The Instigator
doyoureallythinkso
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

China must be checked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 39582
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

doyoureallythinkso

Pro

Checked: stop or slow down the progress of (something undesirable). [I suppose contained is another term used.]
I suppose checked means by another power in the international community, or by a group of powers. It is not really the point of the debate.
This debate specifically refers to the PRC's recent foreign policy, eg. the last 10 years under primarily Hu Jintao. Foreign policy encompasses some things others would consider domestic disputes, like disputes over autonomous regions and across the straits.
Any questions, feel free to comment, and I will answer/elaborate. Look forward to a good debate.
If you drop responding, I will consider it an automatic concession. No other particular rules come to mind.
2-D

Con

Hello, I'm pretty busy so I'm just using this round for acceptance. Honestly, I could be more familiar with the topic but I have some generic objections to your position and I'll research the issue further as needed. Looking forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
doyoureallythinkso

Pro

First, thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to his response and a thoughtful debate. To preface this, I am outlining the basic sentiments behind my argument for the resolution: China must be checked/contained. I will provide further evidence as the debate continues, elaborating on my arguments and responding to my opponent.


Assessing China’s ‘Grand Strategy’
In the past few years, both Chinese and foreign analysts began to reach the conclusion that China has developed a fairly consistent and coherent grand strategy in the past decade, even though they may disagree somewhat on the nature and content of that grand strategy. Because China is a regional power with very limited global interest, China’s regional strategy is the bulk of its grand strategy.
The core of Chinese grand strategy can be traced back to Sun Yat-sen, the father of modern China. Chinese leaders and elite have always believed that China rightly belongs to the “great power” (大国) club because of its size, population, civilization, history, and more recently, its growing wealth. And if China has never been a great power in the past two centuries, China’s goal now is to make China a great power again.
China’s Aggrandizement
Like a wave building unseen beneath the ocean's surface, the incredibly fast rise of the Chinese economy, along with a concomitant growth in its military strength and a rapidly expanding geopolitical clout has suddenly risen like a tsunami upon the receding economic shores of nations around the globe. International leaders and pundits seem to be scratching their heads in confusion as to why the obvious mutual benefits of China's increasing prosperity to the global community is now causing increased consternation and mistrust.
Actions taken by an individual or a nation are, up to a point, necessary and beneficial. Indeed, other nations benefit by the increased wealth, production, and trade as the subject nation grows and prospers. With that economic growth comes a perceived need to have increased military protection. And, with that increased strength comes increased political clout. At some point, the simultaneous expansion of the wealth, the military, and the political influence transitions from increased mutual benefit to perceived increased threat. Hubris is a word that seems to fit well when viewing China's words and deeds since the global economic crisis beginning in 2007—ultimately counterproductive attitudes and actions of a nation with new-found wealth and influence.
A logical strategy would be for that growing nation to have adequate military force for self-preservation but not keep expanding its expenditures on forces to a point that other nations feel threatened. Likewise, it might be a logical strategy to not throw one's weight around too much on the world's geopolitical stage.
As it happens, China’s recent conduct has been far from affable with a number of countries, and with some it has even been threatening in some degree. In 2009-2010, there was a veritable behavioral shift among the Chinese ruling elite, including a sudden change in the tone and content of Chinese declarations, which became sharply assertive of issues from monetary policy to Western democracy. More strikingly, mostly dormant territorial disputes were loudly revived with India, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam—and more or less all at the same time, amplifying the effect. Actual incidents duly followed with the vessels or island outposts of Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, with successive episodes up until the present.
China has and will continue promoting the implementation of its maritime strategy to turn China into a maritime power. And to become a maritime power, China needs to control and dominate the East Sea. According to such logic, China’s pursuit of the Chinese goal to become a world power is creating new concerns for its neighbours and the international community. This has been clearly reflected by China’s recent actions in the East Sea.
To realize its dream, China’s navy forces did not hesitate to attack and opened fire on Vietnamese fishing vessels on 20 March 2013, and authorized its warships, destroyers, corvettes and other law enforcement forces (such as Marine Surveillance, Fishery Patrol, Sea Patrol) to advance to the East Sea to show off its power and threaten its coastal neighbors. Particularly on 26 March 2013, China conducted for the first time large-scale military exercises at the southernmost point of the “cow-tongue line”. As many as four navy amphibious vehicles were ordered to approach James Shoal for the military drills. One of these was China’s largest amphibious vehicles designed to attack islets and capable of carrying helicopters, hovercraft, small amphibs and a battalion.
Furthermore, China is making no legitimate attempt to solve its longstanding internal problems, namely abuse of social, cultural, environmental and economic rights. This certainly grants it no friends in the international community, and as China becomes increasingly assertive and unreceptive to reforms, it only increases the need for foreign containment.
Abuse of Human Rights
China’s new leadership, consisting of the Communist Party’s seven permanent standing committee members, assumed power at the 18th Party Congress in November, ending the decade-long leadership of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao. That era saw sustained economic growth, urbanization, and China’s rise as a global power, but little progress on human rights. The government rolled back protections on the administration of justice, presided over a significant rise in social unrest, including the largest inter-ethnic incidents in decades in Tibet and Xinjiang, and expanded the power of the security apparatus. China’s citizens had no say in the selection of their new leaders, highlighting that, despite the country’s rapid modernization, the government remains an authoritarian one-party system. The government curbs freedom of expression, association, and religion, and controls all judicial institutions. It censors the press and enforces highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. At the same time, citizens are increasingly prepared to challenge authorities over issues such as land seizures, forced evictions, abuses of power by corrupt cadres, discrimination, and economic inequalities.
Abuse of the Environment
Recently, the Chinese government unveiled a series of reforms to restrict air pollution… Many environmentalists, both in the country and outside, fear it is too little, too late. A study released by America’s National Academy of Sciences in July found that air pollution in the north of China reduces life expectancy by five-and-a-half years. The rivers are filthy, the soil contaminated… And there is something else in the air, less immediately damaging but with a far bigger global impact. China’s greenhouse-gas emissions were about 10% of the world’s total in 1990. Now they are nearer 30%. Since 2000 China alone has accounted for two-thirds of the global growth in carbon-dioxide emissions. This will be very hard to reverse. While America and Europe are cutting their emissions by 60m tonnes a year combined, China is increasing its own by over 500m tonnes. This makes it a global threat.
China’s impact on the climate, though, is unique. Its economy is not only large but also resource-hungry. It accounts for 16% of world output but consumes between 40% and 50% of the world’s coal, copper, steel, nickel, aluminium and zinc. It also imports half the planet’s tropical logs and raises half its pigs… The country’s energy use is similarly gargantuan.
China will suffer as much as anywhere. Already its deserts are spreading, farmland is drying out and crop yields are plateauing. Climate change may make matters worse. It has 80m people living at sea level who are vulnerable to rising oceans and higher storm surges. And as heavy manufacturing and mining move from coastal areas to poorer western provinces like Xinjiang and Tibet, the shift may increase environmental damage. These areas have particularly fragile ecosystems and degradation could quickly become irreversible.
The costs of environmental and natural-resource degradation, according to the World Bank, are the equivalent of 9% of GDP, an enormous amount which is dragging down the long-term growth rate. The biggest downdrafts include health damage from air pollution and the degradation of soil nutrients. And since the party takes credit for the benefits of growth, it gets blamed for the costs of pollution. As Ma Jun, China’s best-known environmental activist, puts it, “Everyone knows the link between the environment and their own health.” None of the challenges facing the new generation of leaders is bigger than those posed by the environment.
Conclusion
China is in need of geopolitical containment, preventing its eventual implosion of a fragile, undiversified economy, a corrupt and authoritarian system of government, an aggressive and increasingly militant foreign policy, and unwise abuse of human, social, cultural and economic rights.
2-D

Con

Hello again,

Please free to respond but form your own arguments. Plagiarized arguments don’t count and can’t possibly be as rewarding as developing your own opinions.

From what I can tell Pro wrote his intro/conclusion and edited together several unaccredited quotes so he does deserve some credit.

The majority of Pro’s arguments are plagiarized; I just realized this after writing my response. The first half of Pro’s section on Assessing China’s ‘Grand Strategy’ is here on page 44. The second half is in the third paragraph on page 42:

http://www.aerospaceindia.org...

Interesting enough, the first Amazon reviewer Dr.Charles Dusenbury provided Pros opening four paragraphs for the China’s Aggrandizement section:

http://www.amazon.fr...

Pro’s next block of text is pasted from the beginning of chapter two in this book:

http://books.google.com...

Next Pro pastes two lengthy paragraphs taken from this website starting halfway through the third paragraph of the article:

http://www.southchinasea.com...

Pro’s Human rights arguments were cut and pasted from The Human rights world report on page 300:

https://www.hrw.org...

The majority of Pro’s environmental arguments are cut pastes from this article:

http://www.economist.com...

Pro still managed to form case that China is a potential threat

I still have the same problems with your setup so I’ll address these first. I agree for the most part with your issues with China. They are clearly a rising potential threat and major violators of human rights with a poor environmental record. It does not follow that intervening to prevent growth is the obligatory or likely solution. My rebuttals are pretty quick since I don’t see that your arguments strongly support your resolution.

China must be checked: you need to establish that this is possible, feasible and that a power is obligated to intervene or likely to do so.

Must is a strong word and you have allowed for no other possible scenarios. In your resolution description you do not add a single qualifier. For example China must be checked if we want to prevent major civil rights violations etc. Nothing must be. China could very well implode financially or become a dominant superpower as you indicate.

No other power must check them and there is the strong possibility that no one will. Who is obligated to intervene. Why open with a claim that doesn’t allow for another possibility?

From Merriam Webster must is defined as:

—used to say that something is required by a rule or law

—used to say that someone should do something

—used to say that something is very likely

There are many other scenarios when your resolution allows only one

It’s possible that no power will intervene leading to an extended cold war and arms race with other nations. China may gradually defer to international pressure and improve on their own without the need for intervention. The United States, Europe, Japan, India etc may carry out an aggressive reform serving as a natural check on China’s power and intimidate China into change.

China may become the dominant superpower and even initiate another global war. Peaceful negotiations and ramping up international pressure to make changes to civil rights, foreign and environmental policies are certainly preferable to antagonizing China by limiting growth.

As China matures and industrializes changes to these policies may come naturally. Abusing your own citizens, environment and neighbors is a terrible policy after all. It is also possible that the Chinese people will revolt redirecting or even eventually overturning their government as we have seen in the Middle East.

How is this the top priority assuming we are all interventionists?

North Korea recently threatened to destroy South Korea [2] and has made less credible threats against the United States. The volatile country has nuclear bombs and is allied with China. Iran recently threatened to launch a massive missile strike against Israel [3], has a nuclear program and is also allied with China. China is also getting close to another major human rights violator, Russia [5].

Antagonizing China by preventing growth is like punching a bees nest.

You define checked as slowing or stopping China’s progress which sounds like an act that could very well inspire war. You concede that China has some very bold ambitions as a country, which is a good thing in and of itself.

If another power forces a slowing or a full stop to their progress it’s not unreasonable to suggest that war is a likely outcome. China is allied with Iran opening up the Middle East, along with the nuclear powers [6] Pakistan [7], North Korea and Russia. Any war could easily lead to a global conflict.

Who will stop/slow China’s progress?

You have said that this does not matter but if this must occur it has to be possible and feasible. Who is obligated and able to intervene and is it likely they will? It has to be in a powers best interest or it is unlikely it will occur at all.

I don’t see that an effective prevention of China’s growth would occur unless the U.S. was to back it and I don’t see that any major forceful action is likely in the near future.


Rebuttals:


Assessing China’s ‘Grand Strategy’

I don’t object that China would like to be a great power but I think there is a good case that the world should try to influence what type of power they will be. If I did object I do not see that the world should feel obligated or is in any position to stop them. If there is an argument here it is that the United States, Europe, India, Japan etc need to get serious about reform or be left in the dust without the power to face a possible new threat in China.

China’s Aggrandizement
I concede that China’s power and wealth are growing. You have pointed out that China’s wealth has benefitted the world through trade. Any forceful action by another power to prevent or stop growth would both hurt trade negotiations and limit the growth of trade to powers that remain neutral.

China’s expansion makes them a possible threat and they are becoming more aggressive

I concede, for now, that China’s growth does make them a potential threat and they have been increasingly aggressive with surrounding nations. There are still other options other than preventing growth or containing China. I’m not sure what containing China would even mean. My objections still stand. You need to demonstrate that there is an obligation on some power or powers to intervene preventing growth or that this is likely.

Abuse of Human Rights

I concede that China is a major human rights violator and that it is desirable for this to be improved. I do not see that slowing/stopping China’s growth or containing the country is a solution much less the obligatory or likely solution.

There are many countries that abuse human rights and China is in no way a priority. Maplecroft is an organization that tracks human rights violations and ranks countries according to the risk and severity of violations. Although China is ranked highly as a rights violator it does not crack the top ten [4]. If you can establish that preventing growth would help curb human rights violations there are better countries to start with.


Abuse of the Environment
“Recently, the Chinese government unveiled a series of reforms to restrict air pollution… Many environmentalists, both in the country and outside, fear it is too little, too late.”

You concede that China recognizes the risk of there environmental impact and have voluntarily enacted a series of reforms. If this is too little than they are still open to reform and negotiation. The environment is an international issue and we cannot prevent the industrialization of the rest of the world by force. The world is not on the verge of destruction and the global community needs to work out the environmental problem together.

China contributes to global warming

You are assuming that the major cause of global warming is anthropogenic which is still a topic open for debate and something you would have to demonstrate here. Assuming this is true you need to show that forcibly preventing growth is the likely/obligatory solution.


“Its economy is not only large but also resource-hungry.”

That China consumes a lot of resources does not obligate the international community to forcibly prevent growth. The industrialization of third world countries is inevitable and desirable. We will have to work out solutions as we go.

The costs of environmental and natural-resource degradation, according to the World Bank, are the equivalent of 9% of GDP, an enormous amount which is dragging down the long-term growth rate.

If this is true then China’s actions to deal with the environmental problems are likely genuine and they are motivated to change.

-

I do not see that you have met your burden of proof. You have essentially argued that China is a potential threat to surrounding nations and abuses its people and environment and I agree. You have not shown that outside intervention to curb growth is likely, possible, compulsory or even an effective solution.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.rawstory.com...

[3] http://www.wnd.com...

[4] http://maplecroft.com...

[5] http://thediplomat.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://frontpagemag.com...

Debate Round No. 2
doyoureallythinkso

Pro

doyoureallythinkso forfeited this round.
2-D

Con

Aguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
doyoureallythinkso

Pro

doyoureallythinkso forfeited this round.
2-D

Con

I'm kicking myself now for pointing out the plagiarism second round. I'm super curious how Pro would have constructed his patched together argument to respond to me. Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
doyoureallythinkso2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
doyoureallythinkso2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con. Pro plagiarized, forfeited, and skedaddled. Args to Con for original thinking
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
doyoureallythinkso2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Keep reading... S&G: Pro did not provide his own. ARGUMENTS: Con did, while dismantling the plagiarized statements. SOURCES: Con tracked down what pro copied from... Pro failed to cite his sources (at the very least).
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
doyoureallythinkso2-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD - Landslide victory on this debate, not only because Pro gave a FF, but because Pro blatantly plagiarized as I too went and confirmed. This gives sources, conduct and argument to Con. Very shameful behavior from Pro, who should have an eye kept on him after this debate.