things away. The idea of sanctions is more like aimed to deter other countries from buying Russian arms, which is useless as India appears to have inked with Russia an S-400 deal.
     
Loading...

Share This Page