Not to name names, but there are those on this board who argue that China will have to adopt western values like liberalism and democracy in order to survive into the 21st century. None of this is false - but I suspect the people making this argument usually don't understand that much about China or how their system works. In fact, the same argument is true - EQUALLY true - going the other way around.

America finds itself in the midst of a religiously motivated war right now, a concept that almost doesn't exist in Confucian Asia. It is religious on both sides - you get people arguing in political contexts that Mohammed was a pedophile, for instance. And we, living in a democracy, can't quite so easily dismiss these people as nuts, becuase they do actually have influence on their respective political systems. These people, or actually their slightly more mainstream compatriots, are the ones who got the US into Iraq as a response to 9/11, without the attention span to see the thing through. China never bows to these short-term shifts in public opinion.

Using their response to the Xinjiang problem as a prototype, we can see how the Chinese would respond to a similar problem. Their approach is two-pronged: forced assimilation, but with some deference to their culture as a culture, not a religion. We can see the latter with their relations with the Muslim world: they are actually trying to broker peace between Pakistan and India, partly in an attempt to gain the favor of their Muslim minority. At the same time, the US never would never be able to simply disconnect Islam from its underlying culture the way China has, without any regard to political correctness or cherished ideals. Suppose for instance in the area of Muslim finance the US could just ban anything that was clearly the result of religion, and not economically productive. For instance, some Muslims have to call home mortgages something else because of a religious ban on usery. Doing something like this would give someone the political capital to take a more scientific approach to economic development in the Mulsim world, and stand up to public opinion on something like Iraq for instance.

There definitely are aspects of China's Confucian culture, such as their (lack of) regard for historical truth, which have to go. On the other hand, their ability to cut right through religious bull is something that I admire in their culture very much. I hope that current anti-Chinese sentiment does not keep us from learning from their political culture and applying their experiences to our own.

How is liberalism a western value? It's a social axiom. Might just as well say all paper in the world is "Chinese", because it first originated in China long ago, or that all cars are German, because it originated from there long ago.

That's a big over-simplification at best. First of all, it's not a religious war. Islam is not at trial, the only target here is on some extremist groups in the Middle East and a few states. Islam is still practiced by many in the US and any social stigma against the practice stems from under-educated individual opinions within America. Second of all, the US in the Middle East is toppling states, not religion in the region. There has been to religious reforms in Afghanistan or Iraq beyond fundamental justice. And there won't be, it wouldn't be rational at all to turn this into a religious ideology. This is so unrelated to religion that Iraq was actually seen as an enemy of Al Queada during Saddam's rule, for their "perversion" of Shiira law. Third, this has nothing to do with US relations to China. The US (meaning the state) is not stuck on religious ideology, only some people within its border.

I hate multicultural ideologies in the US. It's all a game of legitimacy and cultural isolation. Culture and religions don't have to be isolated. If Muslims want to call a mortgage a strawberry, then that's their freedom. There's no reason to say that there is a dominant imposing culture over others.

__________________

A better example might be the principles contained in Sun Tsu's Art of War. There is a good case to be made that they are universal, and in fact even the US military studies this book as part of their training. But despite their universal applicability this classic is still commonly referred to as "Chinese."

Wow, okay. I'm not even sure how to start here.

Is this actually the case, or just what you personally would vote for?

And these individuals get the right to vote, no?

Did I say it did?

On the other hand, prove to me that liberal principles have anything to do with US relations with China. It seems to me that the driving force behind most aspect of US-China relations is periodic calls for protectionism - and these often have little to do even with liberal human rights issues.

Okay, and these people happen to have an ideology that is religious in nature.

Do you really think the US is as open to Chinese ideas (um, ideas that originated in China) as China is to Western ideas?

NAICE, very nice reply.
Now, just wait for an "Ex-Cathedrae-willy-waving" answer.
Cheers to you.

__________________
-Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Decimus Iunius Iuuenalis).
Murphy was a bleedin' optimist!

what is Ex-Cathedrae-willy-waving answer?

__________________
借我三千虎贲，复我浩荡中华! 汉旗指处，望尘逃遁！敢犯我中华天威者，虽远必诛!

Sun Zi is a realist perspective to international relations. It was a shared concept just as feudalism was across the world a long time ago. Does that prove a social axiom? Not really, outside conflict and security studies, realism has become much less relevant I'd argue since the 1920's.


Has there been a vote against Islam? If there's a legislation against practicing Islam in the US, then the supreme court would strike it down as being unconstitutional.

So you decided to lump this in a thread for US - Chinese relations for absolutely no reason.

The vast majority of relations between the two are trade. The US might call for protectionism because it alludes to its failing markets. But these failing markets are not the result of international trade with China. The US has a tradition of calling for autarkic policies whenever its economyis in decline, without realising that this only exacerbates their situation. Trade with China is mutually beneficial for the US and China. Further, the US opposes certain trades with China because the CCP puts up barriers to trade.

Ok......what's your point?

When China was a hegemony, more cultural aspects of China went into western philosophy, now because America is the hegemon, the opposite is true.
Plus I was arguing against the American's system of multiculturalism, so this question relates very little.

__________________

Hnnnnn! Maybe now i understand what is Ex-Cathedrae-willy-waving answer! LOL!
Just say a little, I think US culture influences China very much than China does to US, US's culture is more realistic, people are encouraged to get success by personal efforts, and i think American people are more creative and brave ( we used to be), but i don't like their politics, US gov always ask other developing countries to adopt US political system, US starts many wars. I think except politics, most chinese people like US than other countries. Politics should not be the barrier of people's communication and friendship.

__________________
借我三千虎贲，复我浩荡中华! 汉旗指处，望尘逃遁！敢犯我中华天威者，虽远必诛!

Bashing the bishop?

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

Really? Then which school of international relations would explain China's rise in the last couple of decades, as opposed to, say, India, a democracy? It certainly wouldn't be liberalism...though not necessarily Sun Zi's version of realism either. Actually, realism is a fairly nebulous term - even Kennan considered himself a realist. But bearing that in mind, I don't think realism is any less relevant than it ever was.



We went to war in Iraq based on little more than the fact that they were Islamic. We can do just about anything short of banning the religion without any threat of a legal challenge. Just because it happens in a peacemeal fashion doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist.



Cultural relations, not security relations.

The point...this is a religious conflict.

During that time period, did China achieve economic growth through privatization of most sectors? Did it open it's border to private firms world wide? Did it gradually accept neo-liberal policies regarding its economics? Is India not close second or third in terms of economic growth? Why wouldn't it be liberalism? Because China due to liberal economic policies grows faster than India with its democratic political system? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Now, did China achieve economic growth through military force? Did it become richer by waging war on its neighbors? Do businesses flock to China because of it's state's hard power? There's absolutely no way you can credit a realist approach to China's economical development. How can China grow when economic revenue is supposedly a relative gain? That too doesn't make any sense.
Realism is a very well defined political platform. You can have Neo-realism in the field of international security, but then again, not only does it not differ that much, it's not very related to what we were talking about.


Oil? Ideal of political stability in the region? Bush is an idiot? 9/11 scare?
Those had nothing to do with it, the US looked at all the "Islamic" countries in the world, by-passed Indonesia (eventhough it is the biggest "Islamic" country), decided to overthrow a secular regime in Iraq and established a Shi'ite based religious government. That does not make any sense either.

Still completely irrelevant to bring it up in this thread.

Again, not at all.

__________________