The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful
Debate Rounds (5)
'I believe that the rise of China is peaceful and should not be feared off.'
You believe what you like.
I recognize China for what it is. China is a 'superpower' on the world stage. China has little regard for it's citizens or its environment. China is owed money by 'absolutely everyone'. It is the Shylock of global finance and it will attempt to extract it's pound of flesh. Ethnic minorities are suffocated beneath this monolith. China has an extensive nuclear arsenal that it updates in order to keep pigeons off it's rice crops.
Most Chinese people that I have encountered are honest, hard working and peaceful . They are friendly and compliant but that is not what we are talking about here. We are discussing 'China', the political entity that is. Make a case for them if you can.
I acknowledge that China puts the importance of sovereignty at first priority over everything else (health & safety, environment, etc.) for most of it's history, the present day China controlled by the CCP also puts sovereignty first. But, regardless to whether they are a superpower or not, I do not think that other foreign nations should fear China's rise in this century. What I mean by 'fear China's rise' would be that foreign nations should not need to be too concerned with China's military power and evermore so they should not fear of going to war with China at all. The reasons for this is not because of how Chinese people may appear to be, like you mentioned in your previous argument: honest, hardworking & peaceful, it is because simply from an economical and political point of view, fearing rather than accepting China's rise does nobody any benefit, even the slightest consideration of war between China and any country brings the world to a major drawback.
Ever since China joined the WTO, the US and many other nations has enabled the globalisation in China to establish relationships around the world, this act as an string with China on one end and US (or random country) on the other end. Both countries are heavily reliant on each other in multiple ways and therefore, if either one of them experiences some trouble, both would suffer consequences in which would also imply China's rise would more than likely be beneficial to all countries around the world regardless of what China is thinking. Thus, China should not be feared and can be considering as peaceful.
Thank You for your kind words.
'The United States currently has a public outstanding debt total of over $14.1 trillion. Of this total, China owns roughly 8%.
China Interesting note - it initially appeared as though China was slowing down their purchases of US debt in 2010. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, was rapidly ramping up their purchases - so much so, in fact, that the United Kingdom's holdings of US debt increased over 200% in 2010 But wait - the US Treasury Department later revealed that it was China that was behind most of the United Kingdom's frantic buying of US debt. China was buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US Treasuries through UK-based money managers, which meant that the purchases were initially credited to the United Kingdom. The US Treasury Department recalculated their results, and China ended up being credited for the vast majority of the purchases that were initially credited to the UK. '
Consider the latest 'Cyber Attacks Controversy'
Are these the actions of a peaceful entity. Do they not reek of 'ambition' and 'megalomania'?
Let me give you a little bit from Shakespeare about 'owing money' to someone.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 75–77
America is 'in hock' to these people and if they renege on their payments they will buy their country without blinking. We had opium wars and tea wars with China in the past that defied any geographical logic. In 2015 the US buys Wall Mart junk from this part of the world and they pay for it with Monoply print. Wait for the knock on the door when a well educated and astute Chinese population demand goods for these IOU's. The US may have to resort to 'self-defence' because of a lack of any other options.
I will first discuss the case studies that you presented in your previous argument. The main idea I believe that you are trying to point out is that China uses acts of neo-colonialism upon other countries, I do acknowledge that this is true and China has been using this this tactic since the Ming Dynasty. During the Ming Dynasty, China has all the opportunity to invade and colonise many countries near the present South China Sea, but instead they use the same tactics as they use now to influence and control without officially claiming sovereignty over the country. But the main reason to why I would say other nations are not needed to fear China's rise military wise, is because in order for neo-colonialism to occur the targeted country must first be willing to accept what China has to offer first. Africa is a prime example of China's use of neo-colonialism, however, the African people had to first accept and agree to the terms China offered first, some may view this as not peaceful as it is just trying to control another nation but another view about this is that there are more benefits than drawbacks for both nations.
Just less than a month ago, China and George Osborne made a deal, basically China will help the UK build a somewhat power plant that can help power up the whole UK nation. Under the terms the power plant will be built by Chinese people, it's management system will be under a Chinese management system, the materials will be all made in China. Many people said that China was not peaceful and was taking it's first steps to colonise the UK, neglecting the benefits they can receive from this deal. My main point is China can be considered peaceful and should not be feared military wise because China would not forcefully impose it's ways onto other countries, it would have to get the Chancellors permission first in order to do so, history has also shown these methods before and they are rather peaceful methods. Furthermore, as mentioned in my first argument the US or any other nation who has relations with China have become like two countries on one string, any harm to either of them does nobody any good at all.
The cyber attacks I consider them to be quite natural, throughout history governors have been sending spies to gather data, this is mainly for their own protection. Knowing your enemy and knowing yourself has always been an popular tactic for people. US and China can both be considered as victims of cyber attacks, but it has cost the US an increasingly more amount of money than China simply because of China's cheap labour. One of the main reasons why everything is made in China is because of the cyber attacks, the process goes like this: China cyber attacks any US company, China spies and takes the information from a specific product or idea, China analyses how these products are made or how can they use those ideas, China re-creates almost the exact same copies through cheaper materials and labour of the product, and then re-sells them to the US market for an much cheaper price, beating them in price competition. These strategies are used almost everywhere though, on a smaller scale you can see supermakets and many businesses using the exact same strategies to win over the competition, so it's nothing really surprising or shocking to see it in the larger scale.
One could say that China's cyber attacks are collecting valuable military information which is not a good thing for any victims, but to why I may say China is not to be feared is because China's economy and country are still stuck within the developing era, their main focus is on economy, GDP etc., war and domination would only be one their mind for the last resort. Also, China does not need to steal any resources from other places because of the help of globalisation, in fact any damage to their trading partners does them no good at all.
I want to cut both you and China 'some slack' here.
Your approach , HoKiaJunn, has been one of persistent calm. It is an unusual trait within debate and in my mind it is also a very effective one. Well Done. With regard to my reservations about China to date, they have mostly been generic and 'Fox Newsy' in their nature.
This was again slightly unfair of me, in that many of the reservations that I have expressed about the global 'super-power' that is China pale into the background when considered along side the 'bumbling foreign policy gaffs' of both the US and Russia.
Let me make amends
China has a huge population, They proceed along socialist, non religious lines. Nobody is starving and nobody is organizing a coup. It maintains stability in a way that the US and Russia have both failed to accomplish. Not a mean feat in itself. They also subscribe to a mantra that suggests progression going forward that is inspired when placed beside the US model of 'putting a patch on the leaks as they appear'.
That is me being nice and it is because you have made me really consider China. Tomorrow I will play for keeps on this China thing. Thank You for your submissions as I found them 'thought provoking'. They remind me of the the Chinese Great Wall in their solidity.
I firstly want to thank you for your kind comments and I feel very grateful for it. I also feel very grateful, for this most exciting and thought provoking debate, it is always great to share ideas and understand other people's perspectives.
If I were to debate my own position, I would say the biggest fear from China in the next current decade or two for countries around the world would be any financial problems to do with China. The speed of China's reform of their economy within the span of the 30 years is unparalleled in all history, this is a fact. But what really baffles professional economist around the world is that China's GDP growth rate has still maintained to a moderately high percentage. However, countries like Hong Kong in the 70s, Singapore and Japan all had the golden ages of economic growth, but it wasn't long till they fell to a more stable 3% to 4% growth rate. The main reason to why China can maintain it's high growth for a much longer period of time than those other countries is due to their large population, large land space for expansion and cheap labor. One should also bear in mind that throughout the whole history of economics a principle of what goes up must come down has never ever failed to cease and thus, it is only a matter of when. This is what many trading partners of China all fear off, a slight sneeze from China would cause the whole world to tremor financially.
About super-powers and world leaders, I do not believe China has the same type of ambition to become and maintain number one country because of China's culture. If we look at the ideology of US's culture, they are really fond of presenting themselves as big, strong and undefeatable, we are able to see this through US films, US fictional heroes, US presidential campaigns and their speeches, US marketing and advertising style, even in warring strategies against the Vietnam their ideology were big Americans can crush the puny Asians sending Fighter jets to bombed their forests neglecting the cunningness of their opponents hiding and attacking from underground tunnels that were too small for big American troops to fit, all of these things indicate how much the US culture adores chanting 'we're number one' by playing the role of the big brother around the world.
The Chinese on the other hand, views the US's responsibility like the story of Atlas holding the sky up, if being number one forces China to uphold global responsibilities I think from an Chinese perspective, they would rather remain to be number two if they had a choice. And why would I say China wouldn't want to handle global issues, because they have repeatedly demonstrated their hands-off approach towards these issues within the last decade. This is unless they get unintentionally dragged into an issue that they did not want to be involved in in the first place, for instance, some argue that as much as China wants to rise up peacefully, the US will make sure it does not step down without a fight and will be sure to paint China as bad as they can so once the bad impressions are set, the US has a chance to take back their place.
An example of how the US will not allow to step down peacefully can be seen through the cyber attacks the increasing military budgets, the more the US is concerned with China the more they would like to know about their information, this makes China weary of their presence and feels threatened and also wants to defend itself with more military. Some say this example can be illustrated in a children's school playground, a bully feels threatened or jealous of one of his school mates grades and hence, he bullies him or tries to wreak havoc in many ways forcing the school mate to defend and fight, in the end regardless of who one the teacher punishes them both and records their names down in the school book for fighting.
The teacher in this case is the world audience, people would also have opposing views about war and war is bound to have bad influences regardless of who's good intentions and hence, both countries get no benefit and punished for this. The record book mentioned in the example represents the history book, once countries have a recorded history of war it can take generations for them to wipe away the bad image imposed upon them, it has already been over a century since the once Great British Empire attacked the Great Qing Empire of China yet still the younger generations in China have a bad impression of the UK's xenophobic culture towards foreigners.
If you have any other questions regarding to this debate topic or any other topic about China in general, please feel free to ask me, Thank You.
There is no 'fast track' towards definitive conclusions regarding this topic.
We need to immerse ourselves with both historical and more recent material. Here are just two simple examples.
I could only agree with the motion if you could state to me categorically that China's presence as a super power within the worlds political arena is effectively making the volatility of this place 'more safe' . Have a go at this. A quote from the second link would suggest the opposite.
'Yue Gang, a retired army colonel, said: “Pakistan has been an arms trade partner with China for decades. One of the reasons is that many western countries refuse to export to Pakistan for fear that it will offend India. So [Pakistan’s] options are limited and it turns to China out of necessity.”
China also has fewer political “complexes” than rivals — which means it will sell to anyone, he added. “China does not discriminate politically between buyers,” Mr Yue said.'
Arguing that you are only doing what the others are doing is insufficient collateral on this issue. Is China's rise making the world more safe and more peaceful. Yes or No.
Is China still promoting a 'Marx/Lenin communist ideal or is it a moral-less opportunist just like all the rest, US included?
Firstly, I just want to mention that I am starting to lose track on what your main point of the argument is at, I do not want us and the audience to be caught up in semantics of the issue but I appreciate you showing me the two articles and other people's ideologies. Regardless, back to the questions............
'Arguing that you are only doing what the others are doing is insufficient collateral on this issue. Is China's rise making the world more safe and more peaceful. Yes or No.'
Bearing in mind my current position in this debate the answer to your first question is an most definite yes. Although, if I were to answer this question again but without the influence of my debate position I have taken, I would say the answer is yes and no. I think it is fear China up to a certain extent, but I will stand by what I said in the debate and say China's rise is more safe and peaceful than it is unsafe and un-peaceful.
'Is China still promoting a 'Marx/Lenin communist ideal or is it a moral-less opportunist just like all the rest, US included?'
The answer is yes and no, China will promote the Marx/Lenin communist ideology only when they need to use this ideology for a certain objective. China labels itself as communist country but it's economic growth as taken on an capitalist approach, pure communism is actually rarely seen in China's day to day life. As mentioned above, China will only promote their communist ideology whenever they feel the need to, this gives China great flexibility whilst still maintaining the Chinese Communist party label, this is also to maintain the respect for their communist founding leader Mao Zedong. The latest Chinese military parade celebrating the defeat of the Japanese was an fine example of them still promoting and maintaining Communist ideals. But when discussing about economic growth, China adapts the way of capitalism ever since Deng Xiao Ping opened up their iron curtains.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful (Is it???)
It is late in the day for me to be asking the same question.
safe = 'not likely to cause or lead to harm or injury; not involving danger or risk.'
Is selling military hardware to Pakistan 'safe'.
This happened today in North Korea
Kim Jong Un says Pyongyang is ‘ready for any kind of war against the U.S.’
North Korea and China played up their ties as a senior Beijing official passed a letter from Chinese President Xi Jinping to Kim Jong Un calling for closer relations and stood alongside the North Korean leader at a military parade in Pyongyang on Saturday.
Is this safe? Is this peaceful? If these things are 'not safe' then I'm afraid 'you loose' Thanks
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said, "China's rise is more safe and peaceful than it is unsafe and un-peaceful." That effectively concedes the resolution, which that the rise of China is safe and peaceful, which was clarified in the challenge to mean "the rise of China should not be feared." During the course of the debate, Con presented and Pro conceded many things to fear: currency instability, cyber attacks, putting sovereignty above human rights, leverage gained from holding debt, and neo-colonialism. Arguing that that the dangers from China will be overcome implicitly grants they are to be feared. Both sides were disorganized; number the arguments, provide headings, and carry them in each round. References were missing or poorly used by both sides; find news items or expert opinion to support the claims. Pro lost because he admitted there were all sorts of dangers in the rise of China that should be reasonably feared.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.