[redmenace]

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960320a.htm

Reading the Wall Street Journal article, do you think that immensing China with trade has truly had all of the effects intended?

[IceFire]

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960320a.htm

Reading the Wall Street Journal article, do you think that immensing China with trade has truly had all of the effects intended?

I'm not 100% sure what they wanted to do...but China is a major trading partner with the west and all of their diplomatic behavior regarding N. Korea and everything else seems to be following a very cautious line to ensure that those economic benefits they are feeling (and we are feeling here in the west BTW) are not in jeopardy.  China has changed radically over the last 10 years...its developing a thriving market economy, its middle class is getting weathlier, and its never been more like the west than it is now.

Far cry from the almost openly hostile China of the late 1940s and early 1950s during and just after the revolution.

[Kosh]

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960320a.htm

Reading the Wall Street Journal article, do you think that immensing China with trade has truly had all of the effects intended?

I would have to say yes. Icefire is right, things have changed a lot over the last 10 years and things continue to change. When they talk about "generation gap", they refer to a gap of only 2 or 3 years.

[redmenace]

But at the same time, was it wise to have transferred delicate and sensative technology to them then cover it up? In other words does it justify the risks, especially when you evaluate US Longstanding Taiwan Policy. I still remember to this day a special report on the subject on ABC, unfortunatly it was at 3pm in the afternoon, and people testifying that they were told to just allow these sales regaurdless of the Security issues.

[Kosh]

Probably not.


But one thing that many Americans forget is that Chinese people aren't looking to rule the world......they just want a better life for themselves and their families. Is helping them develop into a prosperous and (sort of) a rich country really such a bad thing?

[aldo_14]

Probably not.


But one thing that many Americans forget is that Chinese people aren't looking to rule the world......they just want a better life for themselves and their families. Is helping them develop into a prosperous and (sort of) a rich country really such a bad thing?

Yes, because they have different coloured skin and speak a funny foreign language.

(on a serious note, there is an issue to be had with Chinese human rights and democratisation, and it's important in using economics to leverage in concessions in that area as much as possible)

[redmenace]

But one thing that many Americans forget is that Chinese people aren't looking to rule the world......they just want a better life for themselves and their families. Is helping them develop into a prosperous and (sort of) a rich country really such a bad thing?

Sorry, if that question seemed loaded. I have no problem with the promotion of capitalism. I do have problems with doing a foreign policy a disservice at the same time.

But at the same time, why do they need to steal aegis technology and other leap technologies and develop advanced arms. I don't see this exactly promoting a better life. Unless they are anticipating a major conflict ala Taiwan.

[aldo_14]

But one thing that many Americans forget is that Chinese people aren't looking to rule the world......they just want a better life for themselves and their families. Is helping them develop into a prosperous and (sort of) a rich country really such a bad thing?

Sorry, if that question seemed loaded. I have no problem with the promotion of capitalism. I do have problems with doing a foreign policy a disservice at the same time.

But at the same time, why do they need to steal aegis technology and other leap technologies and develop advanced arms. I don't see this exactly promoting a better life. Unless they are anticipating a major conflict ala Taiwan.

Why does the US develop weapons and have spy sattellites overflying China?

[redmenace]

Didn't say the US was anybetter. And actually I was thinking that as I was writting the other post.

But if the overall goal to promote capitalism, why sell military technology that undermines national security.

[aldo_14]

Didn't say the US was anybetter. And actually I was thinking that as I was writting the other post.

But if the overall goal to promote capitalism, why sell military technology that undermines national security.

In the interests of profit.  I mean, we (the 'West') sell fighter jets and soforth to some of the most repressive regimes (like the Saudis) in the world without even giving it the veneer of encouraging a free market, after all. 

[redmenace]

That doesn't really justify his actions. Also we are not likly to be in a conflict with the Saudis.[That doesn't justify selling Iran F-14s in the 80s, as an example] Not like the Chinese, which a conflict is entirly possible considering the Taiwan Straight.

[aldo_14]

That doesn't really justify his actions. Also we are not likly to be in a conflict with the Saudis.[That doesn't justify selling Iran F-14s in the 80s, as an example] Not like the Chinese, which a conflict is entirly possible considering the Taiwan Straight.

Oh, I never said it was justification.  But it's the reasoning; China is valuable as a market to the US, pure and simple.  And a war is neither sides interest.  Furthermore, how can you bar sales without first stating that (buying) nation is your enemy?  And China can get this stuff anyways; Israel re-engineer and sell US weapons to them (amongst the likes of Cambodia, Ethiopia, Eritrea); some of these missile designs have been sold on to Iran by China, for example.  So the US can't stop it (except perhaps by cutting off Israel), and the best it can ever hope to do is manage it.... and a few bucks in the process, which is what it really always boils down to.

Albeit, I'd say a conflict with the Saudis is as likely as a conflict with Iraq was in 1988....

[redmenace]

Well they were barred because the US had identified them as a Nuclear Proliferator[Technically the US is as well]

[Kosh]

(on a serious note, there is an issue to be had with Chinese human rights and democratisation, and it's important in using economics to leverage in concessions in that area as much as possible)

While this is true, why not do the same with the Saudi's?

[aldo_14]

(on a serious note, there is an issue to be had with Chinese human rights and democratisation, and it's important in using economics to leverage in concessions in that area as much as possible)

While this is true, why not do the same with the Saudi's?

Oh, I agree exactly with you on that.

[Janos]

(on a serious note, there is an issue to be had with Chinese human rights and democratisation, and it's important in using economics to leverage in concessions in that area as much as possible)

While this is true, why not do the same with the Saudi's?

Of course, but China has over 1 billion people and is hugely important in world politics and in Asia. It's China. SA sells us oil and is a useful tool for USA but worldwide it does not have nearly the same weigh as China.