Chinese General news resource thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackstone

Brigadier
Zachary Keck of The Diplomat reports several "major countries," such as Indonesia, ROK, and Australia, have declined to sign onto the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as founding members, due to "persistent" lobbying from Washington. Xi Jinping has apparently decided to cut his loses and moved up the AIIB signing ceremony to Friday.

It's a strategic mistake for the US and allies/friends to shun charter membership in AIIB, as the opposition only deepens strategic distrust between America and China and further fracture the existing US dominated "Asian Order" in unhelpful ways. I say that because the AIIB is greatly needed, welcomed by vast majority of developing nations, and can't be stopped by the US consortium. It will also include India and all ASEAN countries, except Indonesia. As shown by the US Senate holding up IMF reforms, changing basic structure of large international organizations is hard, and nations that want realistic say in the bank should sign on as original members, and not as Johnny come latelys.

The Beltway Mandarins must come to terms with the fact there's no economic or security solutions in Asia without China. I say again, there's no economic solution in Asia without China, and there's no security solution in Asia without China. Torpedoing IMF reforms and not taking a pragmatic view on the AIIB will increase strategic rivalry, and do more harm than good. Bank on it!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Following persistent U.S. lobbying, a number of major Asian nations will not sign on as founding members to China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

On Friday, China will hold a signing ceremony to officially establish the AIIB, which many see as Beijing’s counterweight to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Those institutions are traditionally dominated by the United States and Japan respectively.

According to the Financial Times, a number of major countries in the region — including Australia, South Korea and Indonesia — have elected to not sign onto the bank when it is launched on Friday. The report also said that no European countries will join at this time. Besides China, the initial signatories to the AIIB on Friday will be Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, India and every member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with the exception of Indonesia, according to the Financial Times report. Of these countries, only India is considered a major nation, and it is likely to become the second biggest stakeholder in the AIIB after China.

China has been quietly lobbying countries throughout the region and Europe to sign onto the proposed AIIB ever since President Xi Jinping first proposed it during a trip to Southeast Asia in October of last year. Premier Li Keqiang also stressed the importance China attached to the AIIB in a speech to the Boao Forum in April of this year.

At various times over the past year, officials from South Korea, Indonesia and Australia have all expressed their interest in joining the AIIB. However, in recent weeks there have been reports that the United States has been actively lobbying these nations behind the scenes to not sign onto the bank, which Washington views as an attempt by China to extend its influence over the region.

This U.S. lobbying effort appears to have been largely successful, at least for now. South Korea’s Finance Minister Choi Kyung-hwan met with his Chinese counterpart, Finance Minister Lou Jiwei, in Beijing on Tuesday. The AIIB topped the agenda in their talks, the South Korean Yonhap News Agency reported. Choi said after the meeting that Seoul continues to have large concerns over the proposed governance structure of the new bank, as well as issues with investment guarantees. However, he held out the possibility that South Korea could still decide to join the bank at a later date if its concerns are addressed.

“Rationality as an international financial institution is our precondition,” Choi said, Yonhap reported. “If such issues are resolved, there will be no reason for us not to join the AIIB.”

President Xi Jinping had personally lobbied South Korean President Park to join the bank during his visit there earlier this year. The South Korean daily, JoongAng Ilbo, quoted an unnamed Chinese official this week as saying that Beijing believes South Korea will still ultimately decide to join the bank at some point in the future.

Australia had also been expected to sign onto the AIIB as a founding member. Indeed, just last week The Australian newspaper reported that “Australia is close to joining a Chinese government plan to create a $50 billion infrastructure bank despite U.S. objections about the way the cash could be used to extend China’s power throughout Asia.” The report cited two unnamed “sources” who said that Australia had decided to back the bank. It did note, however, that Canberra had joined Seoul in expressing some concern with the governance structure of the AIIB. Australia was also said to have been angered by some of the recent tariffs China has enacted that seem to target Australian coal exports to China.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times article said that “Indonesia excused itself from being involved [in the AIIB] at this stage, saying the newly installed government had not yet had time to consider Beijing’s proposal.”

Chinese President Xi was expected to officially announce the establishment of the bank on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leadership summit scheduled to be held in Beijing next month. The decision to hold the signing ceremony on Friday instead suggests that China views its failure to get South Korea, Australia, or Indonesia to sign onto the AIIB as a loss of face, and wants to minimize the publicity surrounding the bank’s launch.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Zachary Keck of The Diplomat reports several "major countries," such as Indonesia, ROK, and Australia, have declined to sign onto the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as founding members, due to "persistent" lobbying from Washington. Xi Jinping has apparently decided to cut his loses and moved up the AIIB signing ceremony to Friday.

It's a strategic mistake for the US and allies/friends to shun charter membership in AIIB, as the opposition only deepens strategic distrust between America and China and further fracture the existing US dominated "Asian Order" in unhelpful ways. I say that because the AIIB is greatly needed, welcomed by vast majority of developing nations, and can't be stopped by the US consortium. It will also include India and all ASEAN countries, except Indonesia. As shown by the US Senate holding up IMF reforms, changing basic structure of large international organizations is hard, and nations that want realistic say in the bank should sign on as original members, and not as Johnny come latelys.

The Beltway Mandarins must come to terms with the fact there's no economic or security solutions in Asia without China. I say again, there's no economic solution in Asia without China, and there's no security solution in Asia without China. Torpedoing IMF reforms and not taking a pragmatic view on the AIIB will increase strategic rivalry, and do more harm than good. Bank on it!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No worries, the Australia and South Korea can always join later. Because the World Bank and ADB can't offer low interests loans like AIIB of China.
 

Doombreed

Junior Member
The best in corruption perception index, perhaps, but certainly not in terms of economy and military defense, which are the two factors that really matter to China.

To take your school analogy, it would be like your mom telling you to compare yourself to the best-dressed kid in class instead of the kid with the best grades.

I think you nailed it on the head here. But maybe not in the way that you intended.

It's very interesting that you compared corruption to such artificial things like clothing, instead of the quality of a person's character.

Corruption is not an enabler of economics. Corruption is the very bane of a competent military.

I wonder if this is just your personal opinions, or does it reflect to some degree the opinion of the average Chinese person. Maybe that's why China has a corruption problem.

It also goes against the "historic Chinese aversion toward corruption" that Shen talked about doesn't it? Or, maybe it's as I alluded to. The Chinese always talks about aversion towards corruption as a matter of course and ideology, but accept it as a necessary and unavoidable evil. Kinda like how America always talk about freedom, but supports plenty of dictators.

Now put the current anti-corruption drive in that context.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think you nailed it on the head here. But maybe not in the way that you intended.

It's very interesting that you compared corruption to such artificial things like clothing, instead of the quality of a person's character.

Corruption is not an enabler of economics. Corruption is the very bane of a competent military.

I wonder if this is just your personal opinions, or does it reflect to some degree the opinion of the average Chinese person. Maybe that's why China has a corruption problem.

It also goes against the "historic Chinese aversion toward corruption" that Shen talked about doesn't it? Or, maybe it's as I alluded to. The Chinese always talks about aversion towards corruption as a matter of course and ideology, but accept it as a necessary and unavoidable evil. Kinda like how America always talk about freedom, but supports plenty of dictators.

Now put the current anti-corruption drive in that context.

Actually I interpreted his comparison with military and economics was more to demonstrate that countries like NZ, while doing quite well on things like corruption and media transparency, have little to no military or economic sway globally and that reflects their strategic relevance more than anything.

So in application to China, things like overall economic and military power are of more substantial value than the degree of corruption present, geopolitically speaking.

I would add that obviously corruption and military/economic power are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't draw away from his point that compared to military/economic power, corruption really does pale almost as a superficial thing of lesser consequence.

I'd rather prefer a China that has a powerful military and economy overall and some degree of corruption, rather than a completely non corrupt but powerless nation subservient to other nation's whims. Again, I want to stress that this is not meant to illustrate that those elements are not reconcilable, but rather that there are arguably bigger issues to assess the government on other than only corruption (as important as it is).

An extreme example is those dissidents who miss the forest for the trees by saying China isn't a democracy therefore are completely illegitimate while ignoring everything that has been achieved in the last thirty years economically and militarily both of which do directly impact people's everyday lives.

In the end it depends on what you value. If one thinks corruption is the most important metric of a government's competency then naturally one would focus on that. If one thinks geostrategic power is more important, then so on and so forth.
I think what solarz was saying is that comparing nations and governments only on the degree of corruption and missing out other things like military and economic power is like comparing superficial elements versus more important areas.


---

Addendum: so no, his view doesn't go against the traditional chinese view towards corruption. It only demonstrates that other things matter apart from corruption and depending on the time period, other things may be more important than the degree of corruption.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Funny, I've recently started to realize how similar those various china experts and dissidents are to online SJWs on the likes of tumblr.


The rising cult of China experts
By Thorsten Pattberg

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

BEIJING - A couple of years ago I met a German man at Harvard who boasted about his political stipend, his up-coming talk in New York City, and how he worked hard on the liberalization of Tibet and the breaking-up of China. There are no human rights in China, he explained to me. I was impressed and reminded him that if he ever plotted this way against our German government he could be tried for treason. He left in contempt.

He isn't the only one. There is a cult of Western evangelists and self-righteous crusaders who are determined to dislodge non-Western nations and usurp their governments.

In China they act as if above the law. That's because they see the Chinese government as corrupt, non-elected, and communist, and thus illegitimate. So why care about what it says or stands for? Moreover, these evangelists believe Westerners can do whatever they want in China because America and the entire Western propaganda apparatus will bail them out should trouble arise.

These so-called China experts are now a political force in direct opposition to the Communist Party. They form clusters and networks, with a strong hierarchy and code of ethics: They reward their Twitter followers and lickspittles and praise each other's work, while policing social media and punishing "traitors" or "China apologists".

When Yang Rui, a CCTV news anchor, condemned the activities of foreigners in Beijing, his character was assassinated and internationally paraded by China experts as glaring example of what happens to any Chinese should he or she dare to look askance at them.

In the West, foreign extremist groups, left or right, are monitored and tightly controlled. But no-one controls these Western imperialists. Germans finance Xinjiang separatists, Americans finance Taiwan separatists, British finance Tibetan separatist. US journalism even dispatches tactical troops to Hong Kong determined on bringing down Xi Jinping, the president, and his family.

The hierarchy of China experts is this: At the top we find the philosophers and statesmen who set the stage and agenda for the universal ideology - exclusively serving Western interests. They always reside in the West, know little or nothing about China, and discuss China solely on Western terms. In the past there were the likes of Kant, Hegel, and Wilhelm II; today we have Henry "on China" Kissinger, Francis "End of History" Fukuyama, and Samuel "Clash of Civilizations" Huntington.

Next we have the journalists and editors, most of them white or accessory white, in key positions at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and so on. Thanks to the Western planetary media monopoly, they have become the new global fascist elite. Their culture is narrowly interbred, and some personal relations border on the incestuous, so they float each other's boat and write almost identical muck-raking stories. Everyone in China knows who they are, and their China-bashing is green-lighting all of us to join the onslaught.

Most China experts are culturists down to the last fiber. They tolerate all races as long as they Westernize and speak English, but show utter disdain for all foreign words, concepts, and terminologies (language imperialism). They also prominently decide who - Chinese or foreigner- gets praised and who gets defamed, and - most importantly- what gets omitted in their China reports. Their own corrupt ways get omitted. Ask yourself, when was the last time you read a piece by a prominent Chinese (other than a dissident) in your nation's newspaper? You haven't. It is a tight Orwellian grip.

Last, we have legions of lesser, disposable China watchers. Few of them enjoy fat expat packages, bigwig relatives in the media, or peddling political influence. Unable to find proper jobs and secure a future in China - apart from becoming activists, bloggers, or English teachers- they are recruited easily and radicalize quickly. Everyone has met those frustrated Westerners who once believed in their entitlement, got disillusioned, and found a way to spend their days: to patronize and correct the Chinese.

China isn't the only victim. All other six non-Western civilizations are feeling the whip of Western imperialism. The West claims it is "universal" and that is does not (and cannot) take responsibility for any of its abusive individuals in foreign lands since they are all free agents. It's the same old excuse since the age of colonialism.

Taking part in the Western mission to civilize the East is highly spiritually rewarding. And what is political destabilization and social unrest but a sweet revenge for China's disregard for Western hegemony. Favorite targets are: corrupt officials, suppressed minorities, Han chauvinism and misogyny, demonstrations, currency manipulation, and censorship. It makes China experts feel good about themselves. They feel like social justice warriors. The problem: this is not their country, and their negativity is poisoning everything.

Thus, China experts are constantly on the look-out for Chinese stand-ins. Dissidents, pro-Western activists, any Wang who can waive the American flag. The collaborators are showered with media coverage, prizes, and stipends, visa, freedom awards, and even Nobel Peace prizes. This tactic didn't get unnoticed by the zhishi fenzi (intellectuals), a class who would do anything for Western media attention - like the artist who in May sliced himself and cut out his own rib for a "more open China".

If Beijing dares to protest, there will be ever harsher Western media campaigns: China is told it must not impede on Westerners' "freedom" to slowly destabilize the country from within: Censor them, and they will tattletale. Incarcerate them, and they will become martyrs. Ignore them at your own peril.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.

Thorsten J Pattberg is a German writer and cultural critic. He is the author of The East-West Dichotomy, Shengren, and Inside Peking University.

(Copyright 2014 Thorsten J Pattberg)

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Doombreed

Junior Member
... treason ...

... evangelists and self-righteous crusaders ...

... Western propaganda apparatus ...

... lickspittles ...

... Western imperialists ...

... tactical troops ...

... global fascist elite ...

... language imperialism ...

... tight Orwellian grip ...

... radicalize ...

... feeling the whip of Western imperialism ...

... collaborators ...

... Thorsten J Pattberg is a German writer and cultural critic ...

As you say in New Zealand. Yeah, na.

Always picked you as one of the more balanced, and reasonable posters. Then you post a diatribe like this. Look, I get what you and the author is trying to convey. But the way he did it lost him any legitimacy what so ever.

God, I would love to read his take on the palestinian israeli conflict. But I suspect he wouldn't because he's German.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
As you say in New Zealand. Yeah, na.

Always picked you as one of the more balanced, and reasonable posters. Then you post a diatribe like this. Look, I get what you and the author is trying to convey. But the way he did it lost him any legitimacy what so ever.

God, I would love to read his take on the palestinian israeli conflict. But I suspect he wouldn't because he's German.


I think his choice of words are a bit over zealous but it effectively conveys the deeper subliminal feelings and suspicion of many Chinese towards many western experts and human rights activists regarding China. Division of the country, sponsoring separatism, and a sense of superiority just because they have "democracy/human rights" (TM), are all irritants felt by quite a few Chinese, and definitely more than a few posters on this forum. (Not to mention blatant media bias of course -- I think this particular point has just been accepted that it almost isn't even worth mentioning anymore)

And I do agree with the suggestion that many democracy activists are pushing it as much as they would a religion -- i.e.: democracy or bust, and hell to the consequences of anything else. I've always held the position that there is never one correct political system and that they should change depending on the situation, and I cannot take anyone seriously who blindly promotes one system as correct for everyone, and I do equate it with evangelists that cry out "but my god is the real god!"


If I wrote the article I definitely wouldn't have phrased it in that way but I think there are jewels of insight between his abrasive paragraphs. The fight for perception is an ugly one.
The other side doesn't pull any punches, so I think it's hypocritical to criticize it when the opposing group uses similarly charged words.
 
Last edited:

Lethe

Captain
Strange that on the one hand he speaks of Samuel Huntington in a disparaging sense, and then later appears to borrow his framework of civilizations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top