Looks like a PHP/mySQL non-static site (I wonder if some popular blogging platform?) crumbling under the load. Luckily someone pressed the turbo charge button (x-turbo-charged-by: LiteSpeed <-- seriously?) on the cpanel box so it can now accommodate a page view a second!
Since the site is melting under the HN load here's the full linked article:
HEADLINE: Norway just recently established normal ties with China after a six-year break. But in order to do so, the Norwegian government had to embrace the Chinese development model and social system, as well as the ‘one China’ framework.
ARTICLE: Since 2010, Norway barely had any diplomatic relations with China, due to the fact that Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year. The Chinese government demanded an apology from Norway, together with a guarantee that the prize was never to be awarded to a Chinese activist again.
But since the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent institution, the Norwegian government was in no position to issue neither an apology nor a guarantee. Nevertheless, China decided to punish Norway by immediately shelving a free-trade agreement that was being negotiated.
Chinese officials also stopped visiting the Norwegian embassy in Beijing, and its ambassador no longer received invitations to diplomatic events. Visas became harder to obtain for Norwegian tourists and professionals alike, and a range of exchanges in different fields was canceled with haste.
However, in late December last year, Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende suddenly appeared in Beijing to announce that the two countries were resuming normal diplomatic and trade relations. Negotiations on the free-trade agreement started again, much to the joy of the Norwegian Seafood Council, which estimates salmon exports to China to increase twentyfold in the coming years. The joy was shared by the tourism industry and the business sector alike.
It was also shared, obviously, by Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, who acknowledged that the strained relationship what China had not only weakened Norway’s trade but also its say in global politics, since China has been throwing its weight around to marginalize Norwegian influence in several international organizations.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. When declaring the re-establishment of ties with China, Brende also had to present a two-page joint declaration that included passages like: “The Norwegian government reiterates its commitment to the One China Policy, fully respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China’s core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.”
Hence, after Tsai Ing-wen took office in Taipei, China has not only engaged in checkbook diplomacy, as was the case when Sao Tomé & Principe switched diplomatic allegiance in late December. It is also demanding leading democracies to embrace the “one China” policy to atone for ”mistakes” made years ago in totally unrelated policy issues.
William Nygaard, chairman of PEN Norwegian Center, criticized the fact that the two-page joint statement doesn’t include a single word about human rights. John Peder Egenaes, general secretary for Amnesty International Norway, finds this particularly strange given that human rights is a Norwegian foreign policy priority — especially the support of human rights champions. “This policy,” Egenaes said, “has to apply to China, as much as to any other place.”
Stein Ringen, a Norwegian political scientist and professor at Oxford University, even branded the event as “an outright humiliation” to Norway, accusing his country’s politicians of surrendering to China’s demands. Ringen is particularly worried about terms like “territorial integrity” and “core interests” in the joint declaration, which he means de facto constitutes a “formal acceptance” from Norway not only regarding Taiwan, but also China’s claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer.
While in Beijing, Foreign Minister Brende said that resumption of normal relations with China was made possibl...
Which in fact, is what most countries in the world signed up for. Also, it is a prerequisite for any country to even establish ANY formal diplomatic relationship with China[1]. It is almost certain Norway government has acknowledged this way back then through some bilateral treaty, and this time it is simply a reiteration.
IIRC you have to agree that there is 'one indivisible China', which is vague. You could still support democracy.
The Norwegian government grovelling about 'not supporting anything to undermine China again' - after the Nobel was awarded to an activist - stinks more than usual.
The US has never recognized the One China policy or China's claim over Taiwan. Instead, the US merely acknowledges China's position.
Of course, as a superpower, you have a little bit more negotiating leverage.
However, China's only been successful at bullying countries into recognizing some of its more absurd positions because it has negotiated on bilateral bases, where in almost every case China holds significantly more relative economic clout.
If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric would likely be quite loud).
We've known for years that China's foreign policy has largely consisted of "salami slicing" — pressing hard for small concessions that cumulatively result in dramatic changes to international norms, and in the past states engaging in such behavior have been met with a strong and united international response, but for numerous reasons, the reaction to China still remains quite muted.
> If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric would likely be quite loud).
I dont understand the word Forcing here. Norway had a choice to continue denying The one China policy. Putting pressure on Norway thru various means is not forcing. Forcing would be done via a military operation leaving little choice.
I don't understand the problem with the word forcing here. If you take your kid's xbox to make them clean their room then yeah, you are forcing them to do it.
Ha! Now that would be something. So China is not forcing Norway because Norway can just choose to not trade with China? That's some extremely bizzare logic there.
Well, yes? They could choose to put their foot down instead of bending over backwards in appeasement. They they would trade with everybody else in the world but China. They chose not to go that way, but unless trade with China is a critical, indispensable part of their survival, no, they were not forced.
China is currently being run by bullies.
Luckily the regime is not long-term sustainable, they are badly failing on innovation, which makes sense considering that the fruit of much hard work can get easily stolen by said bullies.
I think it depends on whether you believe in free trade or not. If you think that every country's business has a right to make deals with any other country's business then Chinese government is depraving Norvegian fishers from what is rightfully theirs and is "forcing" Norwegian government to support their claims on Taiwan.
If on the contrary you believe that every government has a right to establish any rules for external trade relationships it likes, then it's more like a free market. Either you buy access to Chinese consumers for recogition of Chinese claims for Taiwan or you don't, it's your choise.
Its rather a matter of incentives. Norway has more to gainthis way. But it is not threatening their existence so forcing is the wrong word to use here. Its just clickbaity.
But here the pressure wasn't "irresistible"; they were not being threatened or attacked. They would just be making less money than they do this way. I hardly call that irresistible.
> Forcing would be done via a military operation leaving little choice.
I mean, they'd still have the option of denying the one China and going to war, by your definition. Basically, the way you see it, nobody can force you to do anything, as you can always kill yourself.
I'd seriously doubt not recognizing China would lead them to war with them. So therefore there were still clearly able to continue on the previous line of thought.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but for what it's worth I do understand the point you are making. You are making a separation between types of pressure which are existential and those which are not. Norway could have accepted the lower exports on fish (less than 1% of their GDP) and continued on while snubbing China, but it was more beneficial to them economically to concede.
However, this isn't existential because even if China refuses to trade with Norway entirely, through the EEA the Norwegian people could continue receiving goods from China mediated through a different EEA country that has trade agreements.
At it's most dire what occurred simply wasn't an existential threat to Norway and the geographical distance meant that military reactions to trade disputes simply weren't going to occur. Thus the "force" here was mostly one of appearances, rather than reality.
That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree that this doesn't meet the definition of "forcing". Politics is squishy like that. Just because fishing is less than 1% of the GDP doesn't mean it has minimal impact on Norwegian society. The fishing industry has significant historical and cultural significance to Norway and abandoning support of that industry could very well be political suicide within Norway for the politicians that refused to play ball. You could say its simply spineless, but the optics of them snubbing China and at the same time snubbing their own fishing industry aren't especially good.
There are 2 fishing industries in Norway. One is traditional one and another one is factory farming of fish. The latter appeared around 1980, earned a lot of money and bought disproportionate amount of influence. The industry treats the fish in absolutely evil way, a complete opposite of how traditional fish men relate to the fish.
An interesting detail left out of the article is that Norway's neighbor Iceland ended up signing a free-trade agreement with China in 2013, both Norway and Iceland had negotiations underway in 2010 when China broke ties with Norway.
Norway and Iceland are both EEA members, effectively with one foot in the EU, Iceland was the first European country to sign such an agreement with China.
Norway and Iceland having free-trade with China while having deep access to the European single market leaves EU expansion in an odd situation. Neither country could become a full EU member without hurting trade with China, or alternatively the EU would have to make a similar FTA with China beforehand.
I've wondered what the realpolitik of the situation is. Is China's main interest in these deals to drive a wedge into further EU integration? Are they trying to create a situation where Norway and Iceland joining the EU would be contingent on the EU accepting a FTA with China?
Norway at least have no current interest in EU membership. Support for EU membership has for a long time been so low (last year polls indicated 71% no, compared to an almost even result in the '94 referendum) that there's no prospect of another EU referendum anytime soon.
I agree with your comment, but given the tone / details of the questions you answer to I would like to add "... Compared to their current situation".
Norway's low will to join the EU as full member is not because they don't like it or are moving away from it , but because they already have everything they want from it, and a few exceptions specifically "for them" in a custom made package they're fine paying the price of.
They pretty much have a "vanity membership, gold level"
> Norway's low will to join the EU as full member is not because they don't like it or are moving away from it , but because they already have everything they want from it
These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Public sentiment has historically leaned towards EU skepticism, something which hasn't been helped by witnessing the EU's broad managerial incompetence (and occasionally petty vindictiveness) on everything from Greece to Brexit.
Norway's path has been a steady path with largely rational smaller steps, mostly towards closer EU integration. The UK took a single, huge, unplanned step into the void without any rational debate or planning on what would come next.
People aren't laughing at the UK for leaving the EU per se. but for the insane and terribly thought out chain of blunders that led to them taking that leap.
Norway is part of the single market (including free movement of people) and benefits from it, so, what they did is completely different from what the UK is going to do. But, most importantly, it's much much more disruptive to first join and then pull out that not joining at all.
So basicaly Norway got itself the best possible deal: all benefits of EU membership without any of the downsides (e.g. common currency or political correctnes bullshit).
If anything, the UK had the best deal: they also don't have a common currency, and unlike Norway they didn't have mandatory open borders (Schengen). I have no idea what do you mean by the EU imposing political correctness, though.
This is not correct as far as I know. The Norwegian government wanted to join the EU because in the current state they have a lot of obligations to be allowed to the single market and they even have to pay a large sum for it but they get no say in it. Voting rights are limited to full EU members. They are getting a bad deal, just like the UK will, simply because the population does not want to join the EU.
I want also to point out that this would not have happened if Norway had been in the EU already in 2010 because China would not risk trade with all of the EU because of such a small incident.
It's the best possible deal only if you don't care that you don't have any democratic influence on all decisions involving the single market - you just need to accept all regulations as decided by member states. Which I guess is fine for Norway and Switzerland, but wouldn't suit every country. For sure it wouldn't suit the UK.
That comparison seems a bit off to me. The UK is more than 10x the size of all EEA members combined. The EEA exists / works because its members are largely peripheral. The UK by contrast is a regional superpower. On this basis alone - particularly when accounting for Brussels' massive bruised ego - it was always a bit unrealistic to expect a neat and tidy new EEA-style trade agreement between the UK and the EU.
Not only that, but a central theme in the runup to Brexit was improved border & immigration control. This is something which EEA members don't enjoy themselves, both via Schengen and the EEA's bilateral work permits. Hence, Brexit voters were sold a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario where the UK would somehow manage to land an EEA style trade deal without literally any of its possible downsides. That seems optimistic to the point of naivete.
"The UK is more than 10x the size of all EEA members combined. The EEA exists / works because its members are largely peripheral."
My guess is that by EEA you refer to those members that are not already part of the EU, although technically the EEA includes both EU members and countries with a special agreement.
Yeah, that's correct. In my experience 'EEA' is a well understood shorthand for 'non-EU EEA members', since that's the context under which 'EEA' is most often used.
Norway is in a special case by being substantially wealthier to the extent that Norway can basically buy its way out of most of the problems the UK has.
At the same time, through the EEA Norway is much closer associated to the EU than the Brexit crowd wants the UK to be. Including e.g. accepting Schengen which the UK didn't participate in even as a member of the EU.
Norway and Iceland don't need to become full EU members for a China FTA creating conflicts between them and the EU. There's already overlap between products covered under Iceland's FTA with China and its FTA with the EU/EEA, but in practice it doesn't matter much because any gains from lower import duties are negated by expensive shipping from Iceland.
If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land borders with the EU will have a FTA with China. At that point the EU would either need to never liberalize certain trade with the EEA least Norway become a shipping and distribution hub for Chinese goods into the EU, or accept that to get closer integration with Norway and the other EEA members.
There has been increasing liberalization of trade between the EU and EEA members, just last month the EU and Iceland agreed to drop almost all import duties on agricultural products[1].
In addition to all of that, with global warming gearing up the Northeast Passage[2] might become a viable shipping route between China and Europe, at that point shipping from China to Norway will be the shortest shipping route between China and Europe by far. Sailing from China to Europe via the NEP to Norway cuts time at sea and fuel consumption by more than half compared to going via the Suez Canal.
Uh, what sort of conflict do you think China could provoke? I have a hard time seeing a free salmon treaty with China giving rise to more conflict than normal neighbor disputes.
If Norway started selling all its oil to China, then
we'd have something. But the EU borders Norway, and China doesn't so there isn't much in favour of it. In addition, China doesn't border the EU, so I don't think it sees much value in a divided EU (as opposed to Russia). To them it is probably more interesting to distance the EU from the US.
I don't know what sort of FTA Norway was in the process of negotiating in 2010, but if it's anything like the treaty it signed with Iceland in 2013 calling it a "free salmon treaty" is the understatement of the century.
You can read the full list of tariff concessions by Iceland[1], as well as the rest of the treaty[2] MFA website.
It covers anything from food, tools, machinery, to raw ore and metals to finished nuclear reactors. Almost all tariffs on Chinese goods entering Iceland are set at 0%.
This means that Iceland (or hypothetically Norway in the future) can import say cheap industrial acids from China, and use them to make finished products that could be sold to the EU market using existing EU/EEA trade deals that give preferential tariff treatment to EEA members.
That's the potential conflict I'm talking about. China's setting up agreements where a country with wide access to its internal markets has better access to cheap Chinese goods than other EU/EEA countries.
Which means that either the EU needs to slow down liberalization of trade with Iceland (and perhaps Norway in the future) least they essentially become hubs to evade EU duties on Chinese goods, which'll pull those countries further into the Chinese sphere of influence.
Or it'll need to make similar deals itself, or otherwise live with the resulting trade imbalance with Iceland and Norway becoming re-exporters of Chinese goods.
"If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land borders with the EU will have a FTA with China. ... Norway become a shipping and distribution hub for Chinese goods into the EU"
No, it doesn't work like that. Norway is not a member of the European customs union. Goods moving between Norway and the EU are subject to customs checks and, potentially, tariffs. You can't just trans-ship Chinese goods landed in Norway onward into the EU without customs declarations, inspections, and all that.
Of course, private citizens can travel pretty much freely across the EU-Norway border. Goods can move freely in small, personal-use quantities (Norwegians certainly like to shop across the border at cheaper Swedish supermarkets, etc). But as soon as you start shipping stuff in commercial volumes, it is subject to customs just like any other Chinese goods coming in to the EU would be.
I understand that Norway doesn't have duty-free import of goods into the EU. What I'm referring to is that the existing tolls and import duties weren't negotiated with the assumption that Norway has tariff-free access to the biggest producer of cheap goods in the world.
I elaborated a bit on this in a sibling comment[1], but let's say for example that the import duties on electric drills from China into the EU are set at 30%, but the same duty for Norway is 10%.
After signing a FTA with China Norway can simply import the drills at 0%, then re-export them to Germany at a rate of 10%.
Even if they can't simply re-export finished products a Norwegian company could buy cheap Chinese parts for making drills, then finish constructing them domestically and export them to the EU.
Even if they don't directly re-export anything from China Norwegian industry would be more competitive than its neighbors, e.g. a Norwegian paper mill might buy cheap acids for industrial from China that their neighbors in Sweden don't have access to. This would make Norwegian paper cheaper than Swedish paper, and Sweden would pressure the EU to adjust its import duties accordingly.
Thus the EU will start having to either treat Norway and Iceland more like China in terms of tariffs and import duties, or to treat China more like Norway and Iceland.
Norway certainly can't import Chinese drills at 0% and then re-export them to Germany under the Norwegian tariff. Those drills are still of Chinese origin, and re-labeling them otherwise would be illegal. Only Norwegian drills can benefit from Norway's 10% tariff.
As for goods of mixed origin (manufactured in Norway but benefiting from Chinese inputs/components), that is indeed where things get complicated. And that's one of the reasons why trade agreements typically run many thousands of pages and take years to negotiate! But the WTO has pretty comprehensive "Rules of origin" to use as a starting point.
Yes legally it can't, but enforcing this on an open border with a direct road connection to the rest of the EU is going to be quite interesting.
Right now this situation exists in theory, but in practice pretty much nobody in the EU has any cause to try to import something via Norway, since its trade deals are quite similar to what the EU itself has.
But the EU has huge tariffs on some Chinese products, including slapping China with 30-70% tariffs on basic metal alloys in some cases[1][2].
The difference can be so large that it becomes beneficial for you as a private EU citizen to drive up to Norway yourself to fetch e.g. basic alloys at lower prices.
Nothing remotely like this situation exists within the land borders of Schengen today. There's the agreement with Iceland, but as it's an island enforcement is much easier.
1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free trade agreement, largely shut down fishing imports from the country and made it far more difficult for Norwegians to get visas to travel study or work in China. All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government.
2) It took six years for Norway to get normal relations back. After many failed attempts, what they finally had to do was jointly acknowledge the One China Principle and China's core interests and territorial integrity. Beyond Taiwan, this clearly includes the China’s "nine dash line" claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer.
There's also various content about interfering with Dalai Lama visits and other topics that are pretty familiar to most Europeans.
Update: correction about the Nobel Peace prize thanks to dagw's feedback.
Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a private family, not by the Norwegian government.
Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu Xiaobo).
Perhaps somewhat ironically, this is an illustration of the committee's political independence. Unlike Liu Xiaobo's prize, that of Obama was controversial and broadly unpopular within Norway.
Ignorance is why you are being down voted, the man spent his entire time in office at war if that is deserving of a peace prize I'm not sure what you'd have to do to not deserve one.
The military, Wall Street, healthcare financial services, and government (size, reach of power), win after every single election.
I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.
>The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.
With these "wars" in particular he actually does have a great deal of power. They aren't actually wars but "military actions" for the most part. The commander in chief can unilaterally order the armed forced to withdraw if he so wished. Instead Obama ordered drone strike after drone strike, bombing after bombing (so many in fact that there was serious concerns that we would run out of bombs[0]). His merits as a president can be debated, his merits as a peace prize winner cannot. He simply did very little to promote peace and much to prevent it (see Syria).
I don't have the information required to tell you specifically what would happen, but I will note the media was very friendly with the Obama administration. Those media organizations are held by parent companies that also often own weapons manufacturers. Obama was a man who was very concerned with his legacy and thus by the transitive property media portrayals of himself. Is it possible that he traded the lives of innocents for his personal vanity? Maybe, but the truth is we will probably never know why he did what he did. The only thing that I can say for certain is he didn't deserve any award with peace in the title.
Far as I can remember, at that time (Around 2009, 20 years after Tiananmen event), there are some people says Liu Xiaobo should be awarded with the peace prize for against CCP's dictatorship.
Some people event had a debate about it. Some say Liu is a hero for democratize China, others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by ... may be the US?
That debate later end with Obama's prize.
I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president.
That's a very odd sentiment. Do you believe most of the posters here also have no right to criticize China for these actions? Or that noone here has any right to criticize north Korea? I don't think anyone here pays them any taxes.
It's your freedom to do so, plus you have that right written in the law which we're not protected by.
For me, I just don't comment something I don't understand, I'm not living in the US, so I can't feel what Obama's doing.
Because of that, how can I make a comment that is appropriate? I can't even make a comment that's accurate (Judging by those late night shows I watched on Youtube).
Now about tax, I think it's actually you paid your government to do what they want. When they did something wrong / you don't like it, of course you can complain about it.
But as a foreigner however, if the US government did some negative thing on us, the most effective way I think is to blame our government for letting it to happen.
BTW: Of course, in China we have anit-US (Or Japan etc) prides from time to time, just I'm not a fan of it.
If you mean right in the legal sense: Because of freedom of speech? If they think they have something to say about someone, and be it the leaders of my country, then they have the legal right to say it.
If you mean right in a moral sense, I guess my question still is: Why not?
If you are negatively affected by the actions of a leader of a foreign country ... why should you not have a right to criticize that?
If you have some constructive criticism as to how the leader of a foreign country is doing their job badly and how they could to it better ... what would be the use of not saying so out loud? Couldn't that possibly even be a contribution to their country?
I really don't see why having contributed to something would have anything to do with whether you should criticize it or not?! I can see how maybe you don't get a direct say in who gets to be the leader, but that's quite different from criticizing them, isn't it? I haven't contributed to Equifax either, but I still don't see why I shouldn't criticize their leadership?! Or should I? Why? Why not? And how is a country fundamentally different from a company in that regard?
It is also worth noting that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is only in the Hague, it is not an UN agency, and not a court in the traditional sense.
They arbitrate part of the hague conventions. the hague conventions make up part of international law. It's a court of arbitration, your comparison to the UN is apples to oranges, in fact, the UN isn't really involved in international law setting.
I am not comparing it to the UN, but how it is referred to in the media is often misleading, especially the "in the Hague" part. Quite a few articles even dropped that bit and just referred to it as an "UN court/tribunal".
It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance.
And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
>It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance.
You're right that they _would_ do something like that! ;) In fact, they did in this case. I'll explain below.
>And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
Not quite. China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [0], which designates the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague [1] as the default means of dispute resolution between parties. China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty. This court ruled against China on the matter of the Nine-Dash Line [2]. By defying the court's ruling, they defy the UNCLOS, and thus the UN.
You're technically right that in the case of the Nine-Dash Line, China did not agree to participate in arbitration. However, arbitration was allowed to proceed without their cooperation according to the rules of the UNCLOS, which China had already signed. Treaty law doesn't only apply when it's convenient.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration has written their own argument for jurisdiction [0]. Having flipped through it, I don't have the legal background to form a strong opinion in light of China's declaration.
I'd lean towards "don't build on reefs in another country's Exclusive Economic Zone," but I'm neither a court nor plaintiff with standing :)
And the second is the more interesting point, it is the difference between having the US be the most powerful nation on earth and having China in that role. Look to see more of that happening over the next few years.
The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies.
For example, in the early 1990's, just before the First Gulf War, Yemen cast a UN vote against the resolution to invade Iraq. But, Yemen paid a hefty price after the US, Saudi Arabia and other allies retaliated:
A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state.
> The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies.
That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it.
So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion).
While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.
Well, except said rest world denizens from Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, India, Japan and the rest of the countries China wants to screw over.
They'll just be terrified. For good reason.
This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf", and decide that these people obviously want to conquer a LOT. At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, they're just not very important for western history because the west really wasn't very important for most of history. China eventually lost those conflicts, but not without inflicting massive damage. First to a lot of other countries, then more and more to themselves.
Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... You should be very apprehensive about China. Giving in to western demands has in most cases led to massive improvements in the lot of the average person. China is ... different.
> This list probably soon will include Pakistan, ...
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there.
> At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts,
Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them.
China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation)
> Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ...
What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick?
Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba?
Oops, thats all from the same side.
Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West.
> You should be very apprehensive about China
Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot.
> The list will include Pakistan because ... (some India rah rah rah stuff) ... I predict that will stop.
Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something?
Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face?
> The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism.
Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme.
Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are.
The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense".
> It is wrong.
Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself.
(and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)
> Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ...
The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China.
This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule.
Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision.
Here's some examples of moral relativism:
Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ?
Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians.
Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve.
You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ?
I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?
> You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument
Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, and apply it to some quarter-baked knowledge of basic history. Thats you. Keep me out of it.
(ignoring paragraphs of drivel, where you're under the mistaken illusion that you're somehow engaging in a high-minded conceptual dicussion avec moi)
Here's the problem you're not getting. From where I'm sitting, you come across as a nitwit with a very very poor knowledge of basic history, and an over-inflated opinion of his own "future projections".
That alone makes it hard to take you seriously. Along with your championing of terrorism and nuclear weapons.
Now, when you combine that with your eagerness to mix in philosophy, and start lecturing - while still showing many gaps in your own logic and understanding of said terms.
The effect is comedic.
Unfortunately, the strong whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which seems to poke its ugly head from your delusional writings is less comedic.
Case in point: Kemal Ataturk, who was part of the Young Turks movement that effectively lead Turkey through WW1, Armenian genocide and all - was somehow the moral superior of the Muslim Caliph he "defeated"? (err, when was that?) No doubt, this is all from some made up alternative history you're living in?
In short, you're a kook. And quite probably a bigoted one too, at that (just surmising). Yes you have a keyboard, and an ISP willing to let you loose. But no, that doesn't make you any less irrelevant than you probably are in real life.
Whatever your ailments, suffer them in silence. Don't involve me.
> All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government.
The nobel committee is set by the norwegian parliament.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament)."
And the nobel prizes ( particularly in peace ) has been used by the norwegian government to advance political causes. A prime example being obama being awarded the nobel peace prize before he did anything as president.
Regardless of your views on china, the nobel peace prize is a political prize.
Can't read the article because the site is down. But it seems like a reminder why countries join supranational organizations like the EU: To increase their collective bargaining power.
Another somber reminder that US hegemony is generally preferable to one in which the fragile, overcompensating and downright Trumpian Chinese national ego is allowed to throw its weight around the world stage.
I live in Norway. There has been pressure for some time on the government to do this because of the salmon exports. Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is still an important part of the economy here. Losing China as a customer meant bad news for a lot of folks in the fishing industry here. Also, since Norway is trying (unsuccessfully so far, but still they are trying) to lessen dependence on oil, this loss mattered even more than you might think at first glance.
Not saying that caving to normalize relations was "right," but it definitely had quite a bit of domestic support here.
> Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is still an important part of the economy
Meh. It employs 7k-10k people and contributes 0.7% of the economy. That is chickenfeed, and a particularly dumb thing to give up their principles over - particularly because processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price outside of China.
Does not compare to oil I guess, but I would not call it chickenfeed. It probably does get oversized media attention though, which is why this has so much domestic support.
> processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price outside of China
yes. right. that aspect of this story puzzles me. i thought that was how globalism worked.
i mean, can't Norway just sell the fish to, say, Canada, which could then sell its farmed salmon to China, etc?
i can't quite see what difference this will make. is Norway geographically closer to China than other salmon producing nations? how do they explain this?
Those triangulations are possible only if the destination country is willing to pay a premium for the banned goods.
Norwegian salmon would cost more in China because the Canadians are going to put some markup on it (and fairly, because they'll have to do some work on their own.) Or keep the same price for the consumer and gain less. In both cases Norway is going to lose money compared to normal commercial relationships.
This is more what I had in mind: Instead of selling its salmon to China, Norway sells all of its salmon to the US, France and Germany. So now US, French and German consumers buy that much less salmon from other salmon farming countries like Chile and Canada. And Chile and Canada are free to sell their farm-raised salmon to China.
In principle you are right. In practice the supply chains must get some incentive to switch to new suppliers. Perfect cooperation would suffice but usually it's price cuts.
> Also, since Norway is trying (unsuccessfully so far, but still they are trying) to lessen dependence on oil, this loss mattered even more than you might think at first glance.
On that topic, I wonder if China offered any assurances regarding support for Norway's territorial claims in the Arctic Circle.
The continued growth of China (and India) can strengthen organizations like the EU and give rise to other blocs of small countries. Collective bargaining power is the only way to have leverage with a country that’s 20-60 Times larger. It’s not unlike the unionization of labor in response to the weak bargaining position of the individual worker and I expect a similar pattern to repeat including union busting and bribery and a populist response. All very dangerous. If China pushes too hard, then the pendulum will swing hard in the other direction and China will be facing strong union fronts, populist movements that stubbornly demand painful concessions and resultant trade wars. We’ve seen this pattern before and it gets worse before it gets better.
International "meta"-law is so ridiculous. I mean the customary rules concerning recognition of states, embassies, passports [1], etc..
If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a blah." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing)
[1] Concerning passports, no matter how radically different states are, the US, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Vatican, one thing they can all agree on is that people have a "nationality" and must carry a "passport" when going over borders, the passport has a certain size and spaces for "visas", etc.. It really makes me consider how "radical" a state is if it partakes in this global system. Especially interesting, if you remember that a few centuries ago, none of this existed at all. In history lessions in school, I wondered how Lenin could travel through all of europe unhampered when he was fleeing from the tsarists. Well, there were only little borders or passports as we know them now around.
> If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a blah." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing)
That might not be a smart move. Small nations get a lot out of banding together and acting as a bloc. If you foobar Taiwan, it might freeze you out of diplomatic channels that are more important to you than wanking off China.
Plus, you don't have to kowtow to China when you have the US around. If you're really lucky, you'll rate a US military base and watch your economy take off. Sadly, if the Trump-ites get their wish, the US won't be much of an alternative for much longer.
Yes that’s great. Let’s put US military bases in small countries so they “turn to us” when China is acting unfavorably.
Sorry. As an American I have no interest in this. I don’t want military bases all over the world, I don’t want to pay for them, and I don’t want to be the world’s police.
Taiwan is quite used to countries working around China like this. Only 20 countries have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, none of them very influential.
And those that do use the official name of Taiwan's gov't, the Republic of China... which makes PRC look bad since they have a "China" across the strait with democracy and freedom.
The United States of America does not recognize Taiwan. They don't get an embassy, but they get an American Institute in Taiwan, and Taiwan has a Taipai Economic and Cultural Representative Office in DC. This arrangement with Taiwan exists with lots of countries.
It was easier to back Taiwan when it was an economic juggernaut and China was fumbling around with failed socialism experiments. Not to mention the advanced military gear they had vs China's older systems.
But the US has very much backed off it's strong Taiwan stance, at least in practice, now that China is both economically and militarily far stronger. China has largely let the US save face in the process so the US capitulation is not as prominent as the Chinese pressure on Norway and other countries.
Geopolitics is not unlike mob rules in this way, when it comes down to the wire, assuming the other guy has power and money is on the line,.
Lenin did get troubles in 1917 with border crossings and accepted contribution from Germany to get a safe pass to Russia. German government was interested in getting political emmigrants from Russia to return to the Motherland. They hoped it will destabilize political situation in Russia and weaken the country. The plan worked...
Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway, which positions itself as egalitarian and goes the extra mile in various areas such as excluding certain companies from investment by its global sovereign fund on ethical grounds[1].
This was also chilling to read:
"And when the Dalai Lama was invited to Norway in 2014 by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to celebrate his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 25 years earlier, conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg refused to meet with him, as did every single member of Solberg’s government. Due to warnings from China, His Holiness was not even allowed in to the Norwegian Parliament’s formal reception room, despite the room being empty during the time of his visit."
> Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway
China forces every country that it has normalised relations with to adhere to the 'One China' policy. Does your country have a Chinese embassy in it? Guess what, your country adheres to the 'One China' policy too.
Perhaps, but in many cases recognition that there should be "One China" also comes with the implication that Taiwan's government should be the one ruling the "One China".
Did you read the linked article? Norway's statements were absolutely humiliating, most countries absolutely do not go that far.
> Perhaps, but in many cases recognition that there should be "One China" also comes with the implication that Taiwan's government should be the one ruling the "One China".
Correct. All it is, is the acknowledgement that there aren't two countries called China, and if you want to do business with China, then the People's Republic of China is the only China you are allowed to officially recognise.
Pretty sure other countries' recognition of (which does not necessarily equate to acceptance or support of) China's position on this do not extend to the level of sovereign embarrassment and capitulation outlined in the post.
And there are many more examples. As China's influence grows, so too will the list of examples. Note: I'm not in support of this, just stating the current reality.
Pretty sure you are mistaken. All countries that have normalized relations with China have to officially abide by the One China policy. If not, they will pull trade, or go to a state of de facto war with you.
This is why Canada does not have a Taiwanese embassy. Instead, there are Taiwanese Trade offices which act unofficially as embassies in everything but name.
In all countries with Chinese embassies, this is the case.
As barkingcat suggests, pretty much every country on the planet that has normalized diplomatic relations with China formally accepts the One China policy. This is part of China's chess strategy for forcing the world to accept its ownership of Taiwan.
I will go out on a limb for a second and suggest that the day will come soon enough when the United States formally bends the knee on this issue as well. We are headed in that direction much faster than anyone anticipated.
The 'free world' has chosen to worship the Almighty Dollar as its lord and sovereign. China is where most of your dollars come from now. Ergo, China has the mandate of market-capitalist heaven, and you work for China now.
As far as "sovereign embarrassment," there is no such thing. If you want Chinese trade and embassy relations, you put out whatever news releases, go on television, press conferences, and at the UN General Assembly you stand up and proclaim exactly what Norway has said. It's an "embarrassment" in the poster's mind, but pretty much every country has done it. Then you go behind China's back and buy Taiwanese stuff and talk to the President of Taiwan in backchannels because everyone needs cpu's, microchips, and cell phones. The level of hypocrisy is pretty high in global politics.
I do not agree with this, but it is the state of the world.
It's one thing to officially adhere to "One China" and quite another to shun respected people that China doesn't like. Do other countries do that second one? The US seems to have no problem allowing the Dalai Lama to meet the President, for example.
Well, the US can piss off China with relative impunity. We represent 18 percent of their exports, and their currency is pegged to the dollar. Norway is less influential.
Relative, yes, but not total. When the Dalai Lama met with Obama, it was a 'private' visit not an official one and they met in the Map room rather than the Oval Office, which apparently has different diplomatic implications.
Even with all its clout, the US still needs to dance around the issue.
I don't get why this is such a big deal or "deep capitulation". Its a statement, seems more like net win for Norway, they got concrete economical benefits by trading in some (empty) words.
While the treatment of Dalai Lama was unfortunate, it also happened before this normalization, during a period of appeasement. Now that the relations are bit better again and an agreement has been reached, I would expect (somewhat paradoxically) Norways line against China to harden gradually again.
I doubt Norway alone could make a meaningful impact on China's social and geopolitical policy either. But like any type of protests it always takes one person to stand up to get the ball rolling, hopefully making some persuasive points, for others to join in to create real pressure.
Yet China has perfected their anti-western propaganda machine, when it's not censored it's to turned into victimization narratives or other reversals. The only 'real' pressure would be a united front with real economic costs imposed on China. That'd have to start somewhere but the efficacy must be honestly considered vs the very real costs China could impose in return against a single weaker opponent.
Considering many other bigger western countries have capitulated to China in similar ways, far quieter, over Taiwan and other social issues, it's better to characterize this as Norway falling into line with the rest of the countries. It wasn't quite a protest from the beginning nor was China bullying one country in particular (although the Noble prize thing clearly struck a strong cord among the elite).
One alternative, albeit a more cynical long-term perspective, with greater free trade and economic growth the Chinese middle class will continue to grow and each new young generation will be far better educated. Since external pressure seems unlikely to be effective or to be well incentivized, internal progress seems like the only hope.
How did Liu Xiaobo become so important? So much happening for this guy expressing his opinions, wtf?!
If an American or someone from most European countries would express similar opinions wrt his own country's government... nobody would blink a fucking eye, regardless of who gave him what prize...
(And we all know that Nobels for anything except science are 100% bullshit. Heck, I'd even question the relevance of the ones for medicine...)
In American high school I learned not just about Nathan Hale and Martin Luther King Jr., but also about Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Sophie Scholl. These figures are famous for the strength of their moral beliefs, the brutality they endured as a result, and their perseverance despite such adversity.
On these points, I think Liu Xiaobo is of equal merit. This would explain his visibility in the West. If students in China aren't taught similar stories or values, then I could understand the difficulty to relate.
Students in China are definitely taught about "figures are famous for the strength of their moral beliefs, the brutality they endured as a result, and their perseverance despite such adversity."
But considering that Liu Xiaobo preached about the inferiority of the Chinese race and how they needed to be colonized by the West for a couple hundred years, they would most likely compare him to an Uncle Tom/Chan type of person.
The reality is, money talks, even war is sometimes caused by economic reasons, if not all the times.
with that being said, the rising power of china, with its sheer size, it can essentially now bend everything to its will, including US who has so much trading deficit these years.
and, more cases like this will be down the road, people will probably have to get used to this new ruler in a few decades, mostly not by war, but by its economic power.
There's no real commitment here, just a face save for China. The diplomatic language was clearly coerced and has no impact except satisfying Chinese narcissism.
157 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] threadGogs doesn't do any caching at all, every request opens a new database connection. After 30 accesses per second gogs dies.
WordPress can cache SQL queries with memcached, and can scale to tenthousands of accesses per second with that.
HEADLINE: Norway just recently established normal ties with China after a six-year break. But in order to do so, the Norwegian government had to embrace the Chinese development model and social system, as well as the ‘one China’ framework.
ARTICLE: Since 2010, Norway barely had any diplomatic relations with China, due to the fact that Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year. The Chinese government demanded an apology from Norway, together with a guarantee that the prize was never to be awarded to a Chinese activist again.
But since the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent institution, the Norwegian government was in no position to issue neither an apology nor a guarantee. Nevertheless, China decided to punish Norway by immediately shelving a free-trade agreement that was being negotiated.
Chinese officials also stopped visiting the Norwegian embassy in Beijing, and its ambassador no longer received invitations to diplomatic events. Visas became harder to obtain for Norwegian tourists and professionals alike, and a range of exchanges in different fields was canceled with haste.
However, in late December last year, Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende suddenly appeared in Beijing to announce that the two countries were resuming normal diplomatic and trade relations. Negotiations on the free-trade agreement started again, much to the joy of the Norwegian Seafood Council, which estimates salmon exports to China to increase twentyfold in the coming years. The joy was shared by the tourism industry and the business sector alike.
It was also shared, obviously, by Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, who acknowledged that the strained relationship what China had not only weakened Norway’s trade but also its say in global politics, since China has been throwing its weight around to marginalize Norwegian influence in several international organizations.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. When declaring the re-establishment of ties with China, Brende also had to present a two-page joint declaration that included passages like: “The Norwegian government reiterates its commitment to the One China Policy, fully respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China’s core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.”
Hence, after Tsai Ing-wen took office in Taipei, China has not only engaged in checkbook diplomacy, as was the case when Sao Tomé & Principe switched diplomatic allegiance in late December. It is also demanding leading democracies to embrace the “one China” policy to atone for ”mistakes” made years ago in totally unrelated policy issues.
William Nygaard, chairman of PEN Norwegian Center, criticized the fact that the two-page joint statement doesn’t include a single word about human rights. John Peder Egenaes, general secretary for Amnesty International Norway, finds this particularly strange given that human rights is a Norwegian foreign policy priority — especially the support of human rights champions. “This policy,” Egenaes said, “has to apply to China, as much as to any other place.”
Stein Ringen, a Norwegian political scientist and professor at Oxford University, even branded the event as “an outright humiliation” to Norway, accusing his country’s politicians of surrendering to China’s demands. Ringen is particularly worried about terms like “territorial integrity” and “core interests” in the joint declaration, which he means de facto constitutes a “formal acceptance” from Norway not only regarding Taiwan, but also China’s claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer.
While in Beijing, Foreign Minister Brende said that resumption of normal relations with China was made possibl...
Liu Xiabo is since dead, actually: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/liu-xiaobo.html
TL;DR:this is no news
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy#Diplomatic_re...
The Norwegian government grovelling about 'not supporting anything to undermine China again' - after the Nobel was awarded to an activist - stinks more than usual.
Of course, as a superpower, you have a little bit more negotiating leverage.
However, China's only been successful at bullying countries into recognizing some of its more absurd positions because it has negotiated on bilateral bases, where in almost every case China holds significantly more relative economic clout.
If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric would likely be quite loud).
We've known for years that China's foreign policy has largely consisted of "salami slicing" — pressing hard for small concessions that cumulatively result in dramatic changes to international norms, and in the past states engaging in such behavior have been met with a strong and united international response, but for numerous reasons, the reaction to China still remains quite muted.
cold war version 2? nice try.
Well that will never happen
Blackmail, threats, deceit, etc are other ways to force. Not saying that occurred here, just that your definition has a narrow scope.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/forced
> enforced or compulsory
Is the first definition of the word. How was it compulsory for Norway to comply? They had their officials at gunpoint?
Also, words often have more than just their first definition.
So yes, China was definitely forcing Norway to recognize Taiwan and Hong Kong as a being a part of China.
I mean, they'd still have the option of denying the one China and going to war, by your definition. Basically, the way you see it, nobody can force you to do anything, as you can always kill yourself.
However, this isn't existential because even if China refuses to trade with Norway entirely, through the EEA the Norwegian people could continue receiving goods from China mediated through a different EEA country that has trade agreements.
At it's most dire what occurred simply wasn't an existential threat to Norway and the geographical distance meant that military reactions to trade disputes simply weren't going to occur. Thus the "force" here was mostly one of appearances, rather than reality.
That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree that this doesn't meet the definition of "forcing". Politics is squishy like that. Just because fishing is less than 1% of the GDP doesn't mean it has minimal impact on Norwegian society. The fishing industry has significant historical and cultural significance to Norway and abandoning support of that industry could very well be political suicide within Norway for the politicians that refused to play ball. You could say its simply spineless, but the optics of them snubbing China and at the same time snubbing their own fishing industry aren't especially good.
Norway and Iceland are both EEA members, effectively with one foot in the EU, Iceland was the first European country to sign such an agreement with China.
Norway and Iceland having free-trade with China while having deep access to the European single market leaves EU expansion in an odd situation. Neither country could become a full EU member without hurting trade with China, or alternatively the EU would have to make a similar FTA with China beforehand.
I've wondered what the realpolitik of the situation is. Is China's main interest in these deals to drive a wedge into further EU integration? Are they trying to create a situation where Norway and Iceland joining the EU would be contingent on the EU accepting a FTA with China?
Norway's low will to join the EU as full member is not because they don't like it or are moving away from it , but because they already have everything they want from it, and a few exceptions specifically "for them" in a custom made package they're fine paying the price of.
They pretty much have a "vanity membership, gold level"
These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Public sentiment has historically leaned towards EU skepticism, something which hasn't been helped by witnessing the EU's broad managerial incompetence (and occasionally petty vindictiveness) on everything from Greece to Brexit.
People aren't laughing at the UK for leaving the EU per se. but for the insane and terribly thought out chain of blunders that led to them taking that leap.
I want also to point out that this would not have happened if Norway had been in the EU already in 2010 because China would not risk trade with all of the EU because of such a small incident.
Not only that, but a central theme in the runup to Brexit was improved border & immigration control. This is something which EEA members don't enjoy themselves, both via Schengen and the EEA's bilateral work permits. Hence, Brexit voters were sold a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario where the UK would somehow manage to land an EEA style trade deal without literally any of its possible downsides. That seems optimistic to the point of naivete.
My guess is that by EEA you refer to those members that are not already part of the EU, although technically the EEA includes both EU members and countries with a special agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
At the same time, through the EEA Norway is much closer associated to the EU than the Brexit crowd wants the UK to be. Including e.g. accepting Schengen which the UK didn't participate in even as a member of the EU.
If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land borders with the EU will have a FTA with China. At that point the EU would either need to never liberalize certain trade with the EEA least Norway become a shipping and distribution hub for Chinese goods into the EU, or accept that to get closer integration with Norway and the other EEA members.
There has been increasing liberalization of trade between the EU and EEA members, just last month the EU and Iceland agreed to drop almost all import duties on agricultural products[1].
In addition to all of that, with global warming gearing up the Northeast Passage[2] might become a viable shipping route between China and Europe, at that point shipping from China to Norway will be the shortest shipping route between China and Europe by far. Sailing from China to Europe via the NEP to Norway cuts time at sea and fuel consumption by more than half compared to going via the Suez Canal.
1. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20170911IPR...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Passage
If Norway started selling all its oil to China, then we'd have something. But the EU borders Norway, and China doesn't so there isn't much in favour of it. In addition, China doesn't border the EU, so I don't think it sees much value in a divided EU (as opposed to Russia). To them it is probably more interesting to distance the EU from the US.
You can read the full list of tariff concessions by Iceland[1], as well as the rest of the treaty[2] MFA website.
It covers anything from food, tools, machinery, to raw ore and metals to finished nuclear reactors. Almost all tariffs on Chinese goods entering Iceland are set at 0%.
This means that Iceland (or hypothetically Norway in the future) can import say cheap industrial acids from China, and use them to make finished products that could be sold to the EU market using existing EU/EEA trade deals that give preferential tariff treatment to EEA members.
That's the potential conflict I'm talking about. China's setting up agreements where a country with wide access to its internal markets has better access to cheap Chinese goods than other EU/EEA countries.
Which means that either the EU needs to slow down liberalization of trade with Iceland (and perhaps Norway in the future) least they essentially become hubs to evade EU duties on Chinese goods, which'll pull those countries further into the Chinese sphere of influence.
Or it'll need to make similar deals itself, or otherwise live with the resulting trade imbalance with Iceland and Norway becoming re-exporters of Chinese goods.
1. https://www.mfa.is/media/fta-kina/Vidauki-I---Tollaaetlanir-...
2. https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement...
No, it doesn't work like that. Norway is not a member of the European customs union. Goods moving between Norway and the EU are subject to customs checks and, potentially, tariffs. You can't just trans-ship Chinese goods landed in Norway onward into the EU without customs declarations, inspections, and all that.
Of course, private citizens can travel pretty much freely across the EU-Norway border. Goods can move freely in small, personal-use quantities (Norwegians certainly like to shop across the border at cheaper Swedish supermarkets, etc). But as soon as you start shipping stuff in commercial volumes, it is subject to customs just like any other Chinese goods coming in to the EU would be.
I elaborated a bit on this in a sibling comment[1], but let's say for example that the import duties on electric drills from China into the EU are set at 30%, but the same duty for Norway is 10%.
After signing a FTA with China Norway can simply import the drills at 0%, then re-export them to Germany at a rate of 10%.
Even if they can't simply re-export finished products a Norwegian company could buy cheap Chinese parts for making drills, then finish constructing them domestically and export them to the EU.
Even if they don't directly re-export anything from China Norwegian industry would be more competitive than its neighbors, e.g. a Norwegian paper mill might buy cheap acids for industrial from China that their neighbors in Sweden don't have access to. This would make Norwegian paper cheaper than Swedish paper, and Sweden would pressure the EU to adjust its import duties accordingly.
Thus the EU will start having to either treat Norway and Iceland more like China in terms of tariffs and import duties, or to treat China more like Norway and Iceland.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15409391
As for goods of mixed origin (manufactured in Norway but benefiting from Chinese inputs/components), that is indeed where things get complicated. And that's one of the reasons why trade agreements typically run many thousands of pages and take years to negotiate! But the WTO has pretty comprehensive "Rules of origin" to use as a starting point.
Right now this situation exists in theory, but in practice pretty much nobody in the EU has any cause to try to import something via Norway, since its trade deals are quite similar to what the EU itself has.
But the EU has huge tariffs on some Chinese products, including slapping China with 30-70% tariffs on basic metal alloys in some cases[1][2].
The difference can be so large that it becomes beneficial for you as a private EU citizen to drive up to Norway yourself to fetch e.g. basic alloys at lower prices.
Nothing remotely like this situation exists within the land borders of Schengen today. There's the agreement with Iceland, but as it's an island enforcement is much easier.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/reuters-america-update-2-eu-...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-un...
Ah...
1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free trade agreement, largely shut down fishing imports from the country and made it far more difficult for Norwegians to get visas to travel study or work in China. All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government.
2) It took six years for Norway to get normal relations back. After many failed attempts, what they finally had to do was jointly acknowledge the One China Principle and China's core interests and territorial integrity. Beyond Taiwan, this clearly includes the China’s "nine dash line" claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer.
There's also various content about interfering with Dalai Lama visits and other topics that are pretty familiar to most Europeans.
Update: correction about the Nobel Peace prize thanks to dagw's feedback.
Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu Xiaobo).
In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning.
So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo
I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.
With these "wars" in particular he actually does have a great deal of power. They aren't actually wars but "military actions" for the most part. The commander in chief can unilaterally order the armed forced to withdraw if he so wished. Instead Obama ordered drone strike after drone strike, bombing after bombing (so many in fact that there was serious concerns that we would run out of bombs[0]). His merits as a president can be debated, his merits as a peace prize winner cannot. He simply did very little to promote peace and much to prevent it (see Syria).
[0]http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs...
Far as I can remember, at that time (Around 2009, 20 years after Tiananmen event), there are some people says Liu Xiaobo should be awarded with the peace prize for against CCP's dictatorship.
Some people event had a debate about it. Some say Liu is a hero for democratize China, others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by ... may be the US?
That debate later end with Obama's prize.
I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president.
Why not?
If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
For me, I just don't comment something I don't understand, I'm not living in the US, so I can't feel what Obama's doing.
Because of that, how can I make a comment that is appropriate? I can't even make a comment that's accurate (Judging by those late night shows I watched on Youtube).
Now about tax, I think it's actually you paid your government to do what they want. When they did something wrong / you don't like it, of course you can complain about it.
But as a foreigner however, if the US government did some negative thing on us, the most effective way I think is to blame our government for letting it to happen.
BTW: Of course, in China we have anit-US (Or Japan etc) prides from time to time, just I'm not a fan of it.
If you mean right in a moral sense, I guess my question still is: Why not?
If you are negatively affected by the actions of a leader of a foreign country ... why should you not have a right to criticize that?
If you have some constructive criticism as to how the leader of a foreign country is doing their job badly and how they could to it better ... what would be the use of not saying so out loud? Couldn't that possibly even be a contribution to their country?
I really don't see why having contributed to something would have anything to do with whether you should criticize it or not?! I can see how maybe you don't get a direct say in who gets to be the leader, but that's quite different from criticizing them, isn't it? I haven't contributed to Equifax either, but I still don't see why I shouldn't criticize their leadership?! Or should I? Why? Why not? And how is a country fundamentally different from a company in that regard?
This is what all the dictators say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance.
And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
You're right that they _would_ do something like that! ;) In fact, they did in this case. I'll explain below.
>And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
Not quite. China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [0], which designates the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague [1] as the default means of dispute resolution between parties. China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty. This court ruled against China on the matter of the Nine-Dash Line [2]. By defying the court's ruling, they defy the UNCLOS, and thus the UN.
You're technically right that in the case of the Nine-Dash Line, China did not agree to participate in arbitration. However, arbitration was allowed to proceed without their cooperation according to the rules of the UNCLOS, which China had already signed. Treaty law doesn't only apply when it's convenient.
[0] https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribun...
> China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty.
China signed it but they didn't agree to compulsory arbitration. They made declaration to that effect, along with a number of countries.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/conventio...
The Permanent Court of Arbitration has written their own argument for jurisdiction [0]. Having flipped through it, I don't have the legal background to form a strong opinion in light of China's declaration.
I'd lean towards "don't build on reefs in another country's Exclusive Economic Zone," but I'm neither a court nor plaintiff with standing :)
[0] https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1503
For example, in the early 1990's, just before the First Gulf War, Yemen cast a UN vote against the resolution to invade Iraq. But, Yemen paid a hefty price after the US, Saudi Arabia and other allies retaliated:
A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state.
https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-cos...
EDIT: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it.
So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion).
While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.
They'll just be terrified. For good reason.
This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf", and decide that these people obviously want to conquer a LOT. At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, they're just not very important for western history because the west really wasn't very important for most of history. China eventually lost those conflicts, but not without inflicting massive damage. First to a lot of other countries, then more and more to themselves.
Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... You should be very apprehensive about China. Giving in to western demands has in most cases led to massive improvements in the lot of the average person. China is ... different.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there.
> At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts,
Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them.
China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation)
> Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ...
What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick?
Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba?
Oops, thats all from the same side.
Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West.
> You should be very apprehensive about China
Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot.
Fair enough?
India will systematically rise in economic importance from this point forward. China's reasons to make a deal with India are multiplying every day.
The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. It is wrong.
Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something?
Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face?
> The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism.
Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme.
Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are.
The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense".
> It is wrong.
Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself.
(and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)
> Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ...
The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China.
This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule.
Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision.
Here's some examples of moral relativism:
Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ?
Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians.
Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve.
You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ?
I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?
Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, and apply it to some quarter-baked knowledge of basic history. Thats you. Keep me out of it.
(ignoring paragraphs of drivel, where you're under the mistaken illusion that you're somehow engaging in a high-minded conceptual dicussion avec moi)
Here's the problem you're not getting. From where I'm sitting, you come across as a nitwit with a very very poor knowledge of basic history, and an over-inflated opinion of his own "future projections".
That alone makes it hard to take you seriously. Along with your championing of terrorism and nuclear weapons.
Now, when you combine that with your eagerness to mix in philosophy, and start lecturing - while still showing many gaps in your own logic and understanding of said terms.
The effect is comedic.
Unfortunately, the strong whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which seems to poke its ugly head from your delusional writings is less comedic.
Case in point: Kemal Ataturk, who was part of the Young Turks movement that effectively lead Turkey through WW1, Armenian genocide and all - was somehow the moral superior of the Muslim Caliph he "defeated"? (err, when was that?) No doubt, this is all from some made up alternative history you're living in?
In short, you're a kook. And quite probably a bigoted one too, at that (just surmising). Yes you have a keyboard, and an ISP willing to let you loose. But no, that doesn't make you any less irrelevant than you probably are in real life.
Whatever your ailments, suffer them in silence. Don't involve me.
The nobel committee is set by the norwegian parliament.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament)."
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/...
And the nobel prizes ( particularly in peace ) has been used by the norwegian government to advance political causes. A prime example being obama being awarded the nobel peace prize before he did anything as president.
Regardless of your views on china, the nobel peace prize is a political prize.
Not saying that caving to normalize relations was "right," but it definitely had quite a bit of domestic support here.
Meh. It employs 7k-10k people and contributes 0.7% of the economy. That is chickenfeed, and a particularly dumb thing to give up their principles over - particularly because processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price outside of China.
Does not compare to oil I guess, but I would not call it chickenfeed. It probably does get oversized media attention though, which is why this has so much domestic support.
yes. right. that aspect of this story puzzles me. i thought that was how globalism worked.
i mean, can't Norway just sell the fish to, say, Canada, which could then sell its farmed salmon to China, etc?
i can't quite see what difference this will make. is Norway geographically closer to China than other salmon producing nations? how do they explain this?
Norwegian salmon would cost more in China because the Canadians are going to put some markup on it (and fairly, because they'll have to do some work on their own.) Or keep the same price for the consumer and gain less. In both cases Norway is going to lose money compared to normal commercial relationships.
This is more what I had in mind: Instead of selling its salmon to China, Norway sells all of its salmon to the US, France and Germany. So now US, French and German consumers buy that much less salmon from other salmon farming countries like Chile and Canada. And Chile and Canada are free to sell their farm-raised salmon to China.
On that topic, I wonder if China offered any assurances regarding support for Norway's territorial claims in the Arctic Circle.
If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a blah." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing)
[1] Concerning passports, no matter how radically different states are, the US, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Vatican, one thing they can all agree on is that people have a "nationality" and must carry a "passport" when going over borders, the passport has a certain size and spaces for "visas", etc.. It really makes me consider how "radical" a state is if it partakes in this global system. Especially interesting, if you remember that a few centuries ago, none of this existed at all. In history lessions in school, I wondered how Lenin could travel through all of europe unhampered when he was fleeing from the tsarists. Well, there were only little borders or passports as we know them now around.
That might not be a smart move. Small nations get a lot out of banding together and acting as a bloc. If you foobar Taiwan, it might freeze you out of diplomatic channels that are more important to you than wanking off China.
Plus, you don't have to kowtow to China when you have the US around. If you're really lucky, you'll rate a US military base and watch your economy take off. Sadly, if the Trump-ites get their wish, the US won't be much of an alternative for much longer.
Sorry. As an American I have no interest in this. I don’t want military bases all over the world, I don’t want to pay for them, and I don’t want to be the world’s police.
Other countries do this already and not just small ones.
For example, in Taiwan, Australia has the "Australia Office" [0] which is essentially an embassy in all but name. Other countries have similar things.
0: http://australia.org.tw/tpei/home.html
But the US has very much backed off it's strong Taiwan stance, at least in practice, now that China is both economically and militarily far stronger. China has largely let the US save face in the process so the US capitulation is not as prominent as the Chinese pressure on Norway and other countries.
Geopolitics is not unlike mob rules in this way, when it comes down to the wire, assuming the other guy has power and money is on the line,.
This was also chilling to read: "And when the Dalai Lama was invited to Norway in 2014 by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to celebrate his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 25 years earlier, conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg refused to meet with him, as did every single member of Solberg’s government. Due to warnings from China, His Holiness was not even allowed in to the Norwegian Parliament’s formal reception room, despite the room being empty during the time of his visit."
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
China forces every country that it has normalised relations with to adhere to the 'One China' policy. Does your country have a Chinese embassy in it? Guess what, your country adheres to the 'One China' policy too.
Did you read the linked article? Norway's statements were absolutely humiliating, most countries absolutely do not go that far.
Correct. All it is, is the acknowledgement that there aren't two countries called China, and if you want to do business with China, then the People's Republic of China is the only China you are allowed to officially recognise.
> Did you read the linked article?
Yes. Other countries do go that far too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/dalai-lama-pope-fra...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/9717544...
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/30/pm-has-no-plan...
And there are many more examples. As China's influence grows, so too will the list of examples. Note: I'm not in support of this, just stating the current reality.
This is why Canada does not have a Taiwanese embassy. Instead, there are Taiwanese Trade offices which act unofficially as embassies in everything but name.
In all countries with Chinese embassies, this is the case.
I will go out on a limb for a second and suggest that the day will come soon enough when the United States formally bends the knee on this issue as well. We are headed in that direction much faster than anyone anticipated.
The 'free world' has chosen to worship the Almighty Dollar as its lord and sovereign. China is where most of your dollars come from now. Ergo, China has the mandate of market-capitalist heaven, and you work for China now.
As far as "sovereign embarrassment," there is no such thing. If you want Chinese trade and embassy relations, you put out whatever news releases, go on television, press conferences, and at the UN General Assembly you stand up and proclaim exactly what Norway has said. It's an "embarrassment" in the poster's mind, but pretty much every country has done it. Then you go behind China's back and buy Taiwanese stuff and talk to the President of Taiwan in backchannels because everyone needs cpu's, microchips, and cell phones. The level of hypocrisy is pretty high in global politics.
I do not agree with this, but it is the state of the world.
Unfortunately yes: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/30/pm-has-no-plan...
Even with all its clout, the US still needs to dance around the issue.
While the treatment of Dalai Lama was unfortunate, it also happened before this normalization, during a period of appeasement. Now that the relations are bit better again and an agreement has been reached, I would expect (somewhat paradoxically) Norways line against China to harden gradually again.
Yet China has perfected their anti-western propaganda machine, when it's not censored it's to turned into victimization narratives or other reversals. The only 'real' pressure would be a united front with real economic costs imposed on China. That'd have to start somewhere but the efficacy must be honestly considered vs the very real costs China could impose in return against a single weaker opponent.
Considering many other bigger western countries have capitulated to China in similar ways, far quieter, over Taiwan and other social issues, it's better to characterize this as Norway falling into line with the rest of the countries. It wasn't quite a protest from the beginning nor was China bullying one country in particular (although the Noble prize thing clearly struck a strong cord among the elite).
One alternative, albeit a more cynical long-term perspective, with greater free trade and economic growth the Chinese middle class will continue to grow and each new young generation will be far better educated. Since external pressure seems unlikely to be effective or to be well incentivized, internal progress seems like the only hope.
China does no such thing. Norway sells out. For money.
But at least they held out for six years. A better score than most of the rest of us.
If an American or someone from most European countries would express similar opinions wrt his own country's government... nobody would blink a fucking eye, regardless of who gave him what prize...
(And we all know that Nobels for anything except science are 100% bullshit. Heck, I'd even question the relevance of the ones for medicine...)
On these points, I think Liu Xiaobo is of equal merit. This would explain his visibility in the West. If students in China aren't taught similar stories or values, then I could understand the difficulty to relate.
But considering that Liu Xiaobo preached about the inferiority of the Chinese race and how they needed to be colonized by the West for a couple hundred years, they would most likely compare him to an Uncle Tom/Chan type of person.
with that being said, the rising power of china, with its sheer size, it can essentially now bend everything to its will, including US who has so much trading deficit these years.
and, more cases like this will be down the road, people will probably have to get used to this new ruler in a few decades, mostly not by war, but by its economic power.