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."

Lootekukur - You miss the point completely. Prior to your last posting, I thought there might have been some substance to what you say and I am quite suprised to find you think the way you do. I don't want to bore everyone here with another lengthy explanation but my original comments to Sidster apply to you. All of the reasons why I think you are off the mark have also been explained in my previous responses. I see your observations as shallow and think your analysis is mostly empirical and doesn't seem to have a lot of data behind it.

Also, on a less important note, I have a quick comment about the following:

"that much of scrutiny and depth in your explanation was not needed here"

I have no desire to write in-depth commentary any more than you have to read it. It merely ties in to your next point "coz this is sajha and i expect a healthy debate scene".

There is a lot of look-outside-the-window type of arguments on this thread that use an individuals simple observations to draw vast conclusions. There is a process between observing something and determining the cause and effect of it. I just don't see very much of that happening here because simplistic observations about race are being made and people are frankly jumping to conclusions without looking at all angles of the issue and the facts and data behind the issue. As someone once said when you look outside the window, it appears the sun is going around the world but when you dig in deep and look at the facts and data, you find the answer is quite different.

Bidhan 40 - Thanks for posting that. Very interesting stuff. I am on the same planet as you.

This has been one of the best threads lately, not because of it's inclination to political issues but because it helps to understand the ongoing activities around us.

"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 would rather say favouritism.:)

This has been one of the excellent thread ever in sajha. I am glad that i was able bring this issue to some very good sajha think tanks. But my questions still remain unanswered. I see that some are in simple denial about the fact whites still dominating the world.

Some seem to agree that whites are on the top of the pyramid. But no one seems to explain how the ones who are on the bottom of the pyramid can get out of the pyramid and form their own pyramid. And why the ones in the bottome of the pyramid wont get themselves out of the pyramid and form their own pyramid. Like Arabs unite for the interests or Arabs only. Southasians unite for the interests for southasians and africans for ........and so on.

Last and not least. I believe in the growth of china. If they keep prospering like this, im sure they will beat US economy. But can they beat the white economy. I suspect that before china gets any closer to US, a stronger white alliance of US and Europe along wiht other " white slave states" will form a bigger economy to dominate the world again.


I am glad to hear that there are some who understood where i was coming from and not just label me for" white slave mentality". It was comforting to read Loote's view. Captain Haddock has some depth knowlege in social issues and human civilization. It is always fun to read his responses, although his responses answer my curiousity from some angles but its still not answer the big question.

Bidhan wrote:

"Another slave of whilte is loote"

thanks for keeping a judgmental opinion about me... i appreciate that. i also appreciate the attachments that you have put...yes no one is denying that china could well take over the world with their economic prosperity. while there are economists who believe that china will be next power station in 20-30 years, there are analysts who keep the views that probably it would be difficult for them to overcome the political seclusion which can/may hinder their prospect of becoming the "supermo".

another thing that you failed to comprehend is its not about how many asians work and publish papers for IEEE. surely there are more non-american or shall i say non-white students in gradauate level. BUT the fact is they go to universities in US and EU...do you know how many whites go to study in china or in india?

=============

Captain Haddock,

i am sorry if i sounded offending and naive in my last post...i tried to look upon "sidster's questions in particular" with my understanding and i don't claim that i assumed wearing a hat of intelligence while writing my views..i am a learner and i don't mind if someone says "you don't know" coz that opens another area for me to explore and learn and i love it..:)

my ideas were based upon my own experience and observation. i have not read a whole lot pertaining to human civilizations as you seem to have and let me tell you that although we may have digressed from the topic a bit, i loved reading your informative posts...so please be my guest :).

i was not concluding anything subtly in my last posts. as a matter of fact i started appending from where you left...

i don't agree either with what you claimed the premises of sidster's queries as "whites have a genetic predisposition to superior intelligence". i have clearly said that no one is superior or inferior in terms of genes they possess. i have just tried to project perspectives on whose bases whites (not as a race or civilization alone. don't take me otherwise when i say "whites"..it implies to westerners and citizens of developed nations with the likes of US and EU) are better off at status quo. there are no racial prejudices involved in my reply...

You wrote:

"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."

--that in my opinion is a weak assumption. if that was true, all successful and famous persons in nepal would be from kathmandu only because ktm have more and better opportunities than other cities.

"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"

--true that. that is exactly my point in the last post. invention and novel ideas alone do not make a country/civilization/race superior. they need to find their applications and exploit the idea--exactly what US and EU have been doing.

the bottom line is that almost all other countries apart from US and EU where whites don't reside as a majority have one or more internal problems, which are screwing them up big time from being competitive enough for being a supermo. if india was better off than US, then chances were brown people would dominate. but thanks to their own problems of population, slavery, slum and poverty.

i don't deny that this dominance of whites may change or shift over time but at the moment they are pretty much dominant.

LooTe

USA needs to think deeply and seriousely. The way they are adopting policies, I can see it going downhill. Mr. Geroge Bush is the most incompetent leader USA has ever produced. Who knows Nothing. Just bullying won't work.

thats funny. what new policies has US adopted.
USA needs to think deeply and serioulsy, great..and what other country doesnt have to think deeply and seriously

Sidster,

yes, one of the best threads ever at least during my stay here so far...

"Some seem to agree that whites are on the top of the pyramid. But no one seems to explain how the ones who are on the bottom of the pyramid can get out of the pyramid and form their own pyramid. And why the ones in the bottome of the pyramid wont get themselves out of the pyramid and form their own pyramid. Like Arabs unite for the interests or Arabs only. Southasians unite for the interests for southasians and africans for ........and so on. "

--well, only if countries and the cvilization of their citizens residing at the bottom of the pyramids have less internal problems to deal with...

arabs have so much resources yet fail to dictate terms to US. Why? because they are engrossed in their own religious issues and wars for land and territories. thanks to some islamic rhetorics they have been living with and fighting for years now.

US and EU on the other hand have minor internal problems which are trivial in world context. they are at the top and hence can manipulate happenings in middle east and other parts of the world. capitalism and full-fledged democracy have been their biggest assets.

LooTe

and thus my argument is " internal issue resulted due to inferior mentality by inferior race" why the whites dont have internal issues and only the non whites do? then u may reply " every nation goes thru that cycle" then my question to those who has that answer is why are the non whites so behind in so called social cycle. Why doest it seem like whites have already figured out the mess but the non whites havent?

well. you are saying as if all the whites are dominating the world.

who is the biggest economy in the world. US

who is the second biggest economy in the world. japan

in US the population alone is 270 millions so if you add the income of all those people it natrually become rich.just imagine. if japan happen to be size and population of US how rich it would have been.

and if you think all european coutries are very rich then i have nothing to say.some of these coutries are poorer than church mouse. By joining the EU coutries like France, Germany and britain has to suffer most and many people argue that there is only loss to this countries after joining the EU because these coutries have to provide greater share.

The fact that militarily powerful country like china doesnot poke its nose in the world event and wars doesnot mean they are not strong. US and Britain wants to be in the news all the time. countries like china, japan take more laidback approach. The fact that china can say shut up to US throwing all diplomacy out of the window means where they are heading.

and i still believe that the explanation of sidster and loote are more slave attitude than anything else. Another fact that USA had to spy in the chinese territory also says how much US is worried about china.

its not a new news when china says shut up to US...everytime when it comes to human rights and taiwan ,china has been saying mind your own businuess to america..

looks like we are heading to nowhere despite 100+ posts..

sid,

i believe what haddock said is correct. if there was some "shrestha" in place of faraday, probably he would do the same (well...almost )what michael faraday did. its the opportunity and enviroment you are bestowed with that matters. but you cannot take anything away from michael for his discovery. it takes a lot from a person to contribute to the human civilization that too in that magnitude.

one thing that should be understood is US have the oldest and most refined form of democracy. no other countries have that much luxury of freedom that US have. that makes a huge difference. and probably that took them ahead from most others. its good that they have conducive envionments for progress but their success should be attributed to their discipline, shrewdness and responsible approach. Yes, opportunities were created in west first so they were lucky in that sense, but you got to cash them. whites did. full marks to them!

i don't mind if somebody comes up here and tag my views as "slave attitude" . but it will take years for china to overcome US. let's imagine whites lining up in front of chinese embassy for visa to work in US. unless china develops democratic environment where they CAN welcome immigrants to serve their country as their own, that's not gonna happen. forget the economic prosperity they have.

Lote,

I understand it would not go anywhere. We just keep expressing what we strongly belief in with different angle but no parties are able to solve the whole question.

A great disucssion going on here. Although I don't claim to be an expert on Chinese strategic or other policies, nor claim that I know about the things being discussed, I couldn't resist sharing my views on the topic. Since I only read the original posting and some of some sensible posters' comments here and there, I am only posting my comments on the original post.

--

You have to understand the reason that led to the diplomat's outburst. Taiwan is a sensetive issue in China and the Chinese governmnet takes this issue very seriously. For the Chinese governmnet and the Chinese people, Taiwan was, and is, a province of China. Any country that directly or indirectly supports Taiwan's independence is obviously not seen favorably by the 1.3 billion people.

American stance on Taiwan raises a lot of suspicion in China, and for obvious reasons. First and foremost is the cold war ear Taiwan Relations Act. This act is in stark contrast to the Shanghai Communique of 1972. On the one hand, America has opposed the Taiwanese rulers' particlaury of that of Chen Suibian's drive towards independence, however, on the other hand, its not leting Taiwan and the Mainland unite by supplying high-tech weapons to Taiwan and by enmeshing the Taiwan issue with the US-Japan security pact.

Iin this context, the Chinese reaction is to buy arms and moderenize its military is only natural. Although the possibility and probability of America and China going to war over Taiwan or Taiwan declaring independence and America endorsing it are next to none, nonetheless both nations involved (and Japan) have to be on guard for any hyothetical scenario turning into reality.

What is ommitted in that article is why the Chinese people take Taiwan so seriously. More than any other issues, the issue of territorial integrity dominates the entire Chinese population's view on Taiwan. From 1840 to 1945, China was weak and lost its territories to the imperialist European powers and then to the highly racially- nationalist and imperialist Japan. The sense of national humiliation these imperial misadventures instilled in the Chinese mind is yet to be fully erased. One can say, the republican movement of 1911, the nationalist movement of 1919 and the success of Chinese revolution in 1949 had, among other reasons, terretorial integrity and strengthening of China (qiang guo meng) as their main aims. Now that Hong Kong and Macau have returned to China, the Chinese people aspire to get Taiwan back so that the national unification that started from 1920s under Chiang kai-Shek (historical irony?) can be realized. Now when the Chinese economy is booming and China is rising up and taking its "right place in the family of nations," it is inconceviable (sp?) that China and the Chinese people letting America or any other country thwart their national and natural aspiration of unification.


OK this much for now.