While the Chimp was Ruining America's Hard Won Stature.....

Cypress

Well-known member
With the takeover of the NeoCons, it always amazed me at how ready and eager they were to bully the rest of the world ("Your either for us or against us, dammit!"); how ready they were to discard america's hard-won image and stature and the goodwill we earned with it; and how willing the NeoCons and Bush supporters were willing to insult and belittle the rest of the world ("Old Europe!").

It took seven post-war presidents, from Truman, to Eishenhower, to Reagan, to Clinton to build up a huge reservoir of good will. To build and maintain america's moral authority. And consequently, to be able to use that soft power, to promote american interests, and diplomacy.

To be sure, america always had enemies. America often didn't act morally. But, we still did enough things right, that we had earned a stature that no super-powers in the past ever had - not Rome, not Spain, not Persia, not the British empire - we were viewed as mostly decent, mostly fair-minded, and mostly an honest broker. Not that it was always true. But, that was our hard-won image. American people in particular, were widely admired and liked.

Bush-fans and Bush-voters threw a lot of that away, in four short years.

Josh Kurlantzick's Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World. Kurlantzick argues that "China savvily has amassed significant “soft power” around the world through aid, formal diplomacy, public diplomacy, investment, and other tools" and is going to start to use it. We ignore this geopolitical shift, according to Kurlantzick, at our own peril.


China's Charm Offensive

By Josh Kurlantzick *
While the US has been focused on Iraq, it has ignored a subtle – but enormous – change in the world. Since only the early 2000s, and under the US radar, China has changed from a country that barely interacted with the world into a growing foreign power. In fact, China savvily has amassed significant “soft power” around the world through aid, formal diplomacy, public diplomacy, investment, and other tools. Here in Washington, where China’s image is not great, it’s hard for us to understand how popular China has become in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Even China’s model of development, of state-ordered economic liberalization and minimal political liberalization, has significant appeal. In particular, it has appeal to elites in nations in the region – and in other places like Africa – alienated by the Washington Consensus and American intervention around the world.

No one amassed chits with other nations for no reason. Now, China can begin to use its soft power. It will be able to utilize its popularity in regions where the US and China have potentially competing interests in resources. China is already trying to draw upon its charm to push back against American power in Asia. In the future, China could prod countries like the Philippines or Thailand, which are already using China as a hedge, to downgrade their close relations with the United States. Beijing continues to support authoritarian regimes, stemming from its vow of noninterference. This, too, weakens US diplomacy. Though their interests sometimes overlap, fundamentally the United States and China still do not agree on how diplomacy and international affairs should be conducted. And though Beijing can be persuaded to support better governance in places, like Burma, with limited resources and such horrendous regimes that they breed instability in China, it is much harder to persuade China to act against terrible governments with oil, like Sudan, or whose policies have no direct impact on China itself, like Zimbabwe. In the future, China’s ability to support its friends will only grow stronger as China builds its global soft power.

continued

http://bookclub.tpmcafe.com/blog/bookclub/2007/jun/25/chinas_charm_offensive
 
You know USC, I've been noticing this in the last few years.

If one watches BBC, PBS or any credible news source, one can't help but see how much the Chinese are investing and distributing foreign aid all over the developing world. They're everywhere. And they're doing it quietly, without bullying anyone or being belligerant.

That's smart. They "get" it. If we get a couple more belligerant bush republicans in the white house, the chinese are going to kick our ass, on the soft power, diplomatic and ecnomic fronts.
 
Yep cypress, the chinese might well kick our figurative ass anyway. Even if we were doing as we should and not doing the Neo 2 step in world politics.
 
You know USC, I've been noticing this in the last few years.

If one watches BBC, PBS or any credible news source, one can't help but see how much the Chinese are investing and distributing foreign aid all over the developing world. They're everywhere. And they're doing it quietly, without bullying anyone or being belligerant.

That's smart. They "get" it. If we get a couple more belligerant bush republicans in the white house, the chinese are going to kick our ass, on the soft power, diplomatic and ecnomic fronts.


As an aside check out this report that the BBC commissioned on itself claiming it has an institutional "trendy left-wing bias". Again, what is deemed "credible" is often in the eye of the viewer.



BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias'
18.06.07


The BBC is out of touch with large swathes of the public and is guity of self-censoring subjects that the corporation finds unpalatable, an official report has claimed.

As part of the report's research the BBC's own controller of editorial policy admitted that people felt that the corporation was guilty of a "bias of omission" by not covering their views.

Authors of the report called on the corporation to be more "open-minded" in the views it reflects and warned against "bias of elimination" which it branded "offensive".

The report noted that the BBC had "come late" to several important stories in recent years, including Euroscepticism and immigration , which as it happens, were "off limits" in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone".

Research for the 80-page report showed that viewers were "frustrated" by political correctness at the BBC and feel the corporation is dominated by a London-centric bias, reflected in its programmes, presenters and coverage.

The report, which was commissioned by the BBC and written by independent programme-maker John Bridcut, also warned that if the BBC's viewers did not feel that the corporation was reflecting their lives and attitudes people would lose faith in it.

Their review hit out at programme-makers for misjudging where "cultural mainstream" opinion stood and for wanting to "swim" against popular opinion.

Staff were told to avoid imposing their own liberal assumptions on the audience and told to "embrace a broader range of opinion".

In the report, a news and current affairs producer recalled an instance where he had proposed a Newsnight investigation into the subject of "abortion on demand" but had been accused of being "anti-abortion" for even suggesting the idea which was not pursued.

Roger Mosey, former head of television news at the BBC, now head of sport, is also quoted as saying the corporation displays "fairly overt support" for multiculturalism.

He also admitting having some sympathy with claims of a "liberal/pinko" agenda at times.

He recalled a news item about ethnic communities becoming the majority in parts of east London, where a reporter had told him that they had "worked really hard" to find a white resident who was happy with the situation.

Research in the review also found that even ethnic minorities felt that political correctness had gone to far and others said it was diluting comedy and entertainment at the broadcaster and complained of a "restrictive mind-set".

Authors of the report called for a "periodic reality check" on shows like The Archers and Casualty as well as news programmes.

The Archers has at times come under fire for losing its rural culture with increasingly metropolitan storylines.

It suggested that the broadcaster had been late in picking up on "pavement politics" such as concern over the loss of weekly rubbish collections and had been "caught on the hop" by the success of UKIP in the 2004 elections.

It warned of the dangers of an "institutional bias" in favour of stories generated by parliament rather than stories with populist roots.

The report also urged the BBC not to "close down the debate" on climate change, despite the corporation admitting that it no longer felt it necessary to justify equal space being given to opponents of the consensus on the issue.

The broadcaster's Oscar's coverage also came in for criticism over the presenters who were "transfixed by the glitz" in an "impartiality free zone' and called on the BBC to clamp down on its journalists becoming "opinion merchants ".

It also faced claims of political correctness over Muslim terrorist suspects who were arrested last summer. One member of the public surveyed for the report claimed: "I think the BBC is too politically correct. The BBC were saying '21 men have been arrested' and I thought 'what's happening?' So I flicked over to Sky and it says '21 Asian men have been arrested." The report claims that the BBC's editorial advisory department and its recently formed College of Journalism need an extended role so that impartiality is addressed much earlier in the production process.

It claims that impartiality should remain the "hallmark" of the BBC and said the balanced natureof its reporting was an "essential part" of the BBC's contract with its audience.

The report singled out hit sitcom The Vicar Of Dibley and a season of programmes on Africa.

An episode of The Vicar Of Dibley featured Dawn French promoting the Make Poverty History campaign.

"The implication was that the cause was universal and uncontroversial, whereas the Make Poverty History website made clear that it had contentious political goals," the report said.

Nowhere in the episode was it pointed out that the writer Richard Curtis was himself spearheading the campaign.

The report also quoted a senior BBC executive as saying that impartiality in the Africa season was "as safe as a blood bank in the hands of Dracula".

The report makes a series of 12 recommendations, or "guiding principles", which have been approved and adopted by the corporation.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+'accused+of+institutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do
 
More from the wussy left,
lets dig that whole for the girlymen dems a little deeper cypress.
911 did happen chump!!!
China is only a role model for freaktard Castro lefties. You can aspire to that 95% of Americans don't.
American citizens are 100 times more charitable than China:pke:
 
As for the impartiality of the BBC, people will always complain of impartiality, whenever a view that they don't hold is presented.

Take the 7/7 thing above. The BBC were more impartial that Sky by simply stating 27 men had been arrested. That they were Asian was immaterial.

Impartiality is impossible as what is or isn't impartial is subjective.
 
The US lost much of its image as an honest broker over its siding with Israel in the Isr/Pal problem.....


Partially true. And Bush has certainly ruined our, at least percieved image as an honest broker.

Don't forget, it was Jimmy Carter who was the middle man for a peace deal between Egypt and Israel, and Clinton was the go-to man for a permanent peace deal between Jordan and Israel.

And let's not forget the Dayton Accords. U.S. (clinton) played the broker there.
 
More from the wussy left,
lets dig that whole for the girlymen dems a little deeper cypress.
911 did happen chump!!!
China is only a role model for freaktard Castro lefties. You can aspire to that 95% of Americans don't.
American citizens are 100 times more charitable than China:pke:
and with that statement you put a whole bunch of rotten eggs in one basket, and then scrambled them.

This had nothing to do with 911,
nor with the relationship betewwn castro and China.
nor whether we are more charitable than China.

Try to make a little sense with your posts.
 
More from the wussy left,
lets dig that whole for the girlymen dems a little deeper cypress.
911 did happen chump!!!
China is only a role model for freaktard Castro lefties. You can aspire to that 95% of Americans don't.
American citizens are 100 times more charitable than China:pke:

I'm glad doniston caught this.

Put down the six-pack topper. The thread has nothing to do with 9/11 or charity.

If China goes into a developing countries to build a dams, or an electrical grids, those countries may well be glad for the investment. That's called "soft power", and China is stocking up on soft power, while Bush is being a beligerant bully.

Rush Limbaugh may have trained you to have a pavlovian dog reaction to "commie china". But, people in Ecuador don't give a shit about Rush Limbaugh slogans. If chinese companies come in there to build a dam, Ecuadoreans may, or may not, care what you and rush limbaugh say about "commie china"
 
my whole point is the wussy dems need to stick to the simple game plan of GTF out of Irag.
Swapping spit over why we went etc. Plenty dems were playing warhawk lites and you guys know it. Ya'll never bring up Afganistan because it's not so clear cut.
Bush is hated around the world. WOW, what a revelation you must have struggled at cal.
The world still looks up to us as the only super power and the most generous people on the planet. They know we will fix our house.
Hillary 08
 
"If China goes into a developing countries to build a dams, or an electrical grids, those countries may well be glad for the investment. That's called "soft power", and China is stocking up on soft power, while Bush is being a beligerant bully. "

Let's not forget the other side of the coin. Say Sudan perhaps? China comes in and helps develop soft relations. Gets oil contracts. Allows Sudanese government to exterminate ethnic groups by hanging veto power over UN force in order to protect its oil contracts.

That said, the author is certainly correct. We ignore China at our own peril. They are very early in their expansion phase. Their economic might is strong now even in its infancy. To the chagrin of many Europeans, China is going to become the counterweight to the US... not the EU. India is further behind the curve than China, but it too could become a third economic power.

Since a military invasion is not an option for China to take over the US or most certainly not the other way around, the power will lie with economics and goodwill.

As long as China's government supresses its own people, the goodwill will not be there. No matter how much "soft power" they accumulate.
 
sf,

I'm not saying that China is on the verge, or ever will, exceed the soft power of the U.S.

But, the trends are going the opposite way that they should (from our perspective). Bush has bullied and antagonized the world. While China has quietly gone around the world investing in, and giving foreign aid, to developing countries.
 
"sf,

I'm not saying that China is on the verge, or ever will, exceed the soft power of the U.S. "

I did not mean to imply that you had said that. I was simply trying to expand on the conversation.

"But, the trends are going the opposite way that they should (from our perspective). Bush has bullied and antagonized the world. While China has quietly gone around the world investing in, and giving foreign aid, to developing countries"

While Bush has certainly detracted from the "goodwill", I think a large part of the resentment has always been there. It is simply PC for people to hammer away at us now as Bush has provided them with an excuse.

Anyold is also correct in that our long term stance of support for Israel has rankled many in the world for a long time.

Bottom line, we do need to be very wary of China. They will be our largest competitor over the next few decades. (provided the Reps and Dems don't bury us sooner due to all of the debt we are accumulating)

Side note: 15-20 million illegal immigrints still seem to think the US is a pretty good place. ;)
 
Also, China hasn't "quietly" gone around investing.... it has been quite apparent for over a decade now... and not just in developing countries. The mainsteam media just doesn't cover the business and economic world as much as they do blowjobs, sex tapes, dui's, etc...

If you have access to Bloomberg... it is probably one of the last vestiges of good business reporting that remains.
 
Back
Top