China: both peril & opportunity for the West. Arms race? Peaceful partner in prosperity & trade? Our actions will determine our fate.

[titan]

Some facts about China may be difficult to verify, as present day China is not merely called communist but authoritarian.
The Soviet's politburo was bloated, clumsy, & the Soviet Union is no more.
Conversely China's politburo is trim, wise, skillful, and China's prosperity growth seems to be outpacing ours.

Some reports indicate China is in early stage of implementing a 100 year plan to achieve global domination.

There are numerous facets to this challenge.
Recent reports China already has supersonic missiles capable of both cruise & ballistic trajectories. Does China want an arms race with the West?

Conventional diplomacy may only achieve conventional results. Is that good enough? Or might we need to think outside the box to survive? For example:

Should the West invite China to join NATO? If not as a full partner, an associate with Chinese delegates attending NATO meetings, to demonstrate to China NATO isn't planning to conquer or threaten China's sovereignty.

What are our option? Which is the best option?

 

[sear]

t #1

An interesting twist to U.S. / China policy (believe it or not) :

There's a notable shift to how the US sees and speaks about Africa, if the speech by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is anything to go by. He talked about partnerships and steered clear of the condescending lectures of the past. The declaration by America's chief diplomat that "Africa is the future" signals the continent can no longer be ignored.
Africa is the world's youngest continent, estimates say by 2050 one in four people in the world will be African. This population dividend will shape the global affairs for decades to come but many challenges remain.
Mr Blinken, who was unveiling the Biden administration's Africa policy, said the US will focus its engagement on five key areas: enhancing trade; dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic; climate change; promoting democracy and peace and security.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/antony-blinken-weve-learnt-us-164329083.html

Why this?
Why now?

For the U.S. "diplomacy" has too often involved U.S. military, dropping bombs on innocent people.
In vivid contrast, in its ascension China has been buying up mining contracts, building roads, and making potable well water available where none was available before.

Biden / Blinken understand the implications of this contrast, and seem intent on not steering the good peoples of Africa toward China and away from the U.S.

China’s Influence Looms Over Blinken’s Africa Visit​

On a stop in Nigeria, the secretary of state said the U.S. would no longer treat African countries as pawns in a global game. But American competition with Beijing was hard to overlook.

China’s Influence Looms Over Blinken’s Africa Visit (Published 2021)

On a stop in Nigeria, the secretary of state said the U.S. would no longer treat African countries as pawns in a global game. But American competition with Beijing was hard to overlook.

www.nytimes.com

Our fate would seem to be tied to our conduct.
Is this apparent shift in U.S. policy going to strengthen our position with China?

 

[Borg Refinery]

The United Nations is just a sickening joke at this point - as is China.

GENEVA, Oct 6 (Reuters) - The U.N. rights council on Thursday voted down a Western-led motion to hold a debate about alleged human rights abuses by China against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang in a victory for Beijing as it seeks to avoid further scrutiny.

The defeat - 19 against, 17 for, 11 abstentions - is only the second time in the council's 16-year history that a motion has been rejected and is seen by observers as a setback to both accountability efforts, the West's moral authority on human rights and the credibility of the United Nations itself.

The United States, Canada and Britain were among the countries that brought the motion.

"This is a disaster. This is really disappointing," said Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress, whose mother died in a camp and whose two brothers are missing.

"We will never give up but we are really disappointed by the reaction of Muslim countries," he added.

Qatar, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan rejected the motion, with the latter citing the risk of alienating China. Phil Lynch, director of the International Service for Human Rights, called the voting record "shameful" on Twitter.

"Xinjiang-related issues are not human rights issues at all, but issues of counter-terrorism, de-radicalisation and anti-separatism," said China's foreign ministry late on Thursday.

The motion was an attempt by the United States and some Western countries to "use the UN human rights body to interfere in China's internal affairs," said the foreign ministry in a post on its official website.

China's envoy had warned before the vote that the motion would create a precedent for examining other countries' human rights records.

"Today China is targeted. Tomorrow any other developing country will be targeted," said Chen Xu, adding that a debate would lead to "new confrontations"

The U.N. rights office on Aug. 31 released a long-delayed report that found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang that may constitute crimes against humanity, ramping up pressure on China.

Rights groups accuse Beijing of abuses against Uyghurs, a mainly Muslim ethnic minority that numbers around 10 million in the western region of Xinjiang, including the mass use of forced labour in internment camps. The United States has accused China of genocide. Beijing vigorously denies any abuses.
'ENORMOUS PRESSURE'

The motion is the first time that the rights record of China, a powerful permanent Security Council member, has been on the council's agenda. The item has stoked divisions and a diplomat said states were under "enormous pressure" from Beijing to back China.

Countries like Britain, the United States and Germany, vowed to continue to work towards accountability despite Thursday's outcome. read more

But activists said the defeat of such a limited motion, which stopped short of seeking an investigation, would make it difficult to put it back on the agenda.

Universal Rights Group's Marc Limon said it was a "serious miscalculation", citing the timing which coincides with a Western-led motion for action on Russia.

"It's a serious blow for the credibility of the council and a clear victory for China," he said. "Many developing countries will see it as an adjustment away from Western predominance in the U.N. human rights system."

The event raised political dilemmas for many poor countries in the 47-member council who are loath to publicly defy China for fear of jeopardising investment.

The credibility of some international rights organisations is at a real low point according to Gallup. This is for the UN:

2022 Feb 1-17	37	58	6
2021 Feb 3-18	45	52	2
2020 Feb 3-16	43	54	4

Other polling finds very differently, I should point out.

Amnesty still seem very popular in spite of their recent controversial stances.

 

[sear]

The United Nations is just a sickening joke at this point - as is China.

It's sad for casual observers, and a crushing betrayal for abused minorities like China's Uyghur's you've cited.
Compounding this, the Uyghurs are not the exception for the U.N.

There is an explanation of course. But that's not a justification.
The League of Nations seemed to hold some promise, but fizzled, for reasons you understand.
The United Nations simply hasn't been a whole lot better.
It has no sovereign authority of its own. It may field some "blue helmet" troops. But they're rather more witnesses than instruments of martial control. Conservative syndicated journalist George Will called U.N. troops "worse than nothing".

"The credibility of some international rights organisations is at a real low point according to Gallup. This is for the UN:" O #3

O #3,
Do you think we expect too much, and or provide the U.N. with inadequate ability to fulfill charges assigned to it? It's one thing to point the finger of accusation. I prefer some insight about a proposed solution. I suspect solving that one may be a tough row to hoe.
I suspect it would require providing the U.N. with the ability to do more, and that would mean tilting the international authority balance toward the U.N., but therefore away from nation-States. Bottom line that means the community of nations disempowering themselves (to some degree). Is that the problem?

"Other polling finds very differently, I should point out.
Amnesty still seem very popular in spite of their recent controversial stances." P #3

Interesting.
You now have me wondering why.
Is it because we expect less from A.I.? Is it that Amnesty International gathers data, and publicizes injustices, but isn't really expected to fix it?

 

[Borg Refinery]

Those are ALL really good questions. You hit the nail on the head several times.

There are big downsides and upsides to nationstates ceding power and moving towards becoming larger blocs and maybe eventually one star trek style world govt. The UN has big downsides itself so I wouldn't trust ceding authority to it just yet.

We probably could do with a new, large organisation that isn't' tainted by any past associations, something newer and better, but that's just my take. Maybe true for Amnesty as well.

 

[sear]

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." U.S. Founder James Madison

O #5,
Looks like you and I can't claim credit for discovering this problem.

But I think we've each earned a passing grade for acknowledging it. The guy that solves it deserves a free T-shirt.

While gainfully occupied early this afternoon I was contemplating your thoughtful #3.
What occurred to me regarding your observation about Amnesty International is: - Disappointment is a function of expectation. Without expectation, you can't be disappointed. - psychologist Joy Browne
Might that explain why there's less discontent with A.I.? There just isn't as much expected of it, as there is of the U.N.?
Perhaps if we built A.I. a thin monolithic building in lower Manhattan, there'd be as much discontent with it as there is with the U.N. (which is headquartered in a thin monolithic building in lower Manhattan).

Madison, James 1751-1836. The fourth president of the United States (1809-1817). A member of the Continental Congress (1780-1783) and the Constitutional Convention (1787), he strongly supported ratification of the Constitution and was a contributor to The Federalist Papers (1787-1788), which argued for the effectiveness of the proposed constitution. His presidency was marked by the War of 1812. Mad′i·soni·an (-sōnē-ən) adj. James Madison portrait by George Peter Alexander Healy (1813-1894) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.