Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy


W20

New Member
Registered Member
This thread has a very high level, i have enjoyed a lot, thank you all, you can not imagine what i enjoy reading smart things

From my point of view the difference between ...

the Pentagon candidate (Obama)
the Likud candidate (Donald Trump) and
the Wall Street candidate (Joe Biden)

... are minimal ... in relation to the temporal dimension: the date is the important variable IMHO
 

Gatekeeper

Colonel
Registered Member
probably a good thing .. why there are UK judge in HK anyway?

This has been discussed at great length over at the Hong Kong thread.

I just would like to add that, some members here who hang their hat on the freedom sound bite is strangely silent on how a "democratic law abiding country" can stop it's judges from working abroad just like how an authoritarian commies loving country can. Ironic isn't it.

For the record, I think it's good riddance to those foreign judges. Can you imagine the US and UK courts having Chinese judges in their court?
 

Mr T

Senior Member
probably a good thing .. why there are UK judge in HK anyway?

Because the HK government invites them over. The UK (I think it's the judiciary) considers potential candidates and offers some to the HK government. The HK government can agree to any of them or reject them. There is no requirement to fill positions in the HK courts with UK nationals, but the HK government has wanted to do so. Maybe Carrie Lam and her predecessors thought that having British judges in the HK courts, especially the appeal court, means that it will reassure foreign investors and banks that they can trust the HK judicial system.

If that doesn't make sense to you, perhaps you could email Carrie Lam's office and ask why she's been appointing more British judges even in the last few years when she's under no obligation to do so. I'd be interested in the response.

However, I am not convinced that Obama's Pivot to Asia did any real damage to China except shore up support among "usual suspects" in Asia after decades of neglect

To give Obama some credit I think he helped refocus American policy so that it wasn't just looking at the Middle East. That was important in the long run, not least because it helped the US military secure more funding on projects that would be useful to counter the US military. For example, the AGM-158C was developed under the Obama administrations, and whilst I doubt he personally ordered it, my guess is that he and his Secretaries of Defence would have been more supportive than politicians still fixating on Arabia and Persia.
 

ansy1968

Senior Member
Registered Member
Hi horse,

You should post this article here in SDF, it's a good read about Western misconception on China. Here is a part that is very interesting.

from cyber horse (China military forum)


Reform 3.0 (2012-today)

Xi Jinping, then vice president, was calmly watching the severe situation, and the world was waiting to see how Xi would cope with it.

There were only two ways to break the status quo, either by conducting drastic political reform under the rule of law or by exercising authoritarianism. Xi chose the latter.

Xi, who was elected as the Chinese Communist Party’s new chief at the 18th National Congress held in November 2012, launched a fierce anti-corruption campaign, with the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection led by Wang Qishan working as the driving force, targeting officials in the party including both high-ranking officials (“tigers”) and low-level bureaucrats (“flies”).

In the five years after the congress, more than 50 senior officials — including Zhou Yongkang, a former security chief and member of the Politburo Standing Committee — as well as 57,000 party members of different levels were punished, contributing to the leadership winning public support.

The campaign was also a political reform in the sense that it came along with drastic restructuring to centralize power within the party. Xi conducted rectification of all of the party’s organizations nationwide, including the party’s Central Military Commission and Leading Groups.

In May 2015, when China was in the midst of the political reform, I met Wang along with Francis Fukuyama and Masahiko Aoki of Stanford University.

At that time, Wang described the severity of China’s ongoing political reform as the Communist Party performing a surgery on itself, offering as a likeness the case of a Russian surgeon who cut out his own appendix in Siberia (although in reality, it seems that it has happened in Antarctica). Wang must have been determined to carry out drastic reform.

Xi’s way to lead the country in “the new era” is based on nationalism and digital Leninism. He is aiming at realizing a highly controlled society that matches his “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” using AI and digital technology under the Communist Party’s top-down leadership to achieve the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

While the targeted structure of the society is similar to China’s centralization of power and bureaucracy that lasted for 2,000 years after the Qin dynasty, it differs from past regimes in that it is backed by cutting-edge technology and economic power.

It is not easy, however, to implement such reform in today’s China, as people are now allowed to own assets and their way of thinking has largely changed.

As for its foreign policies, China is advocating common values, such as the Belt and Road initiative and Xi’s vision of building a “community with a shared future for humankind,” as well as multilateralism.

At the same time, China has increasingly been taking geoeconomic actions, offering aid to friendly nations while exerting economic pressure on countries it is dissatisfied with.

But such moves have not been working so well.

Following the COVID-19 outbreak, Western nations came to be strongly aware of their differences with China in terms of values and systems, and are rethinking their relationship with the country.

Geopolitical and geoeconomic threats posed by U.S.-China relations are leading to prolonged instability, and focus in international politics is shifting from international cooperation or value-oriented diplomacy to the balance of power.

It is not easy to precisely forecast the future of China. But it does not mean reforms under the rule of law, advocated by reformists, have died down.

Reforms in the past were made possible when the nation needed change and there was a leader who acted with a strong determination to change. Such cases occurred many times in the past and will definitely happen in the future.

Pillsbury says China will do anything for its clear ambition of realizing the “China dream.” His view is that although there are both hawks and doves in the country, they are just changing their stance externally and are essentially the same.

People in China have different dreams and different views on ways and principles to achieve them.

All the past reforms — reform 1.0 that emerged from the devastating Cultural Revolution, reform 2.0 built on the bloody legacy of Tiananmen Square and reform 3.0 of the new era, born from a country that has become gigantic — have experienced many twists and turns, and none of them went smoothly on a straight path.

Chinese writer Lu Xun said, “There was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence.” Usually, conditions and factors that make up an era have existed before the era started, but they were chosen by the people.

The path, or the direction, of an era was created as the 1.4 billion people and the leadership made choices through conflicts in beliefs, stances and interests, and as they continued to walk on that path.


We have to keep in mind that we are facing such a superpower. If we start from assumptions, our actions will definitely backfire. In such cases, we should be the ones to blame, not China.



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

Gatekeeper

Colonel
Registered Member
@antiterror13 and anyone else. Please don't take his piece of writing as gospel.

Because the HK government invites them over. The UK (I think it's the judiciary) considers potential candidates and offers some to the HK government. The HK government can agree to any of them or reject them. There is no requirement to fill positions in the HK courts with UK nationals, but the HK government has wanted to do so. Maybe Carrie Lam and her predecessors thought that having British judges in the HK courts, especially the appeal court, means that it will reassure foreign investors and banks that they can trust the HK judicial system.

As I keep telling you. But you keeps twisting things in your mind and telling half truth. And refused to give credit when credit is due. The very fact that the Chinese government have promised no change for 50 years, and have keep that promised with regards to the judiciary. But your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumn.

The judges in the past have always been from the U.K. or it's subservient countries. So China basucally left it to continue. Also the fact he judicial system dictate that all judges must know the British law. Therefore it automatically exclude any judges educated in China or Chinese law simply goes over your head.

The system also dictate that judges have to be a barrister first. And with barristers coming from one of the four "inns" of England. It is with reason that these judges would be British or from one of the British commonwealth countries.

So basically, Hong Kong government, no matter who ever is the chief executive at the time would have no choice but to pick judges from this small gene pool. (There are only approx 20,000 barristers in the UK). Although there is no requirement to fill the judges with UK nationals as was claimed. In reality it is impossible not to do so. So you can see how twisted your post is to suit your narratives.

The judges are either British or sympathetic to the British since their owed their position as a barrister to the British establishment.

Somehow deep down, I don't think you don't know that. I think you're just twisting facts to suit your narratives
 

Gatekeeper

Colonel
Registered Member
Continuing on from mind twisting of the third kind. Here's a piece I think incredible. The narratives are that the reason China has been so successful in eradicating poverty and illiteracy is because the CCP wanted people to be able to read so it can get it's "propaganda" message across!

You really can't make this sxxt up!

FB_IMG_1606527966666.jpg
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi horse,

You should post this article here in SDF, it's a good read about Western misconception on China. Here is a part that is very interesting.

from cyber horse (China military forum)
Hi ansy1968,

1. What I got out of that article was the history lesson, where we general know the dates, but at least someone wrote it up about the reforms. The western views were never implemented, therefore those opinions are erroneous without meaning. This is the Chinese Communist Party, and that means there is the material dialectic. Material means real, and western opinions are not real. So I can only take the history story out of it.

2. That other forum tends to be a tough place. That's why I really like making jokes there. If the jokes fail, then you hear about it, lol! That is where I practiced all my joke making abilities, all at CMF. If it is funny there, then it is funny everywhere. People are sharp there. This forum is more polite. If my joke sucks, no one will tell me!

3. Today, after some discussion, there probably is another hidden point in that article. No plan B.

The Americans say, do this. When China does something else, well, that's it. No plan B.

That was the same pattern through the article over the decades. Western expectations are not really expectations, they more or less demands, but China said hell with that, and did their own thing.

Trump was not incompetent, he was just the same. Trump starts the trade war, then there was no Plan B. When China joined the WTO, under western conditions, there were loopholes or things no one thought of where the Chinese started to operate. No Plan B.

That is the other point I see in that article. Maybe we kind of feel it when we read it first, but do not realize it, because it is hidden and not explicit.

Guess the Americans were that strong they never felt the need for a plan B when dealing with China.

:D

Note, if there is no Plan B ... and Plan A did not work ...

That means the rise of China is unstoppable!

Insert sinister laugh here!

:oops: :p
 
Last edited:
@antiterror13 and anyone else. Please don't take his piece of writing as gospel.



As I keep telling you. But you keeps twisting things in your mind and telling half truth. And refused to give credit when credit is due. The very fact that the Chinese government have promised no change for 50 years, and have keep that promised with regards to the judiciary. But your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumn.

The judges in the past have always been from the U.K. or it's subservient countries. So China basucally left it to continue. Also the fact he judicial system dictate that all judges must know the British law. Therefore it automatically exclude any judges educated in China or Chinese law simply goes over your head.

The system also dictate that judges have to be a barrister first. And with barristers coming from one of the four "inns" of England. It is with reason that these judges would be British or from one of the British commonwealth countries.

So basically, Hong Kong government, no matter who ever is the chief executive at the time would have no choice but to pick judges from this small gene pool. (There are only approx 20,000 barristers in the UK). Although there is no requirement to fill the judges with UK nationals as was claimed. In reality it is impossible not to do so. So you can see how twisted your post is to suit your narratives.

The judges are either British or sympathetic to the British since their owed their position as a barrister to the British establishment.

Somehow deep down, I don't think you don't know that. I think you're just twisting facts to suit your narratives

hi @Gatekeeper .... thanks. @Mr T is in my ignore list, so I don't know what he is talking about ... usually nothing really .. not worth reading
 

Top