Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

LONDON AFP 17/08/2006 17:50


China's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, throwing diplomatic language to the wind, has told the United States in no uncertain terms to "shut up and keep quiet" on the subject of Beijing's growing military spending.

Interviewed for a BBC radio programme on the topic Thursday, Sha Zukang also said China would "do the business" and sacrifice its own people's lives if any nation supported a declaration of independence by Taiwan.

Responding to jitters within the Bush administration about Beijing's spiraling military budget, Sha said the United States itself accounts for half of the entire world's military spending.

"The China population is six times or five times that of the United States," he said. "Why blame China?... It's better for the US to shut up and keep quiet. It's much, much better."

His voice rising, Sha continued: "It's the US's sovereign right to do whatever they deem good for them -- but don't tell us what is good for China. Thank you very much!"

Sha was equally explicit on Taiwan declaring independence with US backing -- a prospect that the BBC programme, by former Beijing correspondent Carrie Gracie, called the motivating factor behind Chinese military spending.

"The moment Taiwan declares independence, supported by whoever, China will have no choice," he said.

"We will do the business through whatever means available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on that. We will do the business at any cost."

He added: "It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that."

China's rising military spending, which has grown by double digits for much of the last 15 years, has caused concern in the United States and amongst China's neighbors in Asia.

In March the National People's Congress (parliament), largely a rubber-stamp for decisions taken at the top level of the Chinese Communist Party, approved a 14.7-percent increase in military spending to 35 billion dollars (27 billion euros) this year.

Although this is paltry compared to the 419 billion dollar (325 billion euro) US defense budget in 2006, the Pentagon last year estimated that China's defense spending was two to three times the publicly announced figure.

In a speech in Beijing in July, Defence Minister Cao Gangchuan said modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) remained a priority, the China News Service reported.

"The entire military must eye the historic destiny of China's military in the new century and new era and push forward the main line of a Chinese-style revolution in military affairs," he was quoted as saying.

He added: "We must unswervingly fulfill our sacred duty to defend state sovereignty, territorial integrity and security and never tolerate Taiwan independence and never permit Taiwan independence forces under any name or under any circumstances or form to split Taiwan from the motherland."

Very soon there won't be any whites left in this world. There is already decrease in their numbers. With Caucasian gene not being the strongest and increase of inter racial marriage, they will one day be all brown.
So sidster you theory of white dominance over all other people will fail.

Pasu,
I agree with ur point. If interacial marriages flourishes just like this. May be in next 400 - 600 years there wont be any races left that are around rt now.

What is so great about China saying shut-up, if this is true?

China is the country which is changing the culture of Tibet. It has forcefully occupied Tibet for more than 55 years!

DO YOU KNOW THAT MORE THAN 1,000,000 ABORTIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED ON TIBETAN WOMEN? THAT THEIR FOETUSES ARE THROWN FOR PIGS/DOGS/CATS/CROWS TO EAT ON STREETS????????????????
if you do not believe this then check out from some respectful websites.

Why are we so obsessed by hating USA? Is this the sort of culture we like; whereby we like China shouting at USA?

VERY VERY SAD FORFOR US HERE IF WE ARE HAPPY WITH China putting down USA. The fact is USA is a democracy and China is a dictatorship!!!!! ARE WE TRYING TO SAY HERE TO REST OF THE WORLD THAT WE LIKE DICTATORSHIPS, LACK OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FORCEFUL ABORTIONS, FORCEFUL OCCUPATION OF LANDS, BULLYING TACTICS.....?

WHAT A SAD BLOG THIS IS IF WE ENCOURAGE IT.

Sidster - Where do I even begin? My first reaction, well, really my fourth or fifth, because the first few would not add to the substance of this debate was I haven't come across so much flawed reasoning in a long time. I am honestly disturbed to see that you actually believe the stuff you have written. In my opinion, such view points have no place in the information age because they reflect complete ignorance about what makes societies rich and poor (and thus create the illusion of 'smart' and 'dumb' people or races )

This is too vast a subject to be dealt with end-to-end on a forum like Sajha and so I will focus on what I think is the core substance of this argument. The very premises of your argument seems to be whites have a genetic predisposition to superior intelligence. In all of the seven questions asked there is the the underlying presumption that success, as defined and measured by a debatable criteria, is somehow related to in-born intelligence of a race or ethnicity. Faraday being caucasian had nothing to do with his discovery/invention of modern electric technology. Anyone who grew up with the opportunities Faraday got is as likely to have done the same. Unfortunately, such opportunities did not exist outside of the Western world 200 years ago.(If you want to know why read the next paragraph). Hence the lopsided advantage of the West in science and engineering over the last few centuries. That has changed today. The inventors of the future are as likely to be located in Bangkok or Beijing as Boston or Brussels. And by definition, they will be inventing new things, and new technologies of the future. Should we then extend the logic and consider "yellow" people to be more superior in about 20 years?

Why a country or civilization (or even a race for that matter) is better of and more powerful than the other has more to do with their use of technology, weaponry and geographic happenstance, to borrow the idea from Jared Diamond. Gun powder was invented in China but was weaponized on a large scale by the West. So by your argument isn't the inventor of gunpowder (from a "yellow" race) superior to the inventor of the gun? Mining iron and other metals to make tools was supposedly invented in the Middle East but cars were made out of them only in the West. It must have been a revolutionary idea at that time to use something extracted from the soil to dig fields and build armies. If you think the invention of the zero, as someone pointed out earlier, is not "outside the circle", you are plain wrong. It is one of the most radical ideas both in it's times and today. It is as critical, if not more, than other discoveries and inventions listed here. So does that, by extension, make the "brown man" a bit more superior?

I could go on, but the sheer absurdity of it all leaves me to think you are using simplistic observations and analysis to draw complex conclusions. That, in my opinion, is indicative of a very shallow understanding of why things work the way they do.

Captain said" The very premises of your argument seems to be whites have a genetic predisposition to superior intelligence" thank u for summerizing my argument in a simple one sentence. I like the way u write. U are a good writer.That is why i was waiting for ur response.

But i believe my argument not just for scientific discoveries but for other reasons as such,

1. Why isnt life so chaotic for whites. I mean no wars, poverty, and supression.

2. Why are whites always united when it comes to their common interests.

3. Why dont non whites unite and resist the whites. Why are they outplayed by the whites? I the Arabs. Why cant they unite and dictate policies for the interest of own ppl and not westerners dictate policies for them? Why do Arabs let whites divide, use, abuse, and exploit them when all they need to do is unite and think for the best for Arab kinds? Similarly goes with south Asians and Mongols.


u said
"Faraday being caucasian had nothing to do with his discovery/invention of modern electric technology. Anyone who grew up with the opportunities Faraday got is as likely to have done the same. Unfortunately, such opportunities did not exist outside of the Western world 200 years ago"

U gave me answers within the circle. Things that i already know. Better oppurtunity leading to better creation but I want to know how and why were those oppurtunites created? who created those oppurtunities? why werent those oppurtunities created in non white world? i need some one to answer the bigger questions.

Sidster - Thank for your kind words about me. I don't deserve if but it was nice of you to say it.

I mean no offense, but I have to say the lens through which you are looking at the world ("white" versus non-white) is the wrong one and cannot be an objective basis for comparison for some of the things you talk about. I am starting to cringe every time you use the word "white", because besides being factually incorrect about the actual color of the skin, it reflects a very simplistic outlook of the world that is far detached from reality.

Who says "whites" are "united in their common interest"? Where? How? And what exactly is that common interest? The West is also allied with Japan which isn't white. It's economic interest and the balance of power amongst *NATIONS* and not races that is determining common interests and alliances. Same goes for US and India. The two are getting closer and closer not because of the common ground "whites" and "browns" can find but because of common interests between countries. The global system today is driven by the need for all to make money and not the need for one race to dominate another. That got over in 1945 when Hitler shot himself after his theory, very similar to yours, failed miserably in practice.

The argument that there isn't poverty or war amongst countries with large "white" populations has nothing to do with racial superiority. Corelation does not mean cause. War, poverty, opression are normally a function of the age of a nation and all countries have to go through them till they reach an internal equilibrium. The US went through it (civil war, slavery, poverty, colonialism), the British went through their own stretches of poverty and power grabs through execution (remember Mary, Queen of Scotts?). Countries in Asia and Africa that face these problems today are going through a natural cycle of nation building. They too will get over it - some sooner than others - but eventually everyone is bound to break this cycle.

And "whites" do resists others of their own race. Dude, I am not sure what type of Caucasians you have run into, but I think your observation is totally wrong. I see it all the time both at the individual level and the collective level. The Soviet Union that resisted the US for 70 years was hardly a black- majority state.

"U gave me answers within the circle. Things that i already know. Better oppurtunity leading to better creation but I want to know how and why were those oppurtunites created? who created those oppurtunities? why werent those oppurtunities created in non white world?"

I am trying to find the right words to answer this question because I don't want to sound harsh, especially after your kind words. But, again no offense, the way I honestly feel about this is either you were sleeping through school and college or you are being lazy and not going out there and checking the proven facts about this issue and you expect me to do your homework for you on this subject.

I am gritting my teeth as I say this but the answer to " I want to know how and why were those opportunites created? who created those oppurtunities? " is three fold, like I said earlier quoting Jared Diamond. It is (1) the use of technology, (2) use of weapons and (3) geographic happenstance that allowed these opportunites to be created. And none of this has anything to do with racial superiority. But it has everything to do with necessity. In as simple words as I can put it, inventions have happened when there has been a need for it, and often times the people who needed something the most, invented it. If you are interested in more specifics (like why did some people feel the need and not others at a particular time), I would recommend you catch up on some reading. I would recommend the following:

(1) Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond. Also check this link : - http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.2/mcneill.html

(2)Collapse - How Societies Fail and succeed. Jared Diamond

(3) The Clash of Civilizations . Samuel Huntington. While he talks of the clash of civilization, he indirectly bolsters the argument that there are competitive civilizations around the world capable to going shoulder to shoulder with one another.

Sidster - Add disease to the causes of power imbalance. More details can be found in the book about why and how.

I felt that Jared Diamond's book had some flaws. One premise of his book (I'm not talking about collapse of civilization, which I haven't read, but rather guns, germs and steel) is that Whites got a headstart in terms of technology because of their location. That is, they could absorb technology from the Middle East, which was where the first civilizations were created. Okay, this just begs the question, why aren't middle easterners the ones in power today, since they were the ones who actually created civilization, and hence got a headstart in terms of technology--yes, even before Europeans. The Middle East had the same germs that Europe did, and they were the ones who probably gave Europe the plague. I know it came from Asia. Furthermore, why did they not go on a navigational adventure like did Europeans? So I think the answer doesn't lie in simple concepts like guns, germs and steel. It lies in European history and what they went through. And I am talking about
1. The renaissance, which resulted in Europe's renewed interest in Classical Literature and humanism.
2. Lutheran revolution. This of course resulted in separation of church and state
3. French revolution. Aka democracy and all its perks
4. Enlightenment

The best book I would say is "From dawn to decadence". It is an 800-page tome. Pretty thick book. The answer is in the history books. Sure, guns, germs and steel did play a part, but I think the real answer is that Europe transcended all other cultures due to what they went through. Was it really a headstart in technology that made Europe(and America) the powerhouse it is today, or was it actually the environment that was more conducive to intellectual development. The answer is the latter, I believe. Now one wonders why some people started questioning the powers-that-be in Europe, but this phenomenon did not occur anywhere else? Perhaps the fundamental reason really is that technology allowed them to well..loiter around and think. Then again, one wonders why this did not occur in the Middle East. Circular logic. If I am correct, the book doesn't really explain why the Middle East is not as developed as Europe.

But let's not talk about Clash of Civilizations. That is a racist book, my friend.

Very intersting, humanitarian. I am with you in that it doesn't explain everything. In fact, no one theory does. There are several answers to be found to questions like these and these answers are all over the place like you pointed.

About the clash of civilizations, I quite liked that book not because he carved the world into civilizations and implied a power struggle between cultures, which I think has some merit to it, but because to me the book ends up proving that people across the world are capable of challening the current powers and there is a good chance, by Huntington's own admisssion, that these challenging powers could someday prevail over the existing ones.

Good argument Captain. I wish things were the way u portray it but its not. I wish things were other way around. But i will be hopefull along with ur arguments.

And yea....u can still be nice and explain even if ur presumption of me skipping classes were true. I will read the articles tomorrow. Dont think that i was trying to upset anyone here. I admire ur writing and enjoyed ur arguments.

Humanitarian,

Kudos for ur argument as well. I think i have this big question and no one really seems to understand it and i am able to ask the question in an understanding as well. I know the question but just dont know how to question it. Everytime i question it, the question makes me sound like a half learned philosopher. I Guess, like Human said it is a circle and i want the circle to break and be non whites at the top of the string. but i also know, against all my desire nature will still select who it wants at the top.

Haddock, are you familiar with Amartya Sen? He is a nobel-peace prize winning economist of Indian origin, who really seem to have some sort of grudge against Samuel Huntington. The premise of Amartya Sen's book is that an individual is shaped by many things around him. Religion is one of these things. However, there are other things that shape a human being. Is he pro abortion? Is he a liberal or a conservative? Is he an atheist? What Amartya Sen is saying is that religion, which Samuel Huntington emphasizes is just one thing that shapes an individual. Religion/culturte may not necessarily be what an individual may emphasize. For example, his economic background may be more important to him than anything else. As you know, Samuel Huntington's book is considered racist by many people. David Duke is a big fan of his.

i am able to = i am not able to

Yes, I am familiar with Sen. There is merit to what Sen says and there is merit to what Huntington has said. I am not an absolutist - I don't believe any one theory on this subject is entirely right or entirely wrong. Also, what David Duke things of Huntington does not influence what I think of Huntington. I judge him by his work and I dont agree with him on everything. But I read that book and while I dont agree with every sentence and observation he makes, like I said before, he indirectly seems to give credence to the fact that all major civilizations are capable to. That's my take away from the book. And I think it's a fair one.

I meant all major civilizations are capable of over powering others under the right set of circumstance.

interesting twist this thread has made...and i nearly missed it hehe....

sidster,
the questions you have posed are not childish to me at least...they expect quite a lot honesty from the one who tries to answer them...i will try to be honest here. i might be totally wrong though so correct me if i happen to be...

haddock,
kudos to you for your replies. you seem to be quite versed in human civilization...but believe me, that much of scrutiny and depth in your explanation was not needed here and i have this feeling that somewhere down the line you have missed the gist of the queries sidster have put forth. no offence but i believe that there are some hard and bitter facts behind it which may sound offending to many. i might be wrong but nonetheless i am bringing it here coz this is sajha and i expect a healthy debate scene. objections are welcome.

okay,
let's not go by what should be in the paper. let's face the hard reality-- whites have been dominating the world.

if we delve into history of civilizations, there is nothing much to really choose one particular civilization and term it as inherently "supreme" to others. as haddock pointed out, even US and whites had to go through wars, slavery and colonialism. almost all civilizations have gone through almost similar learning curves for development. some have sprouted and developed faster than the other.

inventions have indeed come from china and asia as well, they too have scientists and technologies but they have been exploited big time by westerners for their own benefits to a great extent. call them cunning or shrewd/smart, they know how to exploit people and their ideas.

if we look at IT field alone, there are probably more number of smart people in india and "indian subcontinents" (hate this terminology but that's how we define other south asian countries close to india) or china for that matter but why is microsoft in US and bill gate an american? why can't japan be the hub for software development?

there could be potentially better astronauts in other parts of the world, but why is NASA in US? why is the CEO of world bank an australian? why can't a ghanaian or a trinidadian be?

i don't know which civilzation started when in exact date, but at status quo, whites are upfront, let's admit. on top of that, they don't have too many internal problems to deal with at the moment. china have one of the best economies but they are politically secluded. india have second best economy but they have poverty, slums, slavery and unemployment to deal with and appease the gargantuan population they have. african countries have their own problems. its been hardly 15 years since south africa got a global recognition. and there is malnutrition as a major problem in most of the african countries. middle east are into religious wars and differences over land for years now, we all know that. amidst this environment, how can they prosper?

who are better off?-- US and EU where majority of whites reside. hence, they can afford to dictate terms to other countries and races.

Results--brain drain and exploitation.

US and whites may not have sound technical aptitude as indians or chinese have, but they have very good management skill. it should be understood that entrepreneurship prosper society and the nation as a whole. you got to have people working for you rather than you working for others to prosper and reach the pinnacle. whites, so far, have been able to do that. they have good brains from all over the world to work for them. microsoft is a prime example in this context.

another important point i would like to put is--"skin color does speak!" why not there are as many black CEO's as white? why blacks are suppressed.-->discrimination!

another aspect is human nature. let's say, i happen to be a CEO of a reputed institution and i have to recruit a manager for a section. i would call for application and eventually i have to choose between two equally capable candidates-one is white and another is a brown nepali from my town. i would most definitely go for nepali. its a human nature. discrimination is in human blood to some extent. its inevitable in that sense.

i can go on and on in this topic but i am too tired at the moment. sid, haddock and others feel free to argue with me...i welcome your insights. let's learn...this is a good thread and i am enjoying your inputs and queries.

g'nite..phew! hehe

LooTe

I dont know why loote gives good argument and completely spoils with one or two stupid resoning.Another slave of whilte is loote.

You only have to know the GDP of china and USA . In last 25 years China GDP is over 8% where as USA is 3%.. Now china GDP is well over 13%. You can say mirosoft is USA and they are exploiting chinese. I dont know if US is exploiting china because with the current GDP rate china will overtake US economy by 2020. All knows sooner or later USA will succumb to terrorism because you cannot gain new enemies everyday and still survive. Terrorism will be main downfall of US economy.

If you do a research in any technical field just go though either IEEE or IEE journals their you will find out how much chinese people have carried out research. I have been carrying out research myself and almost 50% of the journals i took had some chinese names in them.Thousands of them work for US (in your word exploitation) but dont forget chuck of them (may be millions of them) still reside in china. I have been studying with almost 40 chinese students and about 2/3 of them want to go back home because they are contracted by companies.

.

.

so it seems china will overtake US in next 30-40 years. No wonder US is worried and needs spying on chinese territory which was brought down by chinese intelligence.