This conversation is closed.

Shouldn't US also tell in no uncertain ways what it plans to do with China after demanding the latter "act responsibly" in its rise?

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called on China to show in "concrete ways" that its rise is in the world's interest, saying that Beijing needs to take greater responsibility. In reciprocity, the US should also make public what its true intentions towards China are.

  • Mar 11 2012: Out of a population of 5 million, almost two million are foreigners. Too late now to lament about not being more traditional and family-oriented.

    We may have less freedom opportunities than you, but our systems (in Singapore at least) of medical care, justice, tax and EDUCATION are (in my humble opinion) far superior to those in your country.

    In China, the VALUES are more SOCIETAL than individual. So the American insistence that China should also have individual human liberties, without responsibilities, I repeat, is visionless and terribly misplaced.
  • Mar 11 2012: Shouldn't the US first act responsibly before asking other countries to act responsibly in their rise?
    • Mar 16 2012: Gabo. Many outside the US wish that were the case. But given that it doesn't in many instances, what can the rest of the world do?
  • Mar 11 2012: What would the world be like if everybody let go of their paranoia. Perhaps the majority of the world's population wants the same things for themselves and their friends and families which includes a whole bunch of positive things. Suppose we all focused our attention, words, activities, time, resources, et cetera on anything and everything positive, e.g., education, GOOD health, positive products and services, transportation, housing. Just think of the power of all of us ignoring the negative and working cooperatively together to elevate the well-being of ourselves and all of our sisterbrother Earthlings. Re-program yourself to be habitually positive. It's about time we stopped repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Let go of your ancestral brainwashing. Program yourself to be persistently positive. Ignore all those lines on the map. We Earthlings are one good people when we live in truth and according to our own, individual highest consciousness of what is right. POWER TO THE POSITIVE! Earthlings are the best people. Let's do what we can to elevate their joy level everyday. Thank you very much.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2012: Their intentions are to contain China and further what they consider their own national interest.
    Like most modern nation states.

    The grandstanding by the US is a joke.

    All powerful countries do or have done crappy things to further their national or local political interests.
    USA doing over indigenous peoples etc.
    China over Tibet
    England in their empire days.
    Japan empire

    You need to be strong to have peace.

    Some are worse than others. All have done or are doing self interested things. None are perfect.

    In a nutshell I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese citizen as I would have more rights.
    • Mar 11 2012: G M,
      Many Americans, out of poverty or unemployment or disenchantment, are coming east to find a piece of the action. Keep your US citizenship by all means, but don't let it hinder you from reaching a farther horizon.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2012: both of them can go to hell actually. neither of these leaderships has any moral basis to call on anyone on anything.
    • Mar 11 2012: Krisztian.
      Who in this world of ours do you think has the moral authority to dictate rights to others? If none, then our world is heading for perdition, and I don't mean the religious kind.
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2012: i think the opposite. if people stop imposing their morals on others, only then we can avoid that said perdition. as long as people think it is justified to kill, imprison, torture, threaten, suppress or fine people in the name of higher morals, we will not be able to take the next step of social evolution: the step from fight for survival to cooperation.

        however, i don't see how we have ended up talking about dictating. i was talking about moral basis to judge or preach.
        • Mar 16 2012: Krisztian,
          So I guess you would treat the UN as just another useless, powerless organization with little or no moral authority to impose sanctions against rogue regimes such as the Assad dictatoriship?
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2012: don't get me started on the UN
        • Mar 16 2012: We're debating here, don't cop out with a non sequitur !
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2012: it wasn't a copout. it was my way of telling you that the UN is the most useless organization in my eyes. i wouldn't say it is powerless. it has way too much power than i'd like. however, it is offset by their incompetence to some degree.
  • Apr 1 2012: Binjiii, My name is Rhona. Thank you for expressing your observation about French workers. Are you aware of any scientific studies that show that "happy" workers are not more productive than "unhappy" workers?
    • Apr 1 2012: Rhonda: No, I don't have access to such data. My hunch is that most workers do their jobs more diligently when they are well treated and handsomely paid. In your scenario, how are you going to pay the US workers adequately if they are to work so few hours?
      • Apr 1 2012: Behng, I guess you have not noticed that my name is not Rhonda. The pay will be FAIRLY related to their productivity, which now is not the case.
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2012: The US government (whatever flavour) can make as many demands as it likes - it'll have zero impact on the Chinese government. The US doesn't have the manpower to make them, and it's broke, with China being their main creditor.

    China and USA are yin / yang twins - when one bursts the other will go pop, so lets hope they stop throwing stones.
    • Apr 1 2012: Heather: Engagement with mutual respect and for mutual benefit should be the game plan - for both sides.
      • thumb
        Apr 1 2012: Quite so, neither east nor west have the perfect answer to governance. Neither system is great for all of their people.

        A one-party state, such as China, tends to be autocratic, slow to respond to the wishes of its people, reluctant to change, and thus stifling of creativity. However, as China has proven, a one party state is also highly efficient in providing long-term policy directions. People know what's expected of them and can plan for the future.

        Western multi-party states (such as the UK) do reflect the wishes of the majority, but, policies are often short-term, and important decisions are sometimes made via compromise - which doesn‘t always result in the best decisions. The USA, in my opinion, is much more extreme since it is based on extremes, with only two parties that are increasingly divergent. This strongly divides public opinion to the point where the United States could be construed as an oxymoron. Add to this, short periods in office (4 years), with mid-term elections, creates short term politics. Yet this was how the system was set up - to deliberately weaken the institution of government.

        Do these differing systems of government reflect deeply held positions concerning social discourse? Eastern societies favouring non-critical behaviour and deference to authority, while western societies favour challenge and critical debate.

        So long as both parties understand these differences all should be okay. The problem arises when the USA appears to be over critical or challenging. Yet, sometimes, as in all forms of relationship, non-contribution in dialogue can be the most aggressive stance to take!

        Hiliary Clinton's comment was perhaps simply reflective of the western style of challange - trying to get China's leadership to accept the responsibilities of their higher status though active dialogue. I'm sure China's leaders are fully aware of this, and will respond, or not, with this in mind.
        • Apr 1 2012: Heather: A most thoughtful discourse. I'm sure Clinton would want to project the same image of your country as you have so eloquently argued for. But in trying to do too much, she ends up doing too little. Often on TV, she appears to be tired and lacking in sleep, yet she tries to cover the whole world outside the US. That's exactly what's wrong with US foreign policy - interventionist in everyone's backyard.
          The Chinese are aware of the nature of local American politics, but it is not easy for any nation, including the US, to be subjected to the same extreme (or extremist) style in international relations.
          Besides, it is not very wise to be incessantly imposing one's principles (no matter how noble) on others. The other side of the tragedy is that when the Islamists do the same, the US is up in arms against their "terrorist" tactics.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2012: if this really mattered to anyone do something and stop debating. china and america need to grow and connect its that simple or the outcome will be the same.
    • Mar 16 2012: Solidus,
      If you powerful enough to change the world, what are you doing here in this debate forum? For the rest of us impuissant masses, debate is one way to release some steam.
  • Mar 11 2012: Rhona,
    Yes, US has FREEDOM of EXPRESSION. You will not be put in jail for criticizing Obama, for example.
    In China, that would be like asking for a sentence of hard labour. Yet, it is an improvement on the edicts
    of death by hanging issued by former Chinese emperors against those for simply wearing the imperial colour of yellow.
    US had its similar lawless era during the Wild, Wild WEST. China is slowing but surely moving on
    from its own Wild, Wild EAST.

    FREEDOM of ASSEMBLY did NOT stop the NYPD from evicting (legally) the demonstrators of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. There are no absolute freedoms; individual liberty will be sacrificed when public order is deemed to have been breached. Not to mention "national security", as in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees who have not been accorded any freedom at all.

    You talk valiantly for equality for women. The Chinese had an EMPRESS centuries ago. From the looks of it, US won't have a female PRESIDENT for decades to come.

    Preference for BOYS rather than girls is prevalent in most cultures including more "equal" Western societies. Getting rid of girls at birth is NOT the LAW. It's a despicable practice, but given the "one-child policy" and families wanting a male child to carry on the family name - the population control measure, though very successful, has brought on its own unethical elements. But, you may to happy to know, all ultra-sound machines are now banned in China.

    I salute you as a woman of spirit and you choose to do what pleases and benefits you personally. However, consider this - Singapore WOMEN are among the free-est in the world. They have equal education and career opportunities. The consequence? Few of them want to stay at home to look after their family, some choosing to not even have children, or marry. Singapore therefore has had negative population growth and has had to import labour from other Asian countries to power its economic development. Out of a population of 5 million, ....
  • Mar 9 2012: The USA is hoping China will show respect for Chinese people by granting them freedom of speech and other freedoms. Make sure Chinese men and Chinese women have equal power within every part of Chinese society. Let the contemporary population live according to their own beliefs and values and not try to control and manipulate them or force them to obey external authority. Allow them to obey their own inner guides, their own positive whims. Life is for people, not for governments. I think what the US plans to do with China is eat more of its delicious foods, visit the country and enjoy its many natural and human made wonders, get to know its wonderful people and exchange ideas, music, art, goods, services and everything else that we wonderful Earthlings create. Power to the positive!
    • Mar 10 2012: Rhona,
      That's exactly the bane of US foreign policy - holier-than-thou, meddling, interventionist, sometimes invading - in other words, impertinent. The rest of the world does not have to, does not wish to, model themselves on the American model.
      • Mar 10 2012: Are you saying the Chinese people do not want freedom, Benj? Are you saying that Chinese men and Chinese women have no need for equality with each other? I do not understand the point you are making.
        • Mar 10 2012: Rhona,
          Freedom has its many guises.
          Freedom in US has come to mean the (super)rich can do (almost) anything they want to hold the poor in chains. And (often) with impunity, again in the guise of freedom.
          Freedom in (poorer) countries involves the more even spreading of wealth to ensure the poor have a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, fair decent wages, etc.
          Ask the impoverished farmer's wife in remote China if she needs any more freedom. Her likely answer: I just want to work the land together with my husband (equality of the sexes here for certain) to support the family and kid (sorry, only one allowed - but that's fine because we couldn't afford another one anyway).
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2012: He has a point! :-)
      • Mar 10 2012: I hear you, Benj. You are correct about the income inequality and the excessive domination by the superrich in the US. On the other hand, we do have freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. We can demonstrate anywhere. I feel free to say anything I want anyplace within the USA. If I were in some countries, which I shall not name, I would be tortured, thrown in jail, assaulted, if I expressed my true thoughts and feelings about the government or about equality for women. You acknowledge that the poverty in China is sufficient to make one child per family the only option. You have not mentioned the strong preference for boy children and how pregnancies of girl children are dealt with. You have not mentioned how those Chinese individuals who value freedom and express themselves are dealt with. Artists of all nationalities require freedom to do their work. We can select facts about our countries and argue from those facts we select. I am deeply grateful to my grandparents for emigrating to the USA where, as a woman and a free spirit, I get to do and be what I choose. I do acknowledge that my government and country have a long way to go to fulfill my goals for WE THE PEOPLE, but I can think of no other place, except perhaps for northern European nations, where I can live the life I choose and be who I really am. My government exists to benefit my life and it does a pretty good job considering the opportunities it offers in so very many categories. I think we need to improve our medical system, our judicial system, our tax system and many of our systems. Which systems in China need improving so that Chinese people can live according to the values of individual Chinese people?
      • Mar 31 2012: Heather, I agree he has ONE POINT. (re:"....super rich in US....."). Let's change that by insituting a 3-day/24-hour work week and a $30.00 minimum wage.......and watch productivity, health, wealth and happiness of the masses soar. Anything positive is possible.
        • Apr 1 2012: Rhonda: If you look at France with very short work hours and longest holidays, you'd probably change your mind about "happy" workers being super productive.
  • Mar 9 2012: China has been one step ahead of USA for quite some time now. The regime may not be ethical, but they are smart, no doubt about it. The regime knows that USA comes to them to... Sorry for the offensive expression, but really to "kiss ass" once China starts mobilizing themselves, because China is such an important part of the American economy that they don't know how they would manage without it.
    • Mar 10 2012: Daniel,
      US does acknowledge its financial dependence on China, but only privately. Publicly, it is making naughty noises non-stop. Let's hope the Chinese understand this as the American egocentric tendency to think of themselves as invulnerable. And that it is meant mostly for domestic consumption.
      • thumb
        Mar 31 2012: Quite correct - western politicians blow a lot of hot air...
  • Mar 9 2012: Hi Zdenek
    This is the relevant report: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday called on China to show in "concrete ways" that its rise is in the world's interest, saying that Beijing needs to take greater responsibility.
    "concrete ways"+"cooperate"+"need to"+"responsibility" = are rather one-sided urgings. Reason why I say US should likewise spell out its true intentions toward China.
  • Mar 9 2012: From the article below I see that US is basically asking China to be cooperative with Syria and other issues like trade agreements.

    US is not demanding but urging China to cooperate on these issues.