日志
Quora: Why are people afraid of a powerful China but not a powerful US?
|
It’s perfectly understandable why some western countries are afraid of a powerful China, but not a powerful US. Same with Japan and Australia, which is why they joined the party in South China Sea against China.
Western Europe, Japan and Australia are not afraid of a powerful US simply because these countries together with North America (NATO) are ONE WORLD.
The First World, or say the countries that sided with US in the Cold War. The Anglo-Saxon Capitalism, the Multinational Corporations, the rich countries.
Why are they afraid of a powerful China?
How can these high-income, capitalist democracies not afraid of a powerful non-democratic, not Anglo-Saxon capitalist, a country with 1.4 billion people getting richer by the day on this planet earth with limited resources.
On Mar 10, 2016, United States and Japan, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and seven other European states have issued a joint statement condemning China's human rights record. Joint Statement - Human Rights Situation in China
What a coincidence that only the rich First World countries are worrying about the rights of Chinese people and Chinese people only while global inequality is the most unfair thing ever!
WWII ended with the defeat of Fascism, but the Imperialist who funded the war remained in power. They robbed the world and they’re now robbing their own people.
For the past 200 years, the world was essentially governed by a fragment of the human population. With the arrival of countries like China and India (38% of the world population), and Brazil, Indonesia and so on REPRESENTS the most important single act of democratization in the last 200 years. As a humanist, we must welcome, surly, this transformation.
1. People *are* afraid of the United States but
2. People are used to the United States' particular brand of dominance and to a large extent have internalized its (i.e. the West's) norms
I'm doing to take a slightly different approach to suggest why people might be leery of a powerful China:
1. Territorial provocations around neighbor's borders - Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan have all butted heads with China over various territorial claims in the past few decades (include India, too, if we want to reach back further). Couple that with increased defense spending and a robust military modernization initiative and it's easy to see the worries from a security standpoint. It isn't clear that China aspires to regional hegemony in East Asia, but it would be an entirely rational or predictable goal, and perfectly in keeping with the tenets of international relations realism. This is the proximate reason for the Obama administration's purported "pivot to Asia."
I think all parties involved are sane enough to avoid provoking all-out regional war. The worry is closer to what Russia has been doing to Ukraine, i.e. antagonizing and salami-slicing over small but recurring stakes.
2. China's internal stability is not as strong as it may seem. The CCP's legitimacy in the post-Mao era is predicated on sustained economic growth. Runaway GDP growth won't last forever, and outside observers know this as well as the CCP. As living standards growth subsides, people will start demanding other "goods," i.e. political and legal recognition of various sorts. This won't lead to open revolt - at least not immediately - but it will cause all kinds of tensions and dysfunctions between various elements of government, factionalization, etc. It will almost certainly force the CCP through painful institutional and cultural transition(s). Nobody knows what will happen during that transition(s).
3. There is some credence to the idea that the recent undercurrent of nationalism in the Chinese political discourse is being encouraged by the national authorities to distract attention from chronic internal problems (see the recurring anger over the Yasakuni Shrine and Japan's refusal to apologize). We see this everywhere; Nazi Germany, of course, but also Saudi Arabia's export of jihadists. We don't know how this sentiment will influence future generations of Chinese leaders who have only known an ascendant and assertive China, not one that was militarily and economically precarious (and therefore cautious).
4. Government in general: the fear isn't that China is authoritarian qua authoritarian or has a poor human rights record - plenty of countries have authoritarian and abusive characteristics. It's more specifically that the inner workings of the CCP are opaque and it is not really clear to outside observers which factions have what degrees of control and have which agendas. What if an ultranationalist faction takes over?
Sources:
How China Stays Stable Despite 500 Protests Every Day
China’s Dangerous Game
China’s Borderline Belligerence
Pentagon: China Continues Military Modernization
There was a time when the US had a lot of corruption, pollution, depredations by robber barons, aggressive foreign policy (e.g. Hawaii's conquest). There was even a time when a portion of US residents enslaved another portion based on the colour of their skin. I'll warrant that during those times, the dominant European nations looked down their collective noses at the barbaric West, and would shudder at the thought of a world led by the USA.
Since that period, the USA has gone through an incredible period of technological and economic development. The quality of life for its people has improved by leaps and bounds, and it has extended its soft power through trade, diplomacy, and occasional wars to remind everyone of what it can do to people who upset the international order that it has set up.
The same thing is going to happen with another country, another civilisation, in the future. We're probably either going to be old or dead by then. It may be China, or it may not.
If you ask me, there is less need to be afraid of a powerful China, because China is not geographically isolated. That is, it will exert military force in the full knowledge that it is not geographically protected from retaliations from any kind. The USA, however, goes to war without ever feeling the slightest or remotest possibility that a full-blown war on the ground could ever break out in its cities. This article explains the unique American experience of warfare quite well: The Unique American Experience of War
The developed nations may not too worried about a potential military conflict with China, because the presence of nuclear weapons acts as a very strong deterrent for any major military conflict. The developed countries however are worried that China's soaring GDP will eventually overtake theirs, which will have a huge impact on not just the world economy but this global world order.
The entire modern economy is built upon US hegemony. The world economy is very interconnected and can be quite volatile when stability is threatened. Whatever one thinks of the US, US control of the seas and US alliances around the world generally favor stability and free trade. (Imagine an alternative world where regional naval powers demand tribute to trade in their territory, or simply prohibit it)
US alliances generally guarantee that wars stay local and do not grow into worldwide conflagrations, since those alliances have the overwhelming power to stop them. This prevents large arms races and evenly matched powers - and evenly matched powers are what make large wars more likely. Today, outside of China, there really is no nation that is rapidly building up its military. (Possible exception of Russia, but it does not have the economy to really sustain that buildup) This is a historical anomaly, and is only the case because of the US-imposed order.
China's buildup concerns some because it is unknown what China will do if it overturns that order; and China's current aggressive actions with its neighbors exacerbates those fears.
You ask specifically about why the western world isn't afraid of the US - but really why would they be? Most of the west is allied with the US in one way or another. (NATO, ANZUS, etc.) Disputes between the US and other western nations have been limited to diplomatic tiffs, and I think most Americans would find the idea of using force against another western nation somewhat comical. (Though it is always fun to Blame Canada)
Post world war 2, the US has multinational companies setting up shop in various countries helping to create jobs, and of course Japan, Britain, France, Germany and so on did too. Technological developments in the United States have dominated the techscape of the world: computers, the Internet, electronics, cars as must haves, military hardware, audio video products, the space related developments, and more. Of course the US’ lead was followed by other countries in these areas. US TV shows and movies were and are a big influence on the world. Take a look on YouTube on old shows from prewar Shanghai, India, Iran, Hong Kong from the 1920s onward, and you will see Hollywood being imitated. The entire world, excluding some Islamic countries, and indigenous cultures, imitates the US in wearing T shirts and Jeans as de riguer casual wear.
So for the better part of a century the USA has been the global backdrop as icon and influence to the world outside of the Warsaw Pact countries and China. In economics its position as the largest economy and the availability of the American dollar as the oil and lubricant for global finance has made its position and influence powerful. Shouldn’t the world’s largest debtor nation simply flounder and fall? It can’t: global finance will collapse!
As the ongoing incumbent superpower the US is what we’re all used to, the Rome of the world. Now China is the ‘new kid on the block’ despite its ancient history. It, like India, chose an economic model after World War 2 which did not deliver the goods. Now that it’s hitched on to the capitalist model the economy is expanding, the material wealth of Chinese is exploding, and the country is being developed rapidly.
So why the unease with China as a power? For starters, the Chinese keep emphasizing their ‘century of humiliation’, that is the message comes across as ‘we’ve got scores to settle.’ “We’re the premium civilization, and the world had not better forget that.’ A strong China prefers a subservient world in which all acknowledge its prominence, and bow down figuratively to its patronage. Local web content rules in China; phone apps are its own and outside apps are not welcome or actively blocked; news about internal happenings are heavily controlled and censored. It all comes down to having stern control by the CCP over all aspects of Chinese life, as well as how China is gong to develop, what face does China want to show the world, and it even wants the world to perceive it as ‘dictated’ by China.
Have you seen Russia Times and CGTV, the latter is China ‘s,TV channels? Both show blatant prejudice in presenting their countries’ political agenda. In contrast, across the democracies of the world, you have alternative news and alternative viewpoints broadcast.
Certainly China as a power did not display the expansionism that was displayed by European powers during the colonial era. But talk to the average Chinese about it, and I get answers like, well Britain was a powerful country, that’s why it could do what it wanted, or the US is a powerful country, and one day China will be stronger. The impression I get is they’re living with ‘spheres of influence’ as the stance for China to assume even today, even after globalization and the cessation of colonization.
China unlike in the past wants to become a great maritime power, and is actively engaged in the pursuit of building up a force, and reinforcing its claims over the South China Sea.From China’s White Paper released in 2015 on its Military Strategy we read,
The DWP decisively elevates the maritime domain in China’s strategic thinking, asserting that “the traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned.” In articulating “enhance[d] military strategic guidance” for its long-held concept of “active defense,” † the DWP emphasizes “highlighting maritime military struggle,” signaling that China recognizes its most urgent threats emanate from offshore and anticipates its most likely conflict scenarios will take place at sea. (https://www.uscc.gov/sites/defau...)
Of course the first priority of this increased power is exercising it in the South China Sea disputed area.
Following this China has the second ‘chain’ of islands over which its influence will be exercised. Note it goes much further out to the Pacific Ocean.
There will also be a third island chain following this. This was originally an American idea manufactured during the cold war, but now China has adopted it!
Statements of intent of China for the future include the annexation of Taiwan by force if needed, the buildup of countermeasures against the US’ dominance in the seas, on insisting that its South China Sea claims are legitimate and that all the surrounding countries abide by this claim. In defense of these you can expect the average China citizen to assert that China has indisputable rights, citing history, or in other words the negotiations are simple: just agree to what China claims, and that is the right policy.
So despite the unilateral ability of the USA to wage war, it’s China that gives off the air of foreboding.
In terms of global popularity, there is not a huge gap, see The US And China Are Locked In A Popularity Contest.
People talk loosely about "fear", but it doesn't seem to amount to much concerning China. Not many people suspect China of wanting to interfere in their country, whereas many fear the active role of the USA.
I've now posted a question on this: Has there ever been a global survey about which foreign countries (if any) are feared by the general public?
1. The US is not just a long-term world superpower but also an extension of Western hegemony that's dominated the planet for the past 300-500 years (depending on how you view its relationship to Asian countries). So the world is accustomed to a form of domination that is most recently represented by the US. In particular, it's accustomed to the sort of political justifications introduced during the so-called "Enlightenment." So the West, as a whole, would feel more comfortable with the latest permutation of itself than anything radically different from itself.
2. The opinion-makers of the world who count are themselves chiefly members of the Western media and universities. Think BBC, NY Times, Harvard, LSE, etc. And these functionaries share, at a very deep level, a number of presuppositions about government, economy, and global policies, that automatically favor Western hegemony. I mean that, for the most part, these people either cannot see outside their Western box or feel constrained to avoid voicing clearly anti-Western views.
3. People in Western countries, and in countries with well established pro-Western credentials (e.g., Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan), tend to favor the status quo; since, at some level, they realize that they benefit from supporting the status quo. So, short of some grave calamity, they see very little incentive in supporting any radical change in the status quo. Emergence of Chinese hegemony might be such a radical change. But this is also true in countries that may not be particularly pro-Western (e.g., Pakistan) since the devil you know is more predictable than the devil you don't.
4. Finally, the Chinese themselves have experienced an important reason why everyone else fears their emergence and fears less continued US dominance. Old Colonialism is to stick your flagpole on someone else's land then order the natives around or kick them in the teeth if they don't obey. New Colonialism is much more subtle. New Colonialism poses normative obstacles to certain practices in favor of others. Obstacles will be posed, for example, if you pursue clearly socialist policies--in the world media, at the UN, through military or clandestine intervention, etc. However, if you pursue market-oriented policies, new markets will open up, international money will fly in, etc., and you will be rewarded. Over time, a country that may have once overtly opposed Western-style policies and practices may wind up becoming an internationally acceptable approximation of Western norms and standards. China itself may eventually become such an approximation. Like Japan and S. Korea, China may increasingly become something that looks enough and feels enough like a Western country that, perhaps eventually, the rest of the world will feel comfortable enough letting China have a go. Of course, if history serves, that probably means China will have to invade Afghanistan at some point and flush, like, $1 trillion down the toilet. But empire does have its disadvantages.
China is a dictatorship. It can and does murder it's own citizens with nothing but a show trial. Any attempt to report on this behavior lands one in prison or a body bag. China censors the Internet, is run by a corrupt, self-selecting cadre if thugs (albeit, incredibly competent as thugs go). China has little freedom of the press, assembly, speech and restricted freedom of religion. The US, for all its terrible flaws, is free, doesn't have a secret network of gulags where it imprisons its citizens, no massive firewall restricting speech, access or protest.
The US is a known commodity and one around which American allies can (and do) build their foreign policies. Despite all the recent mistakes (Iraq being a damned big one), the US's behavior is fairly predictable especially if you're in the circle of friends. If you are in that circle, you get to skimp on defense and safely bet that the US will have your back and all you have to do is pay lip service to the US and its policies. It's a sweet gig. China totally threatens that gig and even to the point where those nations that skimp on defense will have to cut domestic spending or raise taxes (both?) to stay secure.
Because you live in the US and listen to US news and propaganda.
Gasp!!! Propaganda?! How dare you!!! Well, if you think US government don't do propaganda, you're delusional.
If you live in China, you would be under the impression that no one likes US because they step on other countries' sovereignty (send commando into Pakistan carrying out an assassination mission, without telling Pakistan, a sovereign state); strong arm its way in the UN (how many times US has used its Veto power in UN? like hundreds of times... mostly to veto really good proposals, see: Robin Daverman's answer to Does the sparing use of China's veto in the UN Security council suggest that China is actually a friendlier member of the world than most people think?); meddling with foreign affairs that's none of their damn business; using drone attacks that kill a lot of innocent people; blowing up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade; invading 2 countries in 10 years... etc.
To quote Robin Daverman's answer:
This is why that although the U.S. can be very pleasant for U.S. citizens, it is very unpleasant for the rest of the world.
China, on the other hand, is non-aggressive and just want to develop its GDP and improve the living standard of its people.
It's all about perspective.
(And in the case of UN Veto by US, it's actually on the record that US isn't all that friendly with human rights on a global level, I mean who the hell vetoes a "convention against female discrimination", what exactly did US get out of it?)
Because most developed countries are currently in a position in which they are puppets of US. It’s not a really great position, but it’s a stable one. They usually don’t have oil and therefore it’s unlikely that the US will try to bring them “democracy”. They trade with the US, and in most cases fight wars for the US through NATO. Again, it’s not an ideal position, but it’s a stable one. On the other hand China is getting stronger and changing fast. Also their approach is quite different than the approach of US towards international politics. It’s unlikely that you can offer something to China that they don’t already have, so it’s quite hard becoming a China’s puppet since they don’t need wars for their expansion, and their energy is more relaying on renewable sources (Solar power by country - Wikipedia). Also, it’s highly possible that the US and China’s interests will clash at some point about some major issue. In the case of some conflict between China and US, most western world countries would have to stand on the side of the US (because NATO) and possibly have to face-of both China and Russia. Not a pleasant situation.
It’s worth noticing that the European western countries should not be really scared of China, but since US is (with a good reason) the propaganda spreads through their media, and therefore Europeans are scared to.
Long story short: In a situation of China becoming a leading economy of the world, the cards on the table will be majorly re-shuffled. For those countries which already have good cards in their hands (like western world countries have) that’s not a really tempting idea.
How Wealth Corrupts Democracy - Conditioning & Indoctrination through Media & Education Institutions
How Wealth Corrupts Democracy - Media & News
In reality, us domination has been destructive and brutal for not only the rest of the world, but even americans themselves. But you wont see any mention of these in school history books or media.
Battle of Blair Mountain
friendly dictators
Basically, what you call US is an establishment which is a conglomerate of military-industry and corporate interests, which projects a certain 'reality' onto the american people to goad them to whatever will profit themselves. Their interests do not align with the interests of people who live in usa at all - there is no difference in between an american citizen and an angolan citizen in regard to a corporation's interests - both personas are dangerous to a corporation because they would object to their natural resources being used without benefiting their countries, they would demand participation in their own democracy, they would demand certain human and civil rights, life standards.
China's position is that its a power that reduces the reach of us corporate interests. therefore its an enemy.
EDIT: The English equivalent is "Better the devil you know" (thank you, Joe!).
Because those who were afraid of US had been unable to speak, including but not limited:
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, masterminded by the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project) and backed by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot").
The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation carried out by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution.
3、1960 Congo Patrice Lumumba
Declassified documents revealed that the CIA had plotted to assassinate Lumumba. These documents indicate that the Congolese leaders who killed Lumumba, including Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, received money and weapons directly from the CIA. This same disclosure showed that at that time the U.S. government believed that Lumumba was a communist.
The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état (Portuguese: Golpe de estado no Brasil em 1964 or, more colloquially, Golpe de 64) was a series of events in Brazil, from March 31 to April 1, that led to the overthrow of President João Goulart by part of the Armed Forces, supported by the United States government.
5、Indonesian killings of 1965–66
Despite a consensus at the highest levels of the American and British governments that it would be necessary "to liquidate Sukarno," as related in a CIA memorandum from 1962, and the existence of extensive contacts between anti-communist army officers and the US military establishment (including the training of over 1,200 officers, "including senior military figures," by the US military, and also providing weapons and economic assistance), the CIA denies active involvement in the killings. It was later revealed that the American government provided extensive lists of communists to Indonesian death squads.
The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a watershed event in both the history of Chile and the Cold War. Following an extended period of social and political unrest between the right dominated Congress of Chile and the elected socialist President Salvador Allende, as well as economic warfare ordered by US President Richard Nixon, Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police.
7、1989 United States invasion of Panama
The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the United States between mid-December 1989 and late-January 1990.
8、2015 Kunduz hospital airstrike
On 3 October 2015, a United States Air Force AC-130U gunship attacked the Kunduz Trauma Centre operated by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders in the city of Kunduz, in the province of the same name in northern Afghanistan. It has been reported that at least 42 people were killed and over 30 were injured.
9、Now Drone strikes in Pakistan
Could you hear the voice of Pakistani children who live under the shadow of drones?
People find comfort in the status quo. The U.S. has been a status quo power since 1945, and has been the preeminent power since 1991. There is little fear because a dominant U.S. is part of the international system that most people are able to remember.
China is not a status quo power - rather, it is disrupting the existing world order. Although there are factors such as distrust of China’s undemocratic government, or its contrast from Western culture, the biggest factor is simply that it is challenging the world order. It would be the same if it was any other nation.
The question also specifically singles out Western world, which includes the United States. Thus, there is certainly less fear of a nation that is similar in both culture and ideology, as opposed to China, an Eastern power.
US always try to dominate the other countries using four tactics.
In Hindi, it is called Saam, daam, dand and bhed
- Saam: to advice and ask
- Daam: to offer and buy
- Dand: to punish
- Bhed: exploiting the secrets
But USA government never impose these things to their own people (except for some cases).
In contrary, China also doing same things as USA and trying to beat them in their own game. But China's approach is far more aggressive than USA.
They trying to invade land of their neighboring countries and China has border issues with all his neighboring countries.Even China government trying to control Human rights of their own citizens.
Also, China wants to become superpower in its region but India somehow also developing very fast and trying to compete with China, which is tearing its image as regional superpower.
Suppose if ever India and China will come on verge of war, who will win?
What do you Think?
I think India will win the war because there are no friends of china in region, while, india maintaining good relations with USA, Russia and Neighboring countries (except pakistan).
USA is still acting as world superpower and will continue to enjoy the status till China will not takeover it.
USA has well maintained it's status as world superpower but soon it will be snatched by China, new superpower.
But if China do not change its foreign policies and it's human rights laws, it will be superpower only for short period of time and soon, it will be replaced by INDIA.
I am an Indian, BTW
1. US culture was first shaped by the the colonial powers who founded much of the settlement, the UK, France and Spain. it was further influenced by large immigration from Ireland, Germany, Italy and Germany who did not have colonial presence here. The U.S. is in many ways the peculiar fore-runner of the EU with a similar culture, similar worldview, and many shared pieces of history and cultural touchstones.
2. The U.S. and Europe have been engaged in active trade since before US independence and remained so mostly unbroken since then.
3. The U.S. despite a bent for isolationism has been regularly involved in European politics. First negotiating with France and Spain for help in gaining independence, taking on the Barbary pirates, going into the bigger UK vs France war with the war of 1812, purchasing the French territory, and with the Spanish-American War emerging as a prominent world power and finally a clear dominant world power by 1945.
China on the other hand has less in common with the western world and in 1945 was still sorting out its own governance after being pushed around by various western and eastern powers.
The U.S. may be a peculiar western nation but it is easier for the west to understand than China and with over a century of being a major world power under its belt it has established a fairly predictable course. China is really still sorting out just exactly how it intends to run its economy and deal with others so there is less confidence in predicting their course.
Business and politics crave predictability as China spends more time in a major role comfort will increase if it makes slow and anticipated changes internally and in how it relates with other nations.
Conversely many Chinese now seem to love comparing China with the USA and even think of some competition with the USA as China's coming of age, or joining the big league.
Part of that is that most other potential threats in the world have disappeared. The developed countries in Europe and coastal Asia and the USA are explicit allies, pledged to collective defense for decades. The Soviet Union disintegrated. Terrorists are very small compared to past opponents. So even though China-West relations are mostly good, with a huge volume of exchange, if you are trying to think of possibilities for major geopolitical conflict, there is little alternative to scenarios involving China. This concentration can be both good and bad. It means people are preparing both to learn to work with China, and for potential conflicts with China.
Another thing to keep in mind is that some Western forms of discussion are structured in adversarial formats, as longstanding tradition, not because of special hostility to China. In the USA students take debate classes where they are ordered to disagree for the sake of testing arguments, without having any conflict in reality. American journalism is required to present multiple conflicting viewpoints. American political talk shows have become even more like fights for entertainment, sometimes appalling even northern Europeans used to frank discussion.
On the other hand, the British think American press conferences are soft on interviewees, compared to Britain where reporters and parliamentarians ask very pointed questions. And young Americans traveling to Europe, or India, are sometimes surprised to be asked about their government's policies.
In fact American society is in the middle on harmony vs. contention in everyday social interaction, as opposed to TV "pundits" whose job is to debate. Northern and Eastern Europeans, Israelis, and Australians may perceive American conversational conventions of politeness as insincerely friendly, polite small talk as excessive, and American public speech as overly concerned with "political correctness" of words about race, sexism, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, East Asian cultures put the most emphasis on public harmony of opinion. So something that at first looks hostile to Chinese or Japanese or Korean eyes may be largely a difference of social conventions.
The Philippines has known colonialism; hell, our country is named after the then-prince of our first Western invader. We got sold by that conqueror to the next one, who first approached us as our friend but wound up being our masters for the next 40 years or so in actuality (longer, depending on who you ask).
Then, the Japanese invades us in the 1940s, hold us as territory for the next four years or so, and left our capital a ruin (with help from our American liberators).
Yet today, we enjoy close rapprochement with all three. We even bled for the Americans, and not just in World War II but in all three major wars they fought in after that one (Korea, Vietnam, the War on Terror).
The thing I'm trying to point out here is that simply being a power isn't the issue: it's how you exercise that power.
Ask any African whose country has significant Chinese investments and you'd hear a friendly report. But look at most ASEAN countries (except the Cambodians), and anything from Beijing gets dagger stares.
The Japanese, even before their most recent flare-ups with China, have always been one of our major sources of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). Now, there are heavier levels of Japanese investment in the Philippines as well as even offers of military aid I heard. I've often told friends that I actually expect the JDF to come to our assistance FIRST even before our supposed longtime allies, the Americans, if a shooting war happens with China.
The Spanish allowed Filipinos an easy time to immigrate or just to get a Schengen Visa. We share a common faith and culture. No matter how heavy our "Americanization" is, the heritage of the Spanish is still quite strong in these islands.
Despite the fact that the Americans have shafted us more than helped us (really), we do remain as close allies. For some (like me) it really is more lip service than anything - how come other countries who're just friends of the US get prime military and economic aid? Aren't we supposed to be ALLIES? - we've shared so much history together that I don't know what can take us away from Washington's orbit.
Maybe a NICER China?
I don't understand why China has to be so belligerent in the South China Sea. I don't understand why it has to be such a bully. We've worked with them before, yes? How many Chinese companies are in the Philippines busy extracting our mineral wealth under the guise of economic cooperation with locals? Hell, Filipinos of Chinese descent are almost all of our billionaires. Our President himself is from a family with Chinese roots.
We don't have to be enemies. But China seems to be adamant about following a policy that puts it on a road to making us so.
There is nothing wrong with a powerful China. In fact, for a healthier world body politic, and, yes, even to keep the United States and other Western Powers healthy, a strong Eastern Power like China is in fact a GOOD thing. The US I believe has stagnated like it has because no one is competing with it. Now the Chinese are here.
But China chooses to be a bully to its neighbors.
That's the problem.
So much could have been done if only China had been more a benevolent power than a belligerent one.
The difference is the history between the U.S. and China.
The U.S. was a British colony that, traditionally, has followed a similar mindset to the Europeans. All but one of the U.S. Presidents have been white men of European ancestry. The U.S. has engaged in colonization by stealing Spain’s last colonies in the Spanish-American war. The U.S. is a close ally of Britain, France, and lately Germany, three of the most prominent European nations. There are many more examples that show how similar the U.S. is to the Europeans. This matters because it lets the rest of the Western world feel comfortable with such a powerful neighbor.
Also, the U.S.’s involvement in the first and second world wars affirmed two things to the West: they have a powerful army and they will come to the defense of the attacked Western nations. The United States aided Britain and France twice in these global conflagrations while the other world superpower, the U.S.S.R. was an unreliable and generally feared ally of necessity for these nations. Because the U.S. was a more stable and predictable ally, the other Western nations banded around them due to the Iron Curtain coming down across central Europe.
China bears a Communistic legacy. Even without being the same nation of Stalin and Gulags and the Berlin wall, China still becomes associated with those images to a Western society that has only recently departed from the cold war. That is not the main issue, though, from the evidence history gives us.
China was divided into British, German, and French colonies by the late 1800s. Few people teach the atrocities that the Europeans committed against the Chinese to keep their stranglehold on their colonies, but revolts were surprisingly frequent. The British were attempting to keep the entire nation addicted to opium to sedate them. There was a lot of justified anger in China toward the European occupants, just as there was in Africa, America, Mexico, and South America.
When China did gain its independence, it was under the banner of Mao, who was one of the few leaders with whom the West had difficulty controlling or even negotiating. When the communist party took over, they scared the West. A fear of revenge and a sudden growth to superpower status have not made the West any less nervous of China’s intents.
Personally, I do not think people are as afraid of a powerful China as they were of a powerful Soviet Union. I believe that an encirclement myth similar to 1914 Germany’s encirclement myth is growing in China due to anti-China rhetoric from conservative politicians and threatened Western people. The U.S. probably does not fear China as much as it fears losing its own status as the only superpower.
A second personal note, I am not sure that China scares the West as much as it scares its neighbors South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, who are Western allies and have the most at risk if China continues growing at its current rate. This and the previous note are opinions and only qualify the answer by addressing issues with the question itself.
This is because America's allies generally choose to be. They don't need to keep getting invaded Soviet-style. By contrast, what allies has China had? For a while, it was the Russians, but when it turned out that neither could control the other, they fell out. Then we have North Korea, which is probably one of the most evil regimes on Earth. Even then they are very racist against the Chinese and only stay friends because they need oil from the CCP.
And finally, Cambodia under Pol Pot. This man killed 2 or 3 million people, or over a 25% of his own country. He did so with the support of China, and was further protected by China when Vietnam invaded Cambodia due to Cambodian communists getting a little too crazy and killing people not just in their own borders but in Vietnam as well. But the "great reformist" leader Deng Xiaoping saw this as an outrage and attacked Vietnam.
But seriously, mass organ harvesting. Say all you want about USA this or that, the USA doesn't carry out that sort of evil systematically the way the CCP does. The United States doesn't harvest organs from tens of thousands of people for believing in a religion the government doesn't like.
Interview with Ethan Gutmann on His Book The Slaughter
Slowly but surely some of those criticisms have had an effect and have changed somebehaviors. Certainly in our culture and likely in some of our foreign policies. Broadly speaking, we do not have the luxury on a societal level to be overtly cold hearted or selfish. While individuals may be so, it is not a valued trait and is embarrassing to others in our society when it becomes noticeable. One of our most valued traits on a societal level is generosity. Whether it is real or fake in individuals is another matter, but regardless, it is a very highly valued trait.
What is related to that is a long tradition of protest that seeks to use fairness or kindness towards people who do not have power, and to animals. And also many protests to be open minded and understand other cultures. Obviously- we NEED these acts of protest!
I may be mistaken but I sometimes get the idea, because of censorship, that on a mundane social level, modern China is like someone who is very sheltered and protected peeking through a keyhole at the world's conversations. We have our propaganda as well, but with a little work we can basically find out whatever we want to and have conversations with anyone as well. Someone who is very isolated may be even more self centered than our own culture, and to many of us in the US that is a fearful thing.
But China is emerging relatively recent. Nobody is able to understand how this country is going to behave under the current regime once nobody is able to contain it. It has no track records on the handling methods of world affairs. Many countries who have invaded or bullied it in the past would have dreaded a powerful and formidable China as it might become a nightmare for them once China decided it is payback time. Under this presumption, it is not surprising that these countries would be painting a very negative view of China and must be trying very hard to resist or at least delay the emergence of a powerful China.
It is not true that nobody is dreadful of a powerful USA. I'm sure most of the middle-east countries who suffered under the hegemony of Israel would be hopeful for the downfall of USA.
It’s not that people are afraid of powerful China, but they are afraid of China’s eventual clash with the established power - the U.S.A. What China aspires to have in terms of influence and geopolitical muscle is what the U.S. has. You can’t have two alpha males in the same cage and expect them to be nice to each other. There’s high chance that this will result in a conflict. This is what the people are concerned about. Status quo seems so much safer, so most countries don’t wish China to grow any more powerful than it already is.
Look at history!
You don't see the EU lining up their tanks on their respective borders. The Canadian - U.S. border is the largest unmilitarized border in the world for example; it is not even fenced for the majority of it, just 'signs' imploring proper respect.
No one is afraid of a "powerful" China, they are afraid of a WAR like China, as can be seen in their investing in three of the worlds largest carriers, and 81 new naval bases... in a time of PEACE. Spending money un-necessary arms when they have the WORST environmental issues in the world! Therefore, historical rhetoric of China, namely: "no freedom of speech, assembly, choice of vocation, limited (if any) religious pursuits... and: Wrapped in the Red Chinese rhetoric is China' claims of democratic Taiwan as its 'own' and has never renounced the use of force to gain control, while China and the Philippines have one of the most bitter disputes over the South China Sea of all the claimants.
The reactions by neighboring Countries to China HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE: Vietnam is buying subs from Russia, and ordering navy ships from the U.S., The U.S. making bottom dwelling sub-drones, to manage the 'sub-traffic' in the area I suppose. Australia is negotiating the order of a dozen attack subs from Japan. This situation is ugly, and China is the root cause IMHO.
Very sadly, this Chinese shift from the manufacture of kids toys to war toys could become self-perpetuating. The satisfaction of the Chinese population is largely based on their continued employment, and increase in GDP, which is hitting hiatus (as ALL growth cycles do). The shifting of their labor to a military machine, and passing out uniforms may already be cast in cement.
Is that enough reason?
Most people seems to forget that China was the most powerful country in the history for over 1000 years before European countries took it away around 18 century and passed it on to America. In fact, in the recent 100 years, America has conducted more wars than China did in the past 2000 years.
If you know the history of China you would realise that it is a history of being attacked, counter-attack, and integration and assimilation. Since the territory of China looks roughly like what it is today in Han Dynasty, which was 2000 years ago, China never really attacked anyone actively.
Some think China became more aggressive since the Communist party took over governance. Admittedly, they are more defensive compared to the governments we had before. However, when was the last time you heard that China is messing around with a country which is far away from its territory?
To conclude, let me put it this way, China is not the country that anyone needs to worry about, it has not been and it never will. But, in physics, Newton’s third law tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, which means you don’t fuck with me, I won’t fuck with you.
The US displayed its military powers in both World Wars. It out-spent and out-innovated the Soviet Union in a largely bloodless war. It fought China and, to some degree, the Soviet Union to a draw in their home turf during the Korean War. It inflicted huge losses on North Vietnam and allies during the Vietnam War, until it lost the will to fight on. It had dozens of military adventures and largely conducted those wars on its terms. It has absolute military supremacy now and will be so for the next 50 to 100 years.
The US champions democratization throughout the world. It supported the overthrow of non democratic and non- US friendly regimes throughout the world. It provided ideological, financial, logistically, training, and military support when necessary to affect the changes it wants.
Culturally, the US has exporting its brands of merchandises and way of life/consumption throughout the world. Coca Cola is in all countries but North Korea and Cuba. McDonald's are everywhere. Hollywood movies are consumed in bulk. American cultural icons are ubiquitous in all corners of the world.
There is no questions left unanswered in terms of what the reigning superpower of the world want from you. Follow its rules and consume. Simple and reassuring.
China is, well, China.
It is officially communist and atheist. It has a massive population that, for reasons evade First World people, seem to be satisfy with single-party totalitarian rule. Its people, for no other rational reason, must be hopelessly brainwashed to accept forced birth planning, pervasive censorship, oppression of religion freedom, oppression of freedom of speech, dangerous level of pollution, and many other evils. On top of all that, its people seem to be supportive of the occupation of Tibet. You know, Tibet!!! The home of Dalai Lama, the Nobel Laureate for peace. It also is home to a lot of people, again brainwashed, support the occupation of reef islands many miles away from the Chinese shore. Many of these islands are closer to other countries than China. (How imperialistic!!! Only bygone imperialists had territories closer to other countries than their respective mainlands.) China is home to a government and people that have so far stubbornly refused to let the past go. World War I and II are long over, territory disputes have been settled for you without you asking. Bickering over territories that you lost and failed to reclaim at the end of the last great world war is just destabilizing and 19th century. Border drawing had been done and those more powerful and enlightened than you commies had declared pencil down long ago. Having disagreements with small neighbors with powerful friends are threatening and destabilizing, regardless of cause and merit. The fact that it doesn't understand the new World Order is troubling. The reigning superpower will assist and defend its allies without regard for the old, outdated historical reasons offered, totally independent of merit. Friends stand with friends no matter what, seem lost to China.
How could one trust a superpower like China? It government is different and undesirable to first world citizenry, its own people seem OK with it notwithstanding. Its people are strange. They put up with policies that seem impossible and totally oppressive. The industrial and financial successes lead to improvement in living standard must therefore be a sham. Adequate food and housing must be available only to the most loyal party members of the regime. Living standard and literacy must be impossibly low to most people. After all, what could one achieve without unimpeded access to Google, Facebook, and Twitter?
Though there is not a hint that China is going to export its ideology,whatever it is, there is reason to worry. What if China decides to outlaw religion, invade first Australia then Europe, could America be next? Why is it not happy with its military strength? Why does it modernizing...what is wrong with being stuck in the 60s? Why are they not happy with being surrounded by foreign military bases for no reason? You know, putting 50,000 troops next door to you is as innocuous a spot as any. Sailing a fleet with enough fire power to knock you back to the bronze age?! You call it provocation, we call it freedom of navigation. When you say invasion, we say intervention. When you say destabilization, we call it the voice of the people. When you say terrorist, we say freedom fighter. When you say freedom fighter, we say terrorist.
The fact that the Chinese are suspicious of the First World countries including the reigning Super Power USA is suspicious. You know, if you don't trust the good guys then you must be the bad guys. Simple logic.
The Chinese nation, in my humble opinion, wants nothing but prosperity in material terms, some respect, and be fucking left alone. It may eventually looks like a super power but it will likely not active like the US. It just doesn't fucking care other people's business.
Mutual respect. In good times, we are happy for your good fortune. In bad times, we will give you space to work through your issues. Help? Only when you ask and I am getting something in return. Now, that is simple logic.
As for the US, the world is more exposed to their culture than anything else as well as being consumed in movies, pop culture etc. Also they have demonstrated that they are a benign power and puts their money where their mouth is. For the current generations, it's a breath of fresh air from the colonialists. For the West, well one wouldn't be afraid of your big brother as long as you see him on your side.
Another point to add, what we are seeing is actually just a global reaction to a changing climate or environment. it's not necessarily a fear. And fear or not, the world must adjust, even as we debate it on Quora.
When siblings debate whether it's going to rain in preparation for a family outing, their parent will just pack a few umbrellas to bring along. It's just being prepared, not 'fear'.
I am afraid because of the same reason that I am afraid of a powerful Russia, powerful Pakistan, powerful North Korea or powerful Iran.
All those countries, almost like China, became too much powerful before they became truly prosperous, open societies. (This was definitely not the case for the US.) As I have pointed out elsewhere, we are increasingly seeing a great divergence between prosperous nations (Singapore, The Nordic countries, New Zealand etc.) and nations with firepower (Russia, Pakistan, India etc.) Perhaps the US and UK are the only one left in today's world which fall in these categories simultaneously.
Those powerful nations (with oppressive governments and terrible to live as a non-political citizen) are usually ruled by despots regularly playing the gong of nationalism to solidify their political power base. The rise of those nations will imply political power, the power of propaganda, oppression, control winning over capitalist power of freedom, trade, productivity, hard work and innovation. Now, of course you are free to think that somehow a world controlled by political power is more desirable than a world based on capitalist power. Then you don't have to be worried about it.
From an Indian perspective it is very interesting to see this kind of reactions on both sides. Despite the wholehearted assimilation of a huge diaspora in US indicating a huge cultural understanding of America in among Indians, relations are not what you would expect them to be. The reasons for this, while being numerous, generally have been mainly to do with a failure on Americans to actively engage with India in a friendly manner that allows India liberty to follow her own foreign relations as she sees fit. This has never occurred as for America "close relations" has always meant to take a country into her fold in every possible manner. This has, is and will be always be a big stumbling block between US-India relations.
Since India views America in through this lens, naturally the actions of US are looked at very differently. India is more perceptive to view America's actions as a mixture of chaos and running interferences in every single country. The second point is quite sensitive considering that India was under the rule of a foreign power for 150 years. This is always ignored in every analysis of relations between the two countries. This is also one of the reasons why India's foreign policy in the Cold War was oriented towards combating imperial colonies. Hence this is one of the reasons why Indians don't see eye to eye with American policies almost everywhere. And having almost come to war with US during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 (the result of an extremely stupid and short sighted decision under Nixon), and being under the spell of sanctions, India hasn't always embraced the US.
Now coming to China, I think the most important view held by many Indians is just the sheer scale of economic development that have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Delhi however looks at the growing Chinese influence with slight suspicion. But the broader picture is very positive as most of the Indians living now were born after or were too small to remember the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Relations are not what they could be, but there seems to have been a growing realization on both sides of the fence of putting past squabbles on the side and co-operating on important issues and having more exchanges on each other. The Chinese in my opinion seem to have an excellent understanding of according the respect to Delhi of not in anyway dictating what Indian policies should be. There are of course concerns regarding frequent border incursions in the dispute Aksai Chin area, but these seem to be minor and won't be something which derisively affect Indo-Chinese relations.
So from an Indian POV, the issue is looked at with drastic differences than what the West looks it at as. While India would naturally share some concerns about a powerful China on the account of sharing a disputed border with it, but the current engagement between both countries suggests a policy of a mutual and healthy co-existence. While there is a bit of anger against China shared in some communities, particularly in the Northeast and Ladakh due to the complexities in China and Tibet's relation, the larger majority of younger people are more swayed by the image of China's rise as a country poorer than India 30 years ago to become the 2nd largest economy in the world.
- "Better the devil you know."
- Common principles and interests.
- Amazing soft power.
1: America has been the world's only superpower for the lifetimes of the majority of the people on this planet. Although the country's government and its agents have committed atrocities in that time - slaughtered innocents, deposed democratically elected governments, allowed their companies to exploit Americans and foreigners alike, waged illegal wars - its presence on the global stage is known and accepted because for most people that's pretty much how it's always been.
While the Chinese government is crude and savage and corrupt, and especially prone to saber rattling at the moment, its actual negative impact on the wider world (ie outside of its own borders) is far, far less than that of America. Granted, it hasn't had the opportunities or motivations that the US has had, so this is not to say they wouldn't ever do the same kind of thing, but in terms of what has actually been wrought the US is arguably more damaging.
However, it's also not as well understood as the U.S., certainly not as a global power. And so people trust the US more.
2: From the point of view of most Western countries, the US shares common principles. Politically, the US is actually further to the right than a lot of Western countries, but it still has the ideals of democracy, freedom of expression/religion, capitalism etc, which align with those of other Western countries, to greater or lesser degrees.
China is not a democracy; it laughs at freedom of speech; it allows religious observance only in limited forms; it adopts capitalism only loosely, and restricts the market. It does not mesh comfortably with most of the West.
3: The US has incredible soft power, thanks to its films, music, clothes etc. Even when its government does terrible things, people look at all the American things they enjoy and give the country as a whole a pass.
China has dreadful soft power. The twin powers of censorship and creative conservatism (among those with the money to back creative projects, rather than creative minds themselves - though there is a chilling effect due to censorship that makes people self-censor) strangle creativity in the mainstream. Consequently people are not able to divorce the image of the country from its government.
However, one should also consider the deep interdependence between US and China, which might result in the balance of financial terror as per keohane.
Great question! And it’s probably mainly Americans though who are afraid of a powerful China. I think most other people are more afraid of the US.
Considering how many wars and similar though smaller activities we’ve been involved in since WW2, how can anyone not be scared to death of us? I read one account that said we’d been involved in some 500 or more incidents. Because we went into Iraq to chase the non-existent ‘weapons of mass extinction’, the middle east in many places is now a shambles, some large metropolitan cities destroyed and looking like ghost cities, refugees in such horribly large numbers looking for some place to flee to. Also our presence there produced ISIS. How can a powerful China possibly produce a fear larger than that many must surely feel for the US?
I think because most, not all, places in the world are happy enough with what they have to not risk a change.
---For me?
1. As much as Americans and others talk about how bad america is, it just seems laughable to me in my 3 years of living in China. Just to see the racism that is happening against non-Han minorities is amazing to me. It's the old school kind of racism that we had 50-60 years ago in america and is basically unheard of to me having grown up in the US. "they are (minority group name) so of course they steal/lie/cheat" straight faced and unable to accept any social/economic reasons why that may be happening other than the fact that they are really just "bad people".
2. When I see a populace that is so easily manipulated by the education system, it's a really good propoganda machine, it's just amazing. I get the exact same answers from the poor Han to the ones who are getting a master's degree when I ask them questions involving race issues, japan, western culture, etc. (I've not lived in Beijing so I can't say what it's like there but outside of Beijing I have seen this over and over).
All of this happens in America but the magnitude of these things is NOT EQUAL, not even close.
Plus, there is no democracy. If the ruling party decides to drop a nuclear bomb someday, there will be no strong legal resistance from within the country.
Plus, another side affect of it, media is not free. What happens in China, remains in China !
Better the devil that we know than the devil we don’t!
The US is status quo inherited from WWII. But it is not as if the rest of the world must have the US as the superpower. It is just that so far, the choices look pretty poor! Let’s look at the alternatives.
China … was doing well because although China isn’t the #1 yet, it painted a picture of where it wanted to go. The One Belt One Road initiative was started and led by China. China showed that it could dream. Until the South China Sea incident. It may be that ALL the media the rest of the world reads is inaccurate and that only the Chinese state-owned media presents the truth without bias! But nothing changes the fact that China is actually building on the sand banks and has refused 3rd party arbitration. What this tells the rest of the world is that China is a country that does not care about others or the rights of others. How can any country accept Chinese leadership when there is clear evidence that its rights and wishes would be subordinate to China’s?
Russia … Russia’s EurAsian Union started with a bang. But since then, it seems that there is little countries outside the former USSR block can participate in. The only thing that Russian seems to be interested in these days is re-establishing Soviet military bases. Crimea didn’t look good from outside Russia. Putin may have formally deflected blame by accusing the Ukraine of racism, and supporting the ethnic Russians in Crimea and the Donbass region, but annexing the territory of another country, no matter what the reason, whether the Russian troops are on vacation or not, is an immediate caution to neighboring countries and the world.
India … looks pretty good in its external relations but the problem is that India has its own very heavy duty problems. The fact that 21.9% of Indians live under the poverty line does not create confidence in India’s leadership.
So you see, it is not because that those who support the US are brain-washed or stupid or that they fear a powerful China, or Russia, or India. It is just that there doesn’t seem to be any decent alternatives at the moment.
There are various cultural and historical reasons, but this one is the most important:
When the United States, under President Franklin Roosevelt, gave up on its traditional isolationism to support the Western cause in World War II, these principles became the foundation of American foreign policy and were eventually written into the United Nations charter.
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
- To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
- The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
- All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
- All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
- The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
- Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
While the United States has not been without sin on the enforcement of these principles, they have become the standards of international behavior since 1945, replacing the traditional “balance of power” relations that allowed aggressive nations to conquer other nations whenever they could contrive an excuse and allowed larger nations to establish “Zones of influence” where they could bully smaller nations at will. These principles allow most nations today to maintain military establishments a fraction of the size of their 19th Century predecessors and to function internationally without the constant threat of war.
While many today consider the world a violent place, it is actually much, much less violent than it was a hundred years or a thousand years ago, and much of the violence these days in internal, caused by persistent troublesome issues within the suffering nations.
Before the 19th Century, most wars were started by ambitious monarchs and tribal leaders. In the 19th and 20th Centuries, most were caused by nationalism and imperialism fueled by nationalism. Further, radical, militant nationalism was often tied to religious bigotry, radical ideology, and racialism. Monarchs are mostly a thing of the past, but militant nationalism is still with us, along with its stepchildren, militant religious fanaticism, racial fanaticism, and fascism. China, Russia, and the right-wing factions in many countries, including the United States, often voice the views of those 19th Century nationalists who rationalized their countries joining in imperial conquest, imperial exploitation, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and world wars.
Chinese nationalism, like Russian nationalism, calls for a return to the days when China dominated its region of the world and could make or unmake the policies and governments of smaller nations at the whim of its national government. We can hope that the people of those nations will not favor the complete overthrow of the international system that eliminated the old European empires and has kept much of the world at peace for 70 years, but we have the evidence of their nationalist rhetoric, and also the situations in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and the South China Sea, to cause worry.
Did you hear about this? Not likely.
You would think this globally newsworthy.
Meanwhile, CCP-compliant cronies buy up controlling stakes in media outlets like AMC Theaters in the US...
Which then decide not to show movies like The Interview...
And Hollywood decides to write CCP-friendly elements into blockbuster after blockbuster...
And not a single mainstream movie about a literal war on women's reproductive rights, happening in the year 2009...
If you enjoy not being forced into literal genital mutilation by literal jackbooted thugs, how are you not scared of the CCP?
If you enjoy being able to talk about matters like you (or your wife, or sister, or daughter, or mother) being forced into genital mutilation, how are you not angry at the CCP?
Because it wouldn't be sporting, or sensitive to the values of another culture?
For fuck's sake, stop.
Links:
Thousands at risk of forced sterilization in China
China To Sterilise 10,000 To Curb Births
Iron Fist Campaign
Good question and while I do agree with a lot of what Mike said, I’d like to offer a New Zealanders and to some extent an Australian perspective, having lived there for 5 years in my past.
We were by and large brought up to believe in America’s love for the rest of the western world and saw her as the great big brother protector. With her as a major alie we could always feel safe and secure in the knowledge that the mighty US of A would come to our aid with the threat of invasion. However, the so called cold war with the Soviet Union gave us all the shivers when we were still at primary school in the 50’s as we were afraid of being fried in a nuclear maelstrom not of our own making, but still we hung in there believing in the American political system and far to small and insignificant to do anything else.
This feeling continued throughout the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and we felt vindicated when the iron curtain finally fell and Germany at last became one again and we believed albeit fallaciously that Russia would be welcomed into the fold of peace loving countries and adopt the same version of democracy we all enjoy today. We didn’t count of Mr Putin wanting to turn the clock back or even that he could possibly get away with it.
Vietnam was a horrible war that NZ and Australia were dragged into under the pending threat of Communism and we wondered how or why it was lost. America is not supposed to lose wars or so we believed. How wrong we all were.
With the invasion of Iraq, questions were raised about the Bush administration's desire to stir up a wasp’s nest in the middle east, which is exactly what happened and God knows how long this will continue, with still no certain end in sight and the death dealing turmoil having spread to Syria. The question was raised, can democracy really work in these nations that have been run by what we call dictatorships for hundreds of years? We have come to believe that the US couldn’t give a rats arse about that as long as her oil needs were being met. Where there was oil, America was not far away.
Further to this, America’s generous preferred nation status and generous concessions towards China appear to have backfired in a big way with China now becoming the world's largest producer of manufactured goods and America having her nose out of joint for blindly standing back and letting it all happen. Nothing will change in this regard until all China’s forgotten poor have found good employment and prices begin to rise to the point whereby the states and other nations can once again compete. This we see as a forlorn hope. Then of course there is India, who is very keen to have a big slice of the world's consumer goods market pie as well. Again nothing can stop them doing this and why should it? The Indians are VERY clever people and they are only just getting started. Once they sort out their hideous caste system nothing will stop them really going for it.
So today America is looking to some extent like a battered juggernaut of lost causes, having been beaten into submission by inept international management strategies, a failing manufacturing base, insane leadership of the worst kind under the Don and the need to keep a few good wars going to feed the coffers of a military machine that costs three times as much and the total combined spend of all the other NATO members. This creates the outward impression that this huge nation is dependent on war for her economic survival, an extremely divisive and primitive stance to say the least. Seeing the US as being out of step in this regard, NZ decided to get into bed with China. Many of us have very mixed feelings about this but we were going to be locked out of the US market by the failure of the Transpac FTA anyway so what the hell….
America appears to be humming and haring about having a good old war with China that neither country could win, so it's check mate or a stand off in that department. Even North Korea seems to have her stumped and I wonder how many people realise that the NK people have a very good reason to despise America? I had no idea until recently of the dark secret that prevailed when the combined forces of the the North Korean army and the Chinese forces pushed the American ground troops out the back door, that her airforce out of sheer spite decided in their infinite wisdom to napalm the living hell out of the North Korean cities! Can you blame them for hating the US? Who wouldn’t?
NZ has negotiated an uneasy alliance with the American military establishment since our nuclear free pact has been watered down by our National government and we are allowed once again to a limited extent, to excersise with her forces and share critical information in a new cooperative agreement. Who knows where things will go from here, especially with America’s recent curbs on immigration and reports that its so time consuming and miserable going through US customs that many New Zealanders would prefer to avoid even going there. Will things ever be the same again? Not under this president anyway.
Because we know what America could do. It is past its strongest times (which were about, mid-1960s), and when it was strongest ever, it didn’t make any trouble for us, quite the contrary.
Similarly, we know what Russia could do, and we know it is bad, but we also know we can manage it, we know how to: containment. And we know that Russians never figured out how to counter containment, and now they are many times weaker than they used to be when it worked and not expected to become so strong again any time soon. So, we are not afraid of Russia.
China is a quite different thing, who knows what it prepares for us?
Much of the world hasn’t taken the US too seriously as a superpower since the loss in Vietnam two generations ago. The loss of our initial victory in Iraq was due to the same failed tactics we used in Afghanistan and Vietnam; attempting to nation build and setting up puppet gov’ts and puppet troops. What’s that again about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
We have civilian control over our military to prevent a military dictatorship (suggested reading; an old novel called “Seven Days in May”. The movie was great too). Unfortunately, the last President who served his country in war was George H.W.Bush, now over 90, and his war action was in World War II. We need Presidents who have actually been in combat before allowing them to start war after war after war. Indeed, we start most of the wars in the world now and don’t even expect Congress to declare it anymore, ignoring the Constitution since after 1941.
Candidates for President need to be veterans, particularly if they served in a war. These tend to be more cautious presidents who know what they’re doing, like Eisenhower, and will start less wars. A world wide military doesn’t make a world superpower if it makes things worse instead of better.
I’ve posted many answers about China on Quora, so not sure I want to just repeat myself, other then reminding people that it’s clearly the country of the 21st century and has more economic relations with other countries than any other, but has a powerful military as well………..which hadn’t needed to spill a drop of blood making it’s world wide economic empire (at least in the last quarter century.
The US has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the Kardashians and the ubiquity of the English language to help spread its soft power around the world. China has nothing but bad press from CNN, BBC and every other Western news network.
But despite all that, there are still plenty of non-Chinese who would prefer a less US dominated world order. In those countries in South America, Africa, and SEA where China has a strong presence, the native reaction is generally quite positive. People generally prefer foreign men with money (the Chinese) over foreign men with guns (the Americans).
You know there's a saying in Mexico:
“We are too far from heaven, too close to America.”
It's not a joke. Perhaps not every Mexican have heard of this saying, but it dos say a lot about the US’s horrendous foreign policy over the years.
Contemporary American colonialism exists in a drastically different format than say British or Spanish colonialism, it's not done through inserting citizens into a foreign land and claiming it as theirs, but rather its by signing unequal and nationally damaging treaties to extra and suck dry the natural resources and vitality of a foreign land. Why waste money and time to send people and soldiers there when you can just sign a piece of paper, make a few wired transfers and have petroleum and rare earth mineral rolling into your own border almost as if they've grown legs?
That's the form of colonialism that the US is practicing, it's also something China is slowly working up to.
But thus far, the US is still way ahead of the game than China, having pretty much colonized the whole of Latin America. I mean it's not called the US’s backyard for no reason.
But of course, these third world countries, dotted with exotic people and ancient architecture left behind by the Aztec and Incan civilization, why would people in the first world (particularly the US) want to know about its colonization? I mean, shouldn't the spread of Neo-Liberalism in Latin America be bringing them immense wealth and prosperity, and above all - freedom, as it did in the US?! (It did not, and it is not.)
People are not afraid of the US as a superpower because they don't see or hear about the despicable crimes that the US have committed, targeting third world countries where virtually little to no screen time is devoted to on your Fox 6PM newsreel, and CNN is just glossing over from time to time.
If people know what the US has done as a superpower, it ought to be one of the most despised nation in history, more than the British, more than the Spanish.
Like I said, China is also slowly working up to this game of ideological colonialism. But because the world has changed so immensely in the past century, China have to play by new rules that have yet to be defined clearly yet. The toppling of peaceful governments and replacing them with oppressive regimes around the world in the name of ‘freedom’, for example, is longer acceptable to the modern world where oversight from super national organization like the UN is growing. China simply do not have as much options even though it's trying to play the same game as the US. Plus, the UN is US dominated so why would the US let China get an edge there?
So it remains to be seen whether China can even become a superpower with its range of economic and political options much more constrained than the US. As far as I know the last time their Russian speaking neighbors up north tried that, it didn't work out.
But if China does become a superpower, I'm sure people's fear will materialize regardless. It's just whether or not China can cover up their crimes the same way the US is doing now (at least pre-Obama, who knows what declassified documents will tell us about the true face of the Obama Adminsitration 30 years from now, shivers).
The giant’s path to power is always paved in blood soaked asphalt, it's just a matter of whether we choose to see the red stained road or just the giant’s brilliant halo.
China, on the other hand is a very hungry country. It believes in the END with any means i.e. highly unprincipled. Well, people may argue that it is only perception. Let me tell you I work in the pharma business. Today, half of the fight against malaria is being lost because of counterfeit medicines which are useless killing people mostly children in the process. All these medicines have a single source guess which country, China. Another example Australia is planning to export Milk Powder to China in the long term because the Chinese themselves are afraid to buy Milk Powder Made in China. This is what comes of an unsustainable process.
Lastly, Governments in third world countries are very eager for Chinese loans as the loans are given without any restrictions resulting in the Heads siphoning it off leaving the countries in great debts to China and thus forced to do its bidding.
So, what can people expect a country which is ready to go to any length to achieve its objective in such an irrational manner.
PS: No, I am not a hater of China. I love China especially its spiritual component. But the conduct of it is very unbecoming of an Emerging Superpower.
It is aggressive with it's neighbors.
Here in India, Chinese soldiers remain in news for coming into Indian territory and dispute with Japan on uninhabited islands is not helping either. Just some time ago, while the Chinese premier was in Delhi talking to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese soldiers were busy facing Indian soldiers and disputing Indian claims to the territory.
Akshay Jain's answer to Why is there so much fear among many Westerners about the rise of China?
On a personal note, USA is not claiming my country's territory but China is.
Because of it's aggressiveness on the border, India has to spend more and more funds on it's defense that should have rightly gone to education.
Media brainwashing.
Most people dont do their thinking.
They allow media to do those thinking.
Narrative of global affair are dominated by Western media , Western voices.
Who is bad guy or who is a good guy are based on Western interest.
Iran is a "bad guy" because they support terrorist group.
US and Turkey are "good guy" because they support those group to destabilize Assad regime.
Do western media, western expert even raised the issue - Rise of India is a threat to the world?
Western media always portray US as positive force in the world.
Western media always brainwash people to see things in US perspective.
Russia, China, North Korea, Iran are always bad guy.
China military parade held inside beijing as " EVIL"
US military drill held near the border of North Korea as " GOOD"
US investment is GOOD but China investment is BAD.
US interference with domestic affair of other nation is always GOOD
But china interference is a bullying, intimidation against smaller nation.
Do western media even promote the idea of militarily powerful and strong China was good for world? acts as counterbalance against US hegemony?
On top because we are the species of habits and we like status ques. A drastic change such as changing one superpower to another is not what we like to endure.
Secondly, because of the mass media people have this relatively positive view about USA in general. The image was tarnished by president W and somewhat cleared up by President Obama, but the general disposition is positive.
Thirdly: USA has his own dark history, slavery, Tuskegee, Indian American genocide, Japanese encampment... but we generally believe that it's the past and the current system is not capable or is morally obliged not to repeat them again. One cannot say the same thing about China, Tian men square is very recent and it was never even acknowledged by the Chinese government and it doesn't help that the Chinese government has installed the most notorious firewall on the internet there is. So it is very easy to assume that the Chinese intentions if not mal at least are not good either.
Based on the above and many other reasons, people would like to see China's reach limited.
People don't talk about the one they really are afraid of. When I was in Europe (in a certain traditional NATO and American ally country), bad mouthing the US was a traditional bar sport. In national politics, everyone knows a certain policy is targeted at the US, but nobody will openly admit it.
Talking about fear of China, the conversation will begin with konichwa, and ends with “Do all Chinese have slanted eyes?” Period.
The "Great Leap Forward" caused the genocidal deaths of 45 million Chinese and Tibetans in just four years (1958- 62) via intentional starvation, overwork and simple beatings. For comparison, the total estimated death toll — military AND civilian — in World War 2 was 55 million. I don't think that event gets heavy coverage in Chinese history books.
And only 26 years ago, there was the suppression of the Tianamen Square protests, resulting in the murders of anywhere from several hundred to several thousand protesters— no one knows, because the Chinese government to this day forbids discussion or remembrance of the event. And censors or blocks full access to the Internet so the average citizen cannot even learn about or research these events, among others.
So: while the USA has a more fearsome military capability and larger economy than China, we also have a time-honored and respected constitution that (in most cases) restrains our actions. We do not have political coups, we do not have secret successions to leadership. Our disgraced politicians and businessmen may go on the Talk Show circuit or go to jail, but they do not face getting a bullet in back of the neck in secret.
China may seem to be all about electronics and heavy industry and money today, but its recent history displays a consistent willingness of its leadership to take whatever action it wants to achieve its goals. Recognition of that causes justifiable fear.
This is a subjective decision. As asked: why do men breed children more scientific?
OK，You ask why，I tell you ：
Over the years, the United States and its representatives of the Western forces have been spreading the "China Threat Theory", and guide the international community that China's rise is dangerous. They are just to seek their own interests, not the fact.
So far, China has no initiative to challenge other countries (not including internal affairs, such as the Taiwan issue). China's Confucian culture and Taoism culture, the Chinese people are not aggressive.
But whether it is the year of religious wars, the age of discovery, the colonial era, the land of US , we find that western culture countries aggressive and predatory, such as the United States in recent decades is always for the benefit of other countries into war,
Called： Send them democracy and human rights.
Do you like metaphysics? Here is my metaphysical analogy to answer your question.
Suppose you're one among many followers to a powerful bully in the school yard. There're only few kids in the school who aren't following the bully, though. Let's call them the weirdos. There is one weirdo who recently stole a sidekick technique from the bully and had a couple of showoffs in the playground. The bully of course isn't happy to see that kid getting all the attentions and it's an absolute disrespect and even challenge to his rule. So the bully proclaims that weirdo kid is a danger to the gang and threat to the freedom of navigation in the playground.
As one of many followers to the bully, do you say to your boss -
"Yes, your majesty" or "How do you know, sir"?
Lots of Chinese aid in developing countries goes to the existing corrupt political elites for new palaces, planes, or just Swiss/Cayman Islands bank accounts. With the exception of W Bush's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA at least tries to be more selective.
Americans attack foreign governments that threaten their own people and their neighbors, set up a democratic government, and LEAVE.
Which would you want attacking your country?
Everyone else is pretty much hoping for China to take over. Me included. Hopefuly this time we manage to establish a multipolar world and actually distribute wealth, not concentrate it on unproductive speculative endeavors.
Pakistani view point is different. Pakistan thinks China to be a reliable friend without any history of aggression against it. Its aid is without strings. There is consistency in their policies and minimum wait periods for answers. China believes in trade and not hegemony. It does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Finally, the Chinese are polite and courteous.
- The Chinese government (i.e., the Chinese Communist Party in Mainland China) is an unelected, deeply authoritarian, and fundamentally illegitimate regime that rules by force and was imposed and maintained on the people of China by violence. That, all by itself, makes the citizens of any democracy nervous. Frankly, most of the concern that the West has about China can be traced to this issue. For this reason:
- China is increasingly aggressive with its neighbors and is making it quite clear that it will bully them if need be to obtain its wishes, international law be damned. China is similar to the farmer in the old joke, who just wants his land, and all of the land next to his land...and so on. The CCP is purposely pursuing a policy of creating conflict in order to, as Shakespeare put it "giddy weak minds with foreign quarrels". The CCP has created a mythology of Chinese victimhood which would be funny if it were not accepted by so many people - as if the largest empire in history is simply a victim of endless abuse by "foreigners'. Due to its own lack of legitimacy, this is a shrewd approach, although, by playing to a domestic audience, it is also an easy way to blunder into war.
- China has an undeniably merchantilist economic policy and makes it clear that it wishes to engage in what amounts to economic warfare in order to support its own home-grown industries and state owned enterprises. This issue is frankly a little less important, as most countries are hypocritical when it comes to free trade; but China has benefitted greatly from free trade with other countries while, unlike most other countries, supports corporate and economic espionage carried out through government employed hackers.
- China is not living up to its obligations in Hong Kong by attempting to not adopt the democratic reforms it is obligated to do under the Basic Law. This is an indication that China will follow treaties only as long as they don't conflict with the need of the party to stay in control - which is incompatible with democracy.
- The Chinese military (PLA) is not the military of China; it is the military of the Communist Party. This has always been known to be technically true but what this means was shown graphically to the world on June 4, 1989. In other words, China itself is under occupation by it own Army. If China is under occupation by the PLA, how can anyone else have any confidence in Chinese intentions? Again - this all goes back to the first issue - an insecure and illegitimate regime that will stop at nothing to stay in power.
- Most recently, the Chinese governments attempts to 'game' the market by encouraging old folks and common people to invest in the stock market that was going through a bubble made the entire world notice the incompetence and the lack of independence on the part of the government.
- No need to even discuss the appalling corruption, pollution, and environmental degradation currently taking place in China. The Chinese could legitimately argue that this is a "Chinese" issue (although, of course, the pollution does affect everyone).
The history of the world is replete with rising, insecure nations that blundered into disaster. Imperial Germany is probably the most obvious parallel with the PRC, although that country was not nearly as authoritarian as China is today and it at least had the trappings of a democracy. As we know, that ended in disaster for Germany, and for the world. Twice.
So, yes, I would say that the world has valid reasons to be concerned about China and its intentions. The fact that China is entering a phase of slowing economic growth is cause for even more concern, as authoritarian regimes are most dangerous when they feel threatened. In conclusion the world is going to uncomfortable with an aggressive China at least until is has a more responsible and representative government.
Did you know we fought for your country to be what it is today? We, regardless of threats of economic devastation by a much more governed GDP, have actively taken stance to give the Chinese people the opportunity to maintain a centralized and safe state. We fought for you during World War two when we were losing on two fronts. We knew what the Japanese would have done to you because of what we'd seen of Guam, the Philippines, and other nations we'd liberated.
We won because we gave all and you believed in us. You won because you had everything to lose and your people united under intense oppression. Talk to your parents and grandparents about it. If you want to talk about who is buying into propaganda, don't think for a moment that we would betray your people. Only those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
As far as US policies go as of the last thirty years, yeah, we suck. Trust us to take care of it, though. Your country is a good ally, despite the governmental differences. We are dealing with crises of our own that are a bit more complex than you may realize.
One... we are dealing with the failures of a bipartisan system that does not support the true voice of the people. The propaganda is entirely internal, here. Trust me, ask the average American what they've heard of China this week and they wouldn't be able to tell you anything. People pick their political parties like they pick sports teams and they only have about that much interest in it. We are so decentralized in our government because we've become essentially a corporate police state. Hell, there are private companies that own the cameras on traffic lights that extort drivers for money. The car owners are fined with tickets, regardless of whether or not they were the drivers of their own car, or that there is any actual law enforcement going on. It's crooked.
Next, our President is about as concerned with China as he is with Russia, which is to say he thinks about them as much as a tourist. He's more concerned with the support of Islamic Americans for his political party. He consistently has a selective memory for who is getting murdered by what regime, today. It's disgusting. Just wait until we get someone into power who will help you guys fix your freedom of press issue, so that you can get the world news unfiltered by government... also so that you can have truly free internet access.
If you think I am buying into propaganda, just know that my fine friends and my community make sure I get the real news, and not just what comes on TV. People like us are not small in number. We won't allow this injustice to continue past this current President. The American people crave reform and relief. Whatever is going on in China right now is the least of our issues on the local level. We just want to stop this idiot ISIS movement from collapsing the Middle East and plunging the whole world into another war in the name of resuming a Caliphate and bringing about their religious apocalypse by murdering every non-Islamic person in their genocidal path.
Why is this important to us? Because unlike China, we have thousands of cultures and ethnicities that are represented in our country. Every one of them is precious to us because they make up what it means to be American. If we gave up on the rest of the world, we aren't losing power. On the contrary, we have the means to have greater power if we just stayed out of it. We would, however, lose our soul... the soul that stood for you against an empire that would have wiped you from the map.
i think it is putely a fear of unknown.
China's economic rise is a very recent thing, and the rapidity of it means the world has yet to know China, its people, and most importantly, dont know how to predict its reactions to various events.
it is a bit like having some complete strangers in your house, whom you know have the capacity to deal a lot of damage if they wanted to. you would naturally feel uneasy and act carefully until you can be certain of their intent.
meanwhile, US has long been accepted by the west (which is really europe, oceania and North america) as 'one of us', when they fought together in WWI, WWII and the cold war. you may not like what a buddy is doing at the moment, but it takes a lot to kill a friendship.
Your question assumes that people AREN’T afraid of a powerful US, but that is an assumption I would question.
There are a great deal of countries (Russia, many Middle Eastern countries) who would all like to see the U.S.’s influence decrease… Putin may have had a hand in releasing Hillary’s emails, in an attempt to covertly affect the presidential election.
Most countries in the Western World aren’t afraid of the U.S. because they are our allies.
The phenominon that you describe is just a false impression.
China is becoming stronger and stronger and it threatens the US' hegemony in the world. Other big countries wish the US' place weakened by China.
Follow the Asian infrastructure investment bank thing！
Weastern countries are afraid of China because it is a mysterious country guided by
a communist party， and it develops too fast.
They do fear the US but they are already accustomed to it.
I do not know about worldwide media propaganda, but don't communists control the media under the garb of developmental journalism or at times it's straight out censorship? I believe the question seeks to ascertain who is a more responsible superpower. US aid and assistance have transformed nations like South Korea, Japan and Saudi. I agree that the war for 'Democracy' has left in its wake countries like Iraq, Lebanon and many more devastated nations. On the other hand China has over and over vetoed intervention attempts in Somalia and other African nations in its own economic interest. China has repeatedly projected it's dominance in Southeast Asia by aggressive military actions. China has a fascist expansionist attitude which makes other nations apprehensive about global Chinese dominance.
People are afraid of unknown.
They already know what a powerful US look like. They don't know what a power China would be like.
For example: when you come to a forest, you are not quite afraid if people tell you there are bears inside the forest. But you will be worried if they tell you that pigs in the forest started to grow big teeth and claws.
An official from Singapore once said in response to China’s belligerent acquisational attempts in the SCS, “The USA hegemony is benign. They are only concerned with the free navigation of international waters. A China hegemony will not be benign.” This was from an ethnic Chinese. This is true and all who know China understand that China is less than benign on all her borders,
Let's posit this two ways:
Why would people be afraid of a China-dominated world?
- Freedom of thought will be severed.
- No voice in who governs you.
- Lack of Mandarin-speaking ability.
- Dissolution of Western-cultural dominance
Why would people be afraid of a US-dominated world?
- The wealthy few can exploit the rest of the world.
- Publicizing grievances is detrimental to those in power.
- Enforcing laws in countries with no history of legal institutions is difficult.
The US has been divided the biggest part of cake.It's impossible that they witness China eating up a piece of big cake again.
People are afraid of change because change is unknown. Average people despise uncertainty while wise ones see the hidden profit in it. Even if US is evil it is a known evil which everyone knows how to deal with; even if China is an opportunity it is an unknown opportunity not many know how to embrace.
