China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Wangxi said:

For those who want to read John Bolton's book, there is a lot of talk about China, Huawei, and the divisions of the Trump administration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He starts talking about China on page 260.

Click to expand...

I can't access it.

Biscuits said:

China's core alliance is already established, wavering in order to "befriend" countries of a doubtful nature will actually weaken it's international reputation.

Attacking Australia is pointless, they're not an active threat.

What China needs to do is to overcome the internal political block and start taking serious countermeasures against the USA which is the root of the instability that has plagued the world for decades.

The Communist party operate based on using the bottom of the pyramid control the top, rather than most other governments where its the other way around. This is the reason why it cannot easily get tough on USA, because many many labor unions, companies and even farmers abhor the possibility of losing America as a market, it is after all the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Beijing doesn't want to seriously punish America because in the process, many that the government are supposed to represent would be hurt, and they're unwilling to bear the pain at least as things are right now.

Presumably, there's a threshold of hostility that needs to be reached in order to convince enough people that it is worth to sacrifice some business and personal comfort.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Incoherent policy based on strenght/weakness perception

When it is Australia, it is threat. When it is US, it is "we urge"....

How is that incoherent?

.China has less leverage on USA , so it "urges"
.China has more leverage on Australia so it demands.
That is not incoherent , that is opportunistic.

escobar said:

Exactly. Incoherent policy based on strenght/weakness perception

When it is Australia, it is threat. When it is US, it is "we urge"....

Click to expand...

escobar said:

Exactly. Incoherent policy based on strenght/weakness perception

When it is Australia, it is threat. When it is US, it is "we urge"....

Click to expand...

I don't think so. First of all, gauging your response to the power dynamic between yourself and your opponent is one of the most instinctive, primal and coherent survival strategies in both nature and human civilization. In nature, a hyena will respond very differently to a jackal taking a bite out of his food than he does to a lion taking a bite out of his food. In human culture, if you disagree with a peer's idea (another member of the executive board you are on), your tone will be different than if you disagree with an intern's idea, even if you are very nice to both. In international politics, the US attacks and bombs many small countries that run afoul of its ire while it does a diplomatic dance when that country is someone like China or Russia.

Secondly, your example is untrue. I see much of the same economic tactics being played against Australia as against the US from China's perspective. It is rather that the US feels itself a peer to China while Australia immediately sees the power difference between itself and China, thus Australia begins to frantically claim that it is being threatened by a large bully. Can you find some quotations of what the Chinese actually said to Australia that qualify them as threats? I don't see anything that is above what is usually said to the US.

In short, your definition of incoherence is incorrect and your example of an incoherent act is fictitious, therefore, the only true incoherence here continues to be your argument.

Wangxi said:

For those who want to read John Bolton's book, there is a lot of talk about China, Huawei, and the divisions of the Trump administration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He starts talking about China on page 260.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing his book. Really curious what goes through the mind off this war hawk and mass murderer of brown people.

Edit: Google Drive does not download the file. Is that correct?

Jordy Cold said:

.China has less leverage on USA , so it "urges"
.China has more leverage on Australia so it demands.

Click to expand...

So If US send marines to taiwan, China will just say "We urge". After all, China has less leverage on US.

Jordy Cold said:

That is not incoherent, that is opportunistic.

Click to expand...

Opportunistic in IR is just a way to not have a coherent policy.

manqiangrexue said:

I don't think so. First of all, gauging your response to the power dynamic between yourself and your opponent is one of the most instinctive, primal and coherent survival strategies in both nature and human civilization. In nature, a hyena will respond very differently to a jackal taking a bite out of his food than he does to a lion taking a bite out of his food. In human culture, if you disagree with a peer's idea (another member of the executive board you are on), your tone will be different than if you disagree with an intern's idea, even if you are very nice to both. In international politics, the US attacks and bombs many small countries that run afoul of its ire while it does a diplomatic dance when that country is someone like China or Russia.

Click to expand...

That is what i'am saying. IR based on emotional reaction.

manqiangrexue said:

Secondly, your example is untrue. I see much of the same economic tactics being played against Australia as against the US from China's perspective. It is rather that the US feels itself a peer to China while Australia immediately sees the power difference between itself and China, thus Australia begins to frantically claim that it is being threatened by a large bully. Can you find some quotations of what the Chinese actually said to Australia that qualify them as threats? I don't see anything that is above what is usually said to the US.

In short, your definition of incoherence is incorrect and your example of an incoherent act is fictitious, therefore, the only true incoherence here continues to be your argument.

Click to expand...

You should follow what PRC MFA and Australia ambassador said.

The country most hostile to the rise of China is China. And the country that most effectively undermines US role in the world is US.

manqiangrexue said:

Impressive "debate tactic!" LOLOL But I would actually argue two points:

Chinese PR achieves far less than it should because it begins at a very low point with the entire Western PR against it, multiple democratic countries parroting each other against China's voice. So to compare skill, you would need a more level playing field; this is a comparison of overall result in the very lopsided real world situation.

Click to expand...

You are trying to justifiy china weak PR, that is not the point. Why should those countries should do China favor?
Compare skill as you want, for now the result is clear.

manqiangrexue said:

Not problem with that but that's not what the passage is about, is it? The passage you quoted says that when it pertains to one of those countries that are obviously on the competition and deterrence list (Australia), China should strike back at it even if that strike does not capitulate that country simply because it is the responsible thing to do for Chinese consumers and because there is no need to do any favors to countries that don't do you any.

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. You are seeing IR in the prism of favor or no favor. If China want to strike it should do it effectively not parroting threat. For now it is gesticulation China is doing.

escobar said:

So If US send marines to taiwan, China will just say "We urge". After all, China has less leverage on US.

Click to expand...

That would indeed be a difficult situation since that requires China to initiate violence, but for now, this is your imagination, as is the rest of your post.

escobar said:

Opportunistic in IR is just a way to not have a coherent policy.

Click to expand...

So basically everyone is "incoherent" because everyone, both country and person, calibrates their actions based on what opportunity presents at the moment? How incoherent an argument...

escobar said:

That is what i'am saying. IR based on emotional reaction.

Click to expand...

So basically you don't know what "incoherent" means and now you think that very coherent instincts that are followed by everyone suddenly make the Chinese "incoherent?" That's not making a good case for the coherence of your argument...

I'm starting to see what you think "coherence" means. You think it means to blindly follow a set of rigid rules to a tee without regard to circumstance. That is a guaranteed way to autopilot yourself/your nation into disaster. Not even a kindergarten teacher is foolish enough to do that.

So basically when you say China's "incoherent," you really mean that it's adaptable and resourceful, don't you? LOL

escobar said:

You should follow what PRC MFA and Australia ambassador said.

Click to expand...

You should learn to read. I just said that you need to get China's words from China's mouth because Australia acts like a victim due to its vulnerability vis a vis China so it will interpret everything as a threat even when it is not. You missed the whole point.

escobar said:

The country most hostile to the rise of China is China. And the country that most effectively undermines US role in the world is US.

Click to expand...

And the person who makes you look most incoherent is you! Interesting!

escobar said:

You are trying to justifiy china weak PR, that is not the point. Why should those countries should do China favor?
Compare skill as you want, for now the result is clear.

Click to expand...

I'm showing you evidence of improvement and achievement and you have no response to that. The result is indeed clear from the data, not from you imagination. Countries do other countries favors for favors in return. China is no exception.

escobar said:

You still don't get it. You are seeing IR in the prism of favor or no favor. If China want to strike it should do it effectively not parroting threat. For now it is gesticulation China is doing.

Click to expand...

I will never get an incoherent argument because I am logical. International relations are all about favors and return favors. You failed to prove anything was made as a true threat other than by Australian perception, and China has already taken trade measures against Australia simply in calibration to Australia's actions. For now, imagining is what you are doing.