Hu claims China "not seeking dominance"

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12246161

Hu says China not seeking arms race or domination

2011/01/20 14:45 ET

President Hu said China does not seek "hegemony" or to pursue an expansionist policy

Chinese President Hu Jintao has said China has no interest in pursuing an arms race or exerting military dominance over other nations.

"We do not engage in arms races or pose a military threat to any country," the Chinese leader said in a speech to US business leaders.

Mr Hu called for US co-operation on economic and security issues.

On the third day of his US state visit Mr Hu met leading US politicians and was quizzed on a number of issues.

"China will never seek hegemony or pursue an expansionist policy," Mr Hu said during a speech at a lunch with senior US officials and business leaders.

"We will remain committed to the path of peaceful development," he added.

The Chinese leader said the US and China relationship had historically enjoyed a "smooth and steady growth" when the two nations considered each other's interests.

Criticism from Congress

Earlier on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner, a leading Republican, said he raised the need for tougher intellectual property protections and improved human rights at a meeting with Mr Hu on Capitol Hill.

In a statement, Mr Boehner said he also raised concerns about "curtailing the aggressive behaviour of North Korea".

Congressional lawmakers have also been critical of China's currency, the yuan, saying it is kept low to aid China's exporters.

The Chinese president held separate talks with Mr Boehner and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader.

Both Mr Boehner and Mr Reid turned down invitations to Wednesday's White House state dinner for Mr Hu, with Mr Reid going so far as to call Mr Hu "a dictator" in an interview with KSNV television, before retracting the remark.

Mr Hu said on Wednesday that China still needed to do "a lot" over human rights, following a meeting at the White House with US President Barack Obama.

Mr Hu and President Obama, who said the yuan's value must be driven by the market, also said they would co-operate on that dispute.

Following their talks, the president announced business deals with China that he said would create thousands of jobs inside the US.

Translation of Hu's statement, "we already have dominance in Asia, and none there can arm as fast as us". 0bama's statement is (as with his announcements during visits to India and South Korea) another attempt to package pre-existing deals (all of them already in-pipeline, and awaiting only goods-delivery/payment).

[^_^ 5,021]

Hu?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Hu?

Hu Jingtao, as in China's current communist despot.

[^_^ 5,021]

Hu Jingtao, as in China's current communist despot.

Hu?

[daboyz 36]

"Hu Columbus says China Europe not seeking arms race or domination"

Said the white man to the Indian.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They don't need to. They already are the economic powerhouse of the world. Thank you, Walmart shoppers.

Edited January 20, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Darnell 8,478]

Waiting for the IP Theft 'discussion' to pop up - he's 2 more days, la.

[alienlovechild 75]

They don't need to. They already are the economic powerhouse of the world. Thank you, Walmart shoppers.

So the Chinese are building aircraft carriers to protect WalMart conveys.

Countries near China are busy buying more weapons for a reason.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the Chinese are building aircraft carriers to protect WalMart conveys.

Countries near China are busy buying more weapons for a reason.

Every superpower likes to flex its muscles. Not every superpower goes invading other countries, however.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

So the Chinese are building aircraft carriers to protect WalMart conveys.

Countries near China are busy buying more weapons for a reason.

Yes, as China actually showed in Tibet (which was independent 1920-1950) which it invaded and demographically modified, Aksai-Chin/Arunachal (which it invaded in 1962, occupying Aksai Chin since then), and Vietnam (which it UNSUCCESSFULLY invaded in 1979).

But ALL of the concerned Asian countries together (India, Philippines, Japan, Australia) have lower defence-spending than China (and even if they equalled it, they wouldn't be able to match Chinese buildup in quantity).

Every superpower likes to flex its muscles. Not every superpower goes invading other countries, however.

While you were probably aiming this at the US, a little factoid: China has done THREE outright invasions since 1950 (and quite a few more incursions into Arunachal Pradesh).

[^_^ 5,021]

Any reason you threw Australia into that list? The Aussies have more or less accepted Chinese suzerainty.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While you were probably aiming this at the US, a little factoid: China has done THREE outright invasions since 1950 (and quite a few more incursions into Arunachal Pradesh).

Actually, I was thinking of Nazi Germany since Communist China has often been regarded throughout history is the next great threat.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Any reason you threw Australia into that list? The Aussies have more or less accepted Chinese suzerainty.

That was true of Rudd-but is NOT true of incumbent Julia Gillard.

[Azzudiin 26]

Yes, as China actually showed in Tibet (which was independent 1920-1950) which it invaded and demographically modified, Aksai-Chin/Arunachal (which it invaded in 1962, occupying Aksai Chin since then), and Vietnam (which it UNSUCCESSFULLY invaded in 1979).

But ALL of the concerned Asian countries together (India, Philippines, Japan, Australia) have lower defence-spending than China (and even if they equalled it, they wouldn't be able to match Chinese buildup in quantity).

While you were probably aiming this at the US, a little factoid: China has done THREE outright invasions since 1950 (and quite a few more incursions into Arunachal Pradesh).

Tibet was not indpendent 1920-1950. China has had soveignrty over Tibet since 1279. In 1950 they stopped Tibet from leaving Chinese rule. Much the same as we stopped the south during the Civil war. Tibet and Taiwan both are internal disputes that are none of our business, much the same as many other countries that want to stop segments of their country seeking to form a new country.

[^_^ 5,021]

Don’t Know Much About Tibetan History

By ELLIOT SPERLING

Published: April 13, 2008

FOR many Tibetans, the case for the historical independence of their land is unequivocal. They assert that Tibet has always been and by rights now ought to be an independent country. China’s assertions are equally unequivocal: Tibet became a part of China during Mongol rule and its status as a part of China has never changed. Both of these assertions are at odds with Tibet’s history.

The Tibetan view holds that Tibet was never subject to foreign rule after it emerged in the mid-seventh century as a dynamic power holding sway over an Inner Asian empire. These Tibetans say the appearance of subjugation to the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th and 14th centuries, and to the Manchu rulers of China’s Qing Dynasty from the 18th century until the 20th century, is due to a modern, largely Western misunderstanding of the personal relations among the Yuan and Qing emperors and the pre-eminent lamas of Tibet. In this view, the lamas simply served as spiritual mentors to the emperors, with no compromise of Tibet’s independent status.

In China’s view, the Western misunderstandings are about the nature of China: Western critics don’t understand that China has a history of thousands of years as a unified multinational state; all of its nationalities are Chinese. The Mongols, who entered China as conquerers, are claimed as Chinese, and their subjugation of Tibet is claimed as a Chinese subjugation.

Here are the facts. The claim that Tibet entertained only personal relations with China at the leadership level is easily rebutted. Administrative records and dynastic histories outline the governing structures of Mongol and Manchu rule. These make it clear that Tibet was subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers. Tibet was not independent during these two periods. One of the Tibetan cabinet ministers summoned to Beijing at the end of the 18th century describes himself unambiguously in his memoirs as a subject of the Manchu emperor.

But although Tibet did submit to the Mongol and Manchu Empires, neither attached Tibet to China. The same documentary record that shows Tibetan subjugation to the Mongols and Manchus also shows that China’s intervening Ming Dynasty (which ruled from 1368 to 1644) had no control over Tibet. This is problematic, given China’s insistence that Chinese sovereignty was exercised in an unbroken line from the 13th century onward.

The idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction. In the early part of the 20th century, Chinese writers generally dated the annexation of Tibet to the 18th century. They described Tibet’s status under the Qing with a term that designates a “feudal dependency,” not an integral part of a country. And that’s because Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet became independent once more.

From 1912 until the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, no Chinese government exercised control over what is today China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama’s government alone ruled the land until 1951.

Marxist China adopted the linguistic sleight of hand that asserts it has always been a unitary multinational country, not the hub of empires. There is now firm insistence that “Han,” actually one of several ethnonyms for “Chinese,” refers to only one of the Chinese nationalities. This was a conscious decision of those who constructed 20th-century Chinese identity. (It stands in contrast to the Russian decision to use a political term, “Soviet,” for the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)

There is something less to the arguments of both sides, but the argument on the Chinese side is weaker. Tibet was not “Chinese” until Mao Zedong’s armies marched in and made it so.

Elliot Sperling is the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies.