quote:

Perhaps most ominously, Xi envisions his updated police state as a model for the rest of the world. Twenty-five years ago, the liberal democratic system of the West was supposed to represent the “end of history,” the definitive paradigm for human governance. Now, Xi imagines, it will be the regime he is in the process of creating. “It offers a new option for other countries and nations,” he said during a three-hour, 25-minute speech that was its own statement of grandiosity. “It offers Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the problems facing mankind.”

quote:

For 3½ hours, China’s President Xi Jinping commanded the stage and the nation’s television screens as he set out a far-reaching agenda for the Communist Party, outlining a vision of total control, not only of the nation’s economy and the Internet but also of culture, religion and morals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might not be such a good idea to automatically attribute expansionist motives to China. The evidence (Tibet apart) to support the claim is rather thin. China lived with foreign occupation of Hong Kong for a long time, and to this day accepts that Peking's writ does not apply to Taiwan, even though it claims Taiwan as an integral part of China. It would have been relatively easy for an expansionist China to take over either HK or Taiwan had there been a will to do so. The Tibetan story is another matter, and rightly or wrongly, the Chinese regard it as an integral part of China, and their intervention there as 'liberating' the Tibetans from an oppressive medieval theocracy.

The only real evidence to support the claim is the recent Chinese efforts to mount a virtual take over and occupation of some isolated uninhabited islands in the South China Sea that have long been the subject of conflicting territorial claims by various countries in the region. In this instance, rightly or wrongly, the Chinese would claim that they are acting legitimately within Chinese borders and reject any notion of expansionism.

Historically, even when the various dynasties were at the height of their power, the Chinese have tended to be far more inward looking that outward looking. So there is little evidence to support the claim. My observation for what it's worth, is that the claim is far more often advanced by countries which themselves have long histories of expansionism, imperialism and colonising other peoples' lands. So I tend to view the claim rather sceptically.

From where I sit, it makes a long more sense to see Chinese policy as a rising power gradually assuming and accumulating the influence and power of a major world power as it grows into that role. China's size population, economy and increasing diplomatic influence all entitle it to world power status and the Chinese, emerging from a backward economy and centuries of foreign oppression to a position of influence commensurate with its size and new status, tend to be understandably sensitive about that status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might not be such a good idea to automatically attribute expansionist motives to China. The evidence (Tibet apart) to support the claim is rather thin. China lived with foreign occupation of Hong Kong for a long time, and to this day accepts that Peking's writ does not apply to Taiwan, even though it claims Taiwan as an integral part of China. It would have been relatively easy for an expansionist China to take over either HK or Taiwan had there been a will to do so. The Tibetan story is another matter, and rightly or wrongly, the Chinese regard it as an integral part of China, and their intervention there as 'liberating' the Tibetans from an oppressive medieval theocracy.

The only real evidence to support the claim is the recent Chinese efforts to mount a virtual take over and occupation of some isolated uninhabited islands in the South China Sea that have long been the subject of conflicting territorial claims by various countries in the region. In this instance, rightly or wrongly, the Chinese would claim that they are acting legitimately within Chinese borders and reject any notion of expansionism.

Historically, even when the various dynasties were at the height of their power, the Chinese have tended to be far more inward looking that outward looking. So there is little evidence to support the claim. My observation for what it's worth, is that the claim is far more often advanced by countries which themselves have long histories of expansionism, imperialism and colonising other peoples' lands. So I tend to view the claim rather sceptically.

From where I sit, it makes a long more sense to see Chinese policy as a rising power gradually assuming and accumulating the influence and power of a major world power as it grows into that role. China's size population, economy and increasing diplomatic influence all entitle it to world power status and the Chinese, emerging from a backward economy and centuries of foreign oppression to a position of influence commensurate with its size and new status, tend to be understandably sensitive about that status.

Pease learn the difference between 'expansionist' in a territorial manner and 'expansionist' in an idealogical manner.
China is the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might not be such a good idea to automatically attribute expansionist motives to China. The evidence (Tibet apart) to support the claim is rather thin. China lived with foreign occupation of Hong Kong for a long time, and to this day accepts that Peking's writ does not apply to Taiwan, even though it claims Taiwan as an integral part of China. It would have been relatively easy for an expansionist China to take over either HK or Taiwan had there been a will to do so. The Tibetan story is another matter, and rightly or wrongly, the Chinese regard it as an integral part of China, and their intervention there as 'liberating' the Tibetans from an oppressive medieval theocracy.

The only real evidence to support the claim is the recent Chinese efforts to mount a virtual take over and occupation of some isolated uninhabited islands in the South China Sea that have long been the subject of conflicting territorial claims by various countries in the region. In this instance, rightly or wrongly, the Chinese would claim that they are acting legitimately within Chinese borders and reject any notion of expansionism.

Historically, even when the various dynasties were at the height of their power, the Chinese have tended to be far more inward looking that outward looking. So there is little evidence to support the claim. My observation for what it's worth, is that the claim is far more often advanced by countries which themselves have long histories of expansionism, imperialism and colonising other peoples' lands. So I tend to view the claim rather sceptically.

From where I sit, it makes a long more sense to see Chinese policy as a rising power gradually assuming and accumulating the influence and power of a major world power as it grows into that role. China's size population, economy and increasing diplomatic influence all entitle it to world power status and the Chinese, emerging from a backward economy and centuries of foreign oppression to a position of influence commensurate with its size and new status, tend to be understandably sensitive about that status.

Pease learn the difference between 'expansionist' in a territorial manner and 'expansionist' in an idealogical manner.
China is the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It might not be such a good idea to automatically attribute expansionist motives to China. The evidence (Tibet apart) to support the claim is rather thin. China lived with foreign occupation of Hong Kong for a long time, and to this day accepts that Peking's writ does not apply to Taiwan, even though it claims Taiwan as an integral part of China. It would have been relatively easy for an expansionist China to take over either HK or Taiwan had there been a will to do so. The Tibetan story is another matter, and rightly or wrongly, the Chinese regard it as an integral part of China, and their intervention there as 'liberating' the Tibetans from an oppressive medieval theocracy.

The only real evidence to support the claim is the recent Chinese efforts to mount a virtual take over and occupation of some isolated uninhabited islands in the South China Sea that have long been the subject of conflicting territorial claims by various countries in the region. In this instance, rightly or wrongly, the Chinese would claim that they are acting legitimately within Chinese borders and reject any notion of expansionism.

Historically, even when the various dynasties were at the height of their power, the Chinese have tended to be far more inward looking that outward looking. So there is little evidence to support the claim. My observation for what it's worth, is that the claim is far more often advanced by countries which themselves have long histories of expansionism, imperialism and colonising other peoples' lands. So I tend to view the claim rather sceptically.

From where I sit, it makes a long more sense to see Chinese policy as a rising power gradually assuming and accumulating the influence and power of a major world power as it grows into that role. China's size population, economy and increasing diplomatic influence all entitle it to world power status and the Chinese, emerging from a backward economy and centuries of foreign oppression to a position of influence commensurate with its size and new status, tend to be understandably sensitive about that status.

Pease learn the difference between 'expansionist' in a territorial manner and 'expansionist' in an idealogical manner.
China is the latter.

You're naive.

quote:

We are now witnessing a curious phenomenon: The resurgent far-right parties in numerous Western countries, which harp incessantly on the sovereignty, independence, and world-historical uniqueness of whichever country they happen to live in, have self-organized into a transnational alt-right “comintern” that appears to be more effective than the leftist comintern of the Soviet era. No doubt this development was inevitable in the age of digital communication, but it has undeniably received a boost from the Kremlin. It also bears emphasis not only that Russia is attempting to influence politics in Western nations, but that this influence comes prepackaged with a specific ideological content.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Hillwilliam has the right idea-- this is about ideological expansion. Putin and his team of the world's richest men have been effectively turning democracy against the west, bolstering the Eurofascist/Trump movements because their policies will benefit Russia. Why wage war when you can get what you want without firing a single shot?

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/trump-putin-alt-right-comintern/506015/

quote:

We are now witnessing a curious phenomenon: The resurgent far-right parties in numerous Western countries, which harp incessantly on the sovereignty, independence, and world-historical uniqueness of whichever country they happen to live in, have self-organized into a transnational alt-right “comintern” that appears to be more effective than the leftist comintern of the Soviet era. No doubt this development was inevitable in the age of digital communication, but it has undeniably received a boost from the Kremlin. It also bears emphasis not only that Russia is attempting to influence politics in Western nations, but that this influence comes prepackaged with a specific ideological content.

With the US in chaos and China moving more towards a Putin-style dictatorship, it means Chinese influence in the East and Russian influence in the west.