• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

China warns US pushing to brink of a new Cold War

Should we view China as a friend or an enemy of the United States?

  • Friend

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Enemy

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Neither

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
China warns US pushing relations to 'brink of new Cold War'

The United States is pushing relations with China to "the brink of a new Cold War", China's foreign minister said Sunday, rejecting Washington's "lies" over the coronavirus while saying Beijing was open to an international effort to find its source.

Keeping up the worsening war of words with Washington over the pandemic and a Beijing move to tighten control over Hong Kong, Wang Yi said the United States had been infected by a "political virus" compelling figures there to continually attack China.

"It has come to our attention that some political forces in the US are taking China-US relations hostage and pushing our two countries to the brink of a new Cold War," Wang told reporters during a press conference at China's week-long annual parliamentary session.

Longstanding friction between the two powers over trade, human rights and a range of other issues have been pushed to new heights since the virus outbreak.

The foreign minister said that the US was "stigmatizing China" and said they will cooperate with the international scientific community to investigate the source of the virus.

"I call on the US to stop wasting time and stop wasting precious lives," Wang said.

He said China was "open" to international scientific cooperation to identify the source of the novel coronavirus, but stressed that any investigation must be "free of political interference", based on science and led by the World Health Organization.

The WHO has called on Beijing to invite the UN body in to investigate the source, but Wang did not indicate if foreign scientists would be invited to come to China.

- 'Stigmatising China' -

"Some political figures in the US rush to label the virus and politicise its origins, stigmatising China," Wang said, adding that an investigation must "oppose any presumption of guilt".

He also mentioned a "political virus" in the US.

"Aside from the devastation caused by the novel coronavirus, there is also a political virus spreading through the US," he said.

"This political virus is the use of every opportunity to attack and smear China. Some politicians completely disregard basic facts and have fabricated too many lies targeting China, and plotted too many conspiracies."

Has the US view on China changed as a result of this?

I'll admit that, personally, I supported better relations with China during the Cold War. We took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rift, and formed a temporary alliance of convenience against a common adversary. Since that time, China has ostensibly become more open and capitalistic. US political and business leaders were very much in favor with opening up more trade ties with China, and there was a lot more travel between the countries. It appeared that with greater contact, commerce, cultural exchange, and interaction, we were forming stronger bonds with China and developing a friendship.

But there were some people I had known throughout my life who were still mistrustful of China. They still saw them in Cold War terms, and remnants of that overall mindset never really went away. Now, there are those who seem to want to stoke that mindset again.

I'm not entirely sure how they view the US, whether they're just judging us by Trump or if they think a new wave of Cold Warriors is coming about in the US.

Have your views on China changed over the past 10, 20, or 30 years? For those who might still remember the Cold War, do you still see China in the same way as they were under Mao? Should we view China as an enemy or a friend? Or neither?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Subtracting Trump, China is a frenemy. They're an unfair competitor and a rival for power and influence. They rig their system to take advantage of our trade openness.

But we've also worked with them on some issues so they're not totally a rival.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
China should be considered a competitor. In fact all countries should be considered competitor until they attack us. An enemy attacks you and tries to destroy you. Russia and some of the Mediterranean countries fit the enemy description better.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Ugh...none of this bodes well for my happy part of the world.
Australia's primary strategic ally is the USA. Australia's primary trading partner is...China.

*shudders*
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
'Bad for China': US threatens to impose sanctions on country over Hong Kong crackdown

The Trump administration warned China that it would likely face sanctions if it imposes its new so-called national security law designed to limit freedoms in Hong Kong and assert Chinese Communist Party dominance over the city.

Robert O’Brien, President Trump’s national security adviser, warned during Sunday interviews with NBC’s Meet The Press and CBS’s Face The Nation that the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to crush protesters and impose its will over Hong Kong, a former British colony with semi-autonomous status, violated an international treaty it made with the United Kingdom. He said these moves by China would likely result in Hong Kong losing its special trading status with the United States and in the U.S. punishing China with sanctions.

“This is really a choice for the Chinese Communist Party. And they made a commitment in 1984 in the Sino-British Declaration that Hong Kong would maintain autonomy through 2047. And 27 years earlier with this national security law, it looks like they’re violating that agreement, which is filed as a treaty with the United Nations,” O’Brien told Margaret Brennan of CBS.

Chris Patten, the final British governor of Hong Kong, called out China over the weekend.

“We should make it clear to the Chinese that this is outrageous. ... We should talk to our allies, our friends around the world, all of whom have a stake in two things,” he told BBC News.

“First of all, the continuance of Hong Kong as a great international city in Asia. And secondly, in whether or not China can be trusted to keep its word," he continued. "Now, there are all too many examples of that not being the case, the way it’s actually used the preoccupation which everybody rightly has with fighting this awful epidemic — they’ve used that preoccupation to bully and harass in other areas, and one of them is in Hong Kong.”

If they take full control of Hong Kong and see increased global sanctions as a result, then their economy will take a hit. Could the takeover of Hong Kong cause the protests to spread into other cities and other areas of China?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Subtracting Trump, China is a frenemy. They're an unfair competitor and a rival for power and influence. They rig their system to take advantage of our trade openness.

But we've also worked with them on some issues so they're not totally a rival.
That sounds like they're engaging in the exact same behavior the US government has done for a good century.
I guess it makes sense to think of the PRC as a "rival", in that sense, although really, there is no rivality between the Chinese working class and the working class of other countries.

The rivality, if there is any, seems to exist mostly between their respective governments and capitalist elites.

The Chinese government is the enemy of all free people.
As any capitalist government is, really.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Of course I voted the USA should see them as friends - we've surely had enough of the antagonisms/likely conflicts between the USA and the Soviets and possibly Russia now to add another player - even if one can't agree with the political direction or how the country is run - but since they are so powerful (which was not possibly inevitable) they should be treated as fairly as one would want the USA to be so treated.

As commented, the USA has not exactly been timid in pursuing its own goals so why expect any other rising nations to do so? Russia has its own problems but China - to many eyes - doesn't seem to have an inclination to dominate or expand, either politically or economically, but the vast population just does have some inherent effects. And the Chinese do tend to be good at many things - something for instance, that India, the next largest populated country seems to lack in some ways.

I just hope a new Cold War notion gets the reception it deserves, and that more rational heads are in charge sooner rather than later.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
China make a good and stable friend, but a very dangerous enemy indeed.
It has no interest in other than Trade partnerships.
It is interested in cultural exchanges but not Political partnerships.
It has no interest in, nor shares the western views on domestic laws nor Human rights.
it has a strong interest in Green and global warming issues. but as a country that has largely depended on Coal to drive its heavy industry, it is finding it difficult to reduce its carbon foot print. ( this is especially difficult since most of the west has relied on them (and India) for heavy industrial products)

Since the Advent of Trump, the anti China brigade in the USA has dominated the political scene.
By attacking and banning Chines leading industrial HiTec companies. It has created the present atmosphere.

This has split the loyalties of many western and neutral countries. China is generally seen as a better trading partner than the USA. It is only the dominant holdings of some critical patents by the USA, that has stopped a wholesale move to partnerships with China.

However in the long term the position is very different. as the present banning of the use of American technology patents and software. has forced China to massively increase it R&D in these fields.
There is little doubt at all, that China will dominate all these fields in the near future, reducing Americas influence in world trade even further.

The only fields where american companies dominate the market place. is in social media Google, FB etc.

China can not afford to Let the USA be in the position of switching, on and off, of entire Chinese industries over patent and software rights, as is happening now. It has been aware of this potential for many years and has encouraged its companies to fill these basic gaps. Were America to escalate to situation to defacto war. China would of course be free to confiscate and nationalise any technology that it needed. Just as the Western powers did with German technology and patent processes, during and after ww2.

In this way, America is forcing the pace of Chinese Research and development, to the detriment of its own future world trade, and ability to compete.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course I voted the USA should see them as friends - we've surely had enough of the antagonisms/likely conflicts between the USA and the Soviets and possibly Russia now to add another player - even if one can't agree with the political direction or how the country is run - but since they are so powerful (which was not possibly inevitable) they should be treated as fairly as one would want the USA to be so treated.

I recall that George Washington suggested that America maintain good and friendly relations with all nations, but that there should be no favoritism. All foreign nations should be viewed equally from the standpoint of America's foreign policy. So, I don't see it as a problem for the U.S. to treat China fairly, but whether the U.S. government sees it that way is another matter.

As commented, the USA has not exactly been timid in pursuing its own goals so why expect any other rising nations to do so? Russia has its own problems but China - to many eyes - doesn't seem to have an inclination to dominate or expand, either politically or economically, but the vast population just does have some inherent effects.

That's the big question. We don't really know what the Chinese want or what their agenda might be. The U.S. is an open book; there's no real mystery as to what drives the U.S. and its policymakers. During the Cold War, the US and USSR were like competing missionaries around the world, trying to gain converts to their respective "religions." China didn't really seem to care about gaining converts or anything like that.

And the Chinese do tend to be good at many things - something for instance, that India, the next largest populated country seems to lack in some ways.

That's one thing that I've wondered about. At the end of WW2, both China and India were in pretty bad shape, yet communist China has developed, modernized, and advanced far more rapidly than capitalist India. China is much more powerful today. India is no slouch, of course, but they're a long way before they could be an effective balance to Chinese power.

I just hope a new Cold War notion gets the reception it deserves, and that more rational heads are in charge sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the basis of any new Cold War might be. The previous Cold War was purely ideological - a battle for converts between two competing religions. But now, Russia, China, and the U.S. all practice the same religion of capitalism, so whatever battles or conflicts arise from that would be more analogous to rival mafia gangs fighting each other.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I recall that George Washington suggested that America maintain good and friendly relations with all nations, but that there should be no favoritism. All foreign nations should be viewed equally from the standpoint of America's foreign policy. So, I don't see it as a problem for the U.S. to treat China fairly, but whether the U.S. government sees it that way is another matter.

That's the big question. We don't really know what the Chinese want or what their agenda might be. The U.S. is an open book; there's no real mystery as to what drives the U.S. and its policymakers. During the Cold War, the US and USSR were like competing missionaries around the world, trying to gain converts to their respective "religions." China didn't really seem to care about gaining converts or anything like that.

That's one thing that I've wondered about. At the end of WW2, both China and India were in pretty bad shape, yet communist China has developed, modernized, and advanced far more rapidly than capitalist India. China is much more powerful today. India is no slouch, of course, but they're a long way before they could be an effective balance to Chinese power.

I don't know what the basis of any new Cold War might be. The previous Cold War was purely ideological - a battle for converts between two competing religions. But now, Russia, China, and the U.S. all practice the same religion of capitalism, so whatever battles or conflicts arise from that would be more analogous to rival mafia gangs fighting each other.

I think that many worry about the amount that the USA spends on armaments, for an apparently peaceful nation, and it's hardly surprising that others will attempt to do so even if that is a forlorn hope (as the Soviet Union attempted but failed to achieve possibly). Not sure why China suddenly upped its game and jumped on the Capitalist bandwagon, but their success should surely show that Capitalism isn't necessarily the only game to play, although I don't know enough about China to say what exactly occurs in the country - I doubt most Chinese are feeling bad about their current situation though, compared with the past.

The US spends more on defence than all of these countries combined
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
China make a good and stable friend, but a very dangerous enemy indeed.
It has no interest in other than Trade partnerships.
It is interested in cultural exchanges but not Political partnerships.

Then, one might wonder what their agenda actually is and why could they possibly be dangerous. If all they want is trade and cultural exchange, they've already accomplished that. What else do they want or need?

It has no interest in, nor shares the western views on domestic laws nor Human rights.

Apparently not, although this is where Chinese policy and their overall agenda might be called into question. Their government has criticized US policy in the past (example: Mao Zedong puts his own spin on race riots in America).

So, at some point, the Chinese government did appear to care about human rights, but why they stopped doing that is anybody's guess.

it has a strong interest in Green and global warming issues. but as a country that has largely depended on Coal to drive its heavy industry, it is finding it difficult to reduce its carbon foot print. ( this is especially difficult since most of the west has relied on them (and India) for heavy industrial products)

That was the choice of the Western ruling elite, which was mainly driven by feelings of malice and spite towards the Western working class. They hated the fact that labor unions grew stronger and the standard of living was increased in the West, so they tried to find ways to stick it to them.

That's why I never really accepted the common explanations for why the U.S. was engaging in globalist policies and outsourcing. They said it would be better for America, but our current situation proves that just the opposite has happened. They should have just stuck to business, but instead, our ruling class chose to make it personal. Their blind hatred of America's working class clouded their judgment, as they demonstrated that they would rather do business with Chinese Communists than with American labor leaders.

Our country is in worse shape largely because short-sighted, egotistical narcissists among the ruling class would rather sell out to China than have to share their toys with other Americans.

The problem was never really China; the problem is within America's ruling class.

Since the Advent of Trump, the anti China brigade in the USA has dominated the political scene.
By attacking and banning Chines leading industrial HiTec companies. It has created the present atmosphere.

Trump got elected mainly due to the shift in blue collar voters in key states. The common people and workers in "flyover country" have recognized and sensed the scorn and derision coming from the ruling class, so when Trump offered an alternative (that any other candidate could have offered but didn't), a lot of people jumped on it.

Again, this isn't so much about China or that the US has an "anti China brigade," as much as it's a question about U.S. policies towards China and the ruling class which has supported those policies for decades. They've been bad for America, so why would American political and business leaders deliberately support policies which would be bad for America's working class? Why would they go out of their way to alienate whole sections of America?

This has split the loyalties of many western and neutral countries. China is generally seen as a better trading partner than the USA. It is only the dominant holdings of some critical patents by the USA, that has stopped a wholesale move to partnerships with China.

I'm not so sure that this is terribly important from a U.S. point of view. Our biggest problem right now is that we can't even sell American products to our own people. Our trade deficit is ridiculously lopsided, and this is hurting America's economy and causing the slow reduction in our standard of living that we've been seeing these past decades.

As for Western and neutral countries, how would they have split loyalties? If, as you say, China is not seeking any political partnerships, then there wouldn't be any basis for any other country to have loyalty to China - unless they're looking for some kind of alternative or counterweight to U.S. hegemony.

However in the long term the position is very different. as the present banning of the use of American technology patents and software. has forced China to massively increase it R&D in these fields.
There is little doubt at all, that China will dominate all these fields in the near future, reducing Americas influence in world trade even further.

Possibly, although I wouldn't count out other major powers at this point.

The only fields where american companies dominate the market place. is in social media Google, FB etc.

That's pretty sad, when you think of it. Listening to other people talk, even our social media is compromised and vulnerable to the antics of those darn Russians.

Again, America's current situation can only be blamed on Americans. We did this to ourselves.

I can't say that I blame China for acting in their own interests and improving their status in the world. But they are certainly better off now than they were 50-75 years ago. I also know that America's history with China has been less than stellar, particularly in the first half of the 20th century.

My only real concern about China today is whether they're truly just interested in "doing business," or if there is some underlying spite or desire for vengeance over things the West did to them 100-150 years ago.

China can not afford to Let the USA be in the position of switching, on and off, of entire Chinese industries over patent and software rights, as is happening now. It has been aware of this potential for many years and has encouraged its companies to fill these basic gaps. Were America to escalate to situation to defacto war. China would of course be free to confiscate and nationalise any technology that it needed. Just as the Western powers did with German technology and patent processes, during and after ww2.

I've heard some Americans claim that the Chinese have already done that, that they've essentially stolen US technology. I don't know if that's strictly true or not, but a large basis of the current US complaint against China is that they haven't been playing by the rules.

I guess what you're really saying here is that, overall, the Chinese are smarter and more tech savvy than Americans are. It echoes common complaints that Americans have gotten sloppy, lazy, soft, complacent, apathetic, and stupid. Our educational system is sub-standard. Our cities and infrastructure are crumbling. Where we once had factories and booming industries, there are boarded up strip malls and Walmarts (filled with items made in China).

During the recent tariff/trade war a while back, it astounded me that the people complaining the loudest about the repercussions were those who depended on exporting agricultural products. That, in and of itself, is quite revealing about just how vulnerable our economy has become and what we've been reduced to. Agricultural products are the only things we have left to sell, as if we've become some sort of third world backwater forced to depend on a few commodities rather than having a truly diversified economy. Well, that and anything we can mine. But we can't make anything anymore. We can't manufacture, and this is why China is poised to surpass us and leave us in the dust.

In that sense, I can kind of see how Americans might want to break free of this vicious cycle and slippery slope we're on. If this means cutting trade ties with China so that we can rebuild and update our own industrial and manufacturing base, that might be a good thing for America in the long run. We need to get out of this malaise and torpor and become productive again. We need to invest in education, which will lead to greater innovation and technological progress.

In this way, America is forcing the pace of Chinese Research and development, to the detriment of its own future world trade, and ability to compete.

Well, we've already been in that position for a long time now, but that's mainly due to incredibly bad, short-sighted leadership since at least 1980.

I'm not sure if it's going to be all biscuits and gravy for China either. They're facing problems of their own, internally. Even their neighbors really don't trust them that much, and they still appear more willing to deal with the West as an alternative to falling under the thumb of China.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that many worry about the amount that the USA spends on armaments, for an apparently peaceful nation, and it's hardly surprising that others will attempt to do so even if that is a forlorn hope (as the Soviet Union attempted but failed to achieve possibly). Not sure why China suddenly upped its game and jumped on the Capitalist bandwagon, but their success should surely show that Capitalism isn't necessarily the only game to play, although I don't know enough about China to say what exactly occurs in the country - I doubt most Chinese are feeling bad about their current situation though, compared with the past.

The US spends more on defence than all of these countries combined

America's spending on armaments has often been justified by our role as the "arsenal of democracy." For generations now, Americans have been fed this idea that the outside world is some kind of dangerous, evil place, and that the only way to deal with it is to "speak softly and carry a big stick." We've been told that it is our God-given task to "make the world safe for democracy," because it's apparently unsafe.

It's coupled with the idea that most of the world is inhabited by "barbarians" and "uncivilized primitives," such that force is the only language they understand. Only through a show of strength are we able to keep the rest of the world in line. This is confirmed whenever we hear someone lament about something that makes us look "weak" in front of the rest of the world. This is the mindset our policymakers seem to have.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
America's spending on armaments has often been justified by our role as the "arsenal of democracy." For generations now, Americans have been fed this idea that the outside world is some kind of dangerous, evil place, and that the only way to deal with it is to "speak softly and carry a big stick." We've been told that it is our God-given task to "make the world safe for democracy," because it's apparently unsafe.

It's coupled with the idea that most of the world is inhabited by "barbarians" and "uncivilized primitives," such that force is the only language they understand. Only through a show of strength are we able to keep the rest of the world in line. This is confirmed whenever we hear someone lament about something that makes us look "weak" in front of the rest of the world. This is the mindset our policymakers seem to have.

Well I might blame a decision made long ago that allows so many to bear arms as having some influence - but that might just be crap of course.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Well I might blame a decision made long ago that allows so many to bear arms as having some influence - but that might just be crap of course.

That of course makes not a penny worth's difference when dealing with China.
China would never start a land war with the USA. And the USA would be foolish indeed to think it could survive a land war in China.
War is not the answer for either country. At the first sign of war China would eliminate the American fleet. Using its Long range super fast missile System which it is reported can reach anywhere in the world. And at seven times the speed of sound are too fast to intercept. Large slow super carriers would not have a chance.
American war games have shown that they would lose any such conflict.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The Free World would be in a worrying place without the USA.

That was probably true in the past. But the balance of power in the world has changed.
Today the USA it fighting exceedingly hard to try to. Stand still.
Allies of America are setting themselves up as targets. That if attacked, America could not or would not defend.
 
Top