When Soviet Union was strong, they were labeled with all negative things that is related to socialism (stigmatized). Perhaps because the "eastern" European power were seen as a threat to western domination. No political attack at all on China at that time because China still weak, poor, called as bicycle country, so not considered as a threat.
But when China began to advance rapidly, moreover approaching USA, they began to be perceived as a threat to western domination. The revival of the "eastern" world in Asia which was firstly represented by Japan, then South Korea, was not considered as a threat because both of them willing to follow western styles and patterns. Unlike China who want to stand out with their own distinctive style and patterns. This was considered as a threat to western domination.
The game of thrones. Yes, that is true. History has recorded abundant stories of power struggles that ended in blood. Just look at it. No intense competition between two countries during the period from the fall of Soviet Union until the rise of China. But after the rise of China, we were presented with the news about OBOR (One Belt One Road) initiated by China. Honestly this is China's effort to spread their influence both in the economic and political fields. But it seems USA also doesn't want to be rivaled. If you are googling with the keyword "USA initiative to rival One Belt One Road", then you can read a lot of news about it. Is the aid initiative by the two countries truly sincere? There is no free lunch. I think if every welfare western country tries to compete with China by offering more aid and money for poor countries development, then the world would be more peaceful. But the aid initiative as a competitor to OBOR surely has a spirit of rivalry. Just be honest there is no second free lunch.
The greatest rivalry from United States is waging a trade war against China. What is in their mind? The game of thrones. Why? Reluctant to be rivaled. Who is the winner? None. Who is negatively affected? This world. Who is stupid? Both. Where is The United Nations? I don't know.
The nature of human EGO is tends to want to be seen "MORE" than others and reluctant to be rivaled. That is the root of all the throne games in this world. That is my viewpoint based on philosophical perspective. Just be honest.
For all I care, The USA and China can compete with each other in any ways that they think is appropriate. I simply cannot, as an Indian accept China's territorial ambitions and sneaky invasions into its neighbouring countries. You are lucky that you do not share a border with China but, ask any other country that does and you will get the same response as mine.
ReplyDeleteThat is a natural response from the spirit of nationalism. Perhaps I would get the same response if I ask on both sides on the border conflict between: 1) India and Bangladesh. 2) India and Pakistan. 3) India and Nepal. 4) Armenia and Azerbaijan. 5) Ethiopia and Sudan. 6) Morocco and Algeria. 7) Iraq and Kuwait, followed by the Iraqi invasion to Kuwait. 8) etc (please googling).
DeleteThe problem is that both sides insist on maintaining the dignity and spirit of nationalism. But I want to distinguish between border conflicts where armed clashes occur and those that do not (its scale). Without diminishing respect, I think the Galwan valley conflict is still limited to a boxing fight without weapon and has been resolved properly. According to Wikipedia, this was due to the Chinese forces objected to Indian road construction in the Galwan river valley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes
But you are also right about China's territorial ambitions. I disagree with that either. As much as I disagree with the territorial ambitions in colonial times. I have a lot of hope for the UN to resolve border conflict on another hemisphere. But where is he? There are too many foreign interests involved.
One day if India become a superpower, can you guarantee 100% that India will not spread its influence to other countries. Frankly I'm not sure. Just remember the philosophy I mentioned in this post.
Tikno, I agree. National sovereignty is very important, and invested with emotion, when it is convenient. It is ignored when you invade someone else's nation.
ReplyDeleteAll fights start with me hitting back. We can see this right now in the tragedy in Israel.
It is better to follow Gandhi: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Or the Buddha: "Anger is a hot coal you pick up to throw at someone. It is your hand that gets burned.
Or both Jesus and Confucius. "Do onto others as you would have them to onto you."
You and your visitors will be interested in reading what I have at http://bobswriting.com/bill/metta.html
Oh, thank you for choosing to follow my blog, Bobbing Around. I hope my words will be of service to you for a long time.
You may be aware that for the moment, I am offering free copies to my followers of my award-winning novel, Sleeper, Awake. Email me if you want to take advantage of this opportunity.
:)
Bob
Hello Bob, it seems that you are taking all the best from all teachings and seeing its similarities. I think you are a positive thinker. I am also happy with your offer.
DeleteSovereignty when taken in a narrow way cuts the roots of ethics and morality. What others call nationalist fervour, the affected country whose land is being taken by force, calls it, hegemonic. India has never usurped any country's land, rather, its land has been grabbed by other counties. If you go through the historical perspective, India was termed as the GOLDEN SPARROW and an embodiment of peace. This could be proved by the philosophers and thinkers of China and other countries. It has withstood invasions and dominance by the outside attackers who created deaths and looted its wealth. It never had ulterior motive against any country and will never have any in future too.
ReplyDeleteHello Harbans. I'm agree with your deep thinking on the first sentence.
DeleteBut for your sentence at the bottom, my response to you will be the same as my response to Ramana above. Are you 100% sure?
And here we are, covid step in and said halt all of you power hunger humans, watch me do my things and confuse all your plans.
ReplyDeleteHappy new year.
I am really glad to glance at this website posts which contains lots of valuable facts, thanks for providing these kinds of statistics.
ReplyDeleteI liked learning about "One Belt One Road." I'm tempted to say something about nationalism but the topic is so complicated. National pride certainly has something to do with conflict but there's so much more. Money. Power. Ideological differences. Perceived freedoms and threats to same. Once at my blog, I suggested that the USA and Canada might someday become one. I thought - at the time - that it would be a great way to have a strong North America to counter threats from abroad. But nowadays I realize it's not quite that simple. And when I suggested it, neither Americans nor Canadians seemed to think it was a good idea. At least, that's the feeling I got.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about China's One Belt One Road?
DeleteAs far as I know, China's One Belt One Road does not look at political ideology of the beneficiary countries.
DeleteIt's all too fresh in my mind to form an opinion. But I saw on the news that China wants Canadian business to participate.
Deletehttps://www.ctvnews.ca/business/china-wants-canadian-private-investment-in-belt-and-road-projects-amid-scrutiny-1.6781858#:~:text=China's%20ambassador%20in%20Ottawa%20says,carbon%20emissions%20and%20fight%20poverty.
I also saw that we fired a lab worker who was helping China.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/winnipeg-lab-firing-documents-released-china-1.7128865
Hi aileegottatalk,
DeleteThat's one of its positive points.
Hello Earthpages,
There was no free lunch from either side. Beneficiary countries please calculate their decisions. What is unfair is if one party deliberately attacked its competitor.
Also, all countries run intelligence programs to get something from other countries. The unlucky ones are the ones who get caught.
One of the positive points of the BRI initiative is as said by aileegottatalk above.
UN is hopeless agency, the agency is not relevant to the world's Economic concerns.....
ReplyDeleteI have a post about the irrelevancy of veto rights.
Deletehttps://love-ely.blogspot.com/2009/01/veto-vs-democracy.html
When it comes to America and China, I don't think the two of them have any specific competition in any form, except economic. Moreover, all forms of progress and convenience that humans have obtained so far are the result of competition with nature. Competition is part of the stages of human evolution, and humans do have the advantage of speeding up this process.
ReplyDeleteExcept economic? Are you sure? What about technology and politics?
DeleteNgeri juga ya. Andai Indonesia jadi negara maju siapa ya, pesaingnya?
ReplyDeletePersaingan yang sehat berlomba jadi negara maju itu wajar. Jika sudah menjegal kemajuan orang lain hanya karena tidak ingin tersaingi itu tidak baik.
Delete