Current Events in East Asia Questions
Why do you think that the United States should have joined the AIIB, and that it is not too late to do so now?
***They should've joined the AIIB because while Washington still often perceives foreign policy in us-against-them terms, much of the rest of the world no longer does. That's why in its attempts to contain China, the U.S. is discovering, to its dismay, that its allies aren't always on board. This is shown through Italy's participation to the BRI. "No one wants to choose sides," Parag Khanna, founder of the strategic advisory firm FutureMap and author of the book The Future Is Asian, told me. "We live in a multipolar system. No smart country sides with only one power. Instead they play all the powers off each other to derive maximum benefit for themselves." ***it's not too late as analysts said that if Trump backed US membership of the AIIB and endorsed China's efforts to revive trade routes along the ancient Silk Road, ********* it would be a big sign of goodwill from Washington to Beijing to pave the way for future agreements. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/us-allies-washington-china-belt-road/587902/ https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2044829/us-opposition-aiib-strategic-mistake-says-senior-trump
Given that a successful BRI will solidify China's future Indo-Pacific hegemony and beyond, all the way to Africa and Latin America, why do you agree that the United States must do everything it can to undermine its progress?
**I don't think they should undermine its progress. Rather, the U.S. should change their rhetoric "us against them" as the world simply does not work like that anymore. "We live in a multipolar system. No smart country sides with only one power. Instead they play all the powers off each other to derive maximum benefit for themselves." While I do believe that higher powers should regularly check to BRI's goals and promises to hold that there are no ulterior motives (i.e. debt trap diplomacy with Sri Lanka), the U.S. should start trade deals with China rather than a trade war Asia is returning to its natural state of multipolarity among greater and lesser powers with none able to truly dominate. This is shown with efforts towards a Eurasian and Afroeurasian integration through the connectivity of the BRI. Europe's growing confidence in dealing with China is a case in point. The EU has just toughened its stance on Chinese trade policy and IP theft, even calling China a "systemic rival." But it would be a mistake to believe that Europe has fallen into line with Washington's trade war. European countries trade well over $500 billion more per year with Asia than they do with the U.S., and thus have more at stake in trans-Eurasian integration. Europe is showing how to engage with China while competing with it at the same time. It is precisely because Europeans have so much to gain from BRI that they successfully wrested concessions from China on cutting industrial subsidies and forced technology transfer before signing the final communique at the April 9 EU-China Summit in Brussels with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang **THE US NEEDS A SIMILAR APPROACH America's failure to engage with BRI will mean BRI member nations will dominate the lucrative contracts, while American companies will be left out. ***Even if the U.S. is serious about limiting Chinese influence, they can do this by joining the BRI As BRI diplomacy becomes more structured, the U.S. can work behind the scenes with allies South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, both active BRI members, to shape its priorities. America continues to have more influence over these and numerous other BRI states than China does—for now. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/30/washington-is-dismissing-chinas-belt-and-road-thats-a-huge-strategic-mistake-226759
Why do you think that Japan's current lead in electric vehicle batteries means it will accomplish the next-level breakthrough enabling trips of 800 km (500 miles) without recharging?
According to the Japan times article, finding and creating vehicle battery breakthroughs have been a challenge for many countries. As the article has stated, the brains of the US, China, and Japan have come together to discover this breakthrough. However, from current trends and due to Toyota's active launch into creating a battery, it seems likely that they will accomplish this goal.
Why do you agree with Keidel that purchasing power parity (PPP) measures of China's overall economic size generate a distorted image of China's military capability?
=> Maybe an answer: AGREE because PPP is a relative measure of spending. PPP corresponds to an amount of goods that a country can buy in another currency. Consequently, a such measure depends on the change rate; one can consider that as a too weak measure. A consideration of PIB share can be more concrete, or stable. Moreover, a such quantitative measure does not take in account the quality of the goods. A such measure provide consequently an unstable and uncomplete vision of the Chinese military capability. However, it is certain that the increase of the PIB share dedicated to the Chinese military capabilities makes it a challenger of the US military supremacy.
Why do you think that China's trade and other policies today are like the way other countries in the past have "rigged" their markets, as described by Fallows?
=> State Own Entreprises // List. I think so. The US developed thanks to a protective tariff during the Jeffersionian era. A lot of countries developed strategies to develop, protect, sustain the economic efforts of their firms. // "America first" Harding 1919; "Made in France"
Why do you think the fate of the man whose arrest led to this year's Hong Kong demonstrations will have a major impact on Taiwan's upcoming elections?
A Hong Kong man has offered to surrender to Taiwanese authorities for the alleged murder of his girlfriend in Taiwan last February. But without an extradition agreement, Chan Tong-kai remains in limbo as authorities quarrel over how to transfer him to Taiwan for legal proceedings. Taiwan President Tsai Ing-Wen and her ruling party are "certainly looking" to secure political capital ahead of the election as they present themselves as defenders of Taiwan's sovereignty, says Zhixing Zhang, senior East Asia analyst at geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor. It will have a defining impact on the elections because "Essentially, Taipei is playing up the sovereignty matter in the current legal disputes, arguing that the Hong Kong government's refusal to establish a legal framework plays into Beijing's "One Country" narrative, and undermines Taiwan's judicial independence," https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/a-murder-case-that-sparked-hong-kong-crisis-becomes-a-taiwan-election-issue.html
Why do you agree with reasonably reliable sources that China's policy commitments on climate change abatement won't actually deliver results much different than those if China does nothing at all?
According to the CRS report, China's policy commitment would actually deliver its promises as opposed to doing nothing at all. According to the projections, Some projections of China's CO2 emissions suggest that China's existing policies may achieve the pledged peaking earlier than 2030.
Why do you agree that Korea should not close the "comfort women" memorial and go back on its 2015 agreement with Japan to permanently settle the issue?
Agree
Why do you agree that Hong Kong's history casts doubt on China's claim to full sovereignty over Hong Kong and hence to the validity of the one-country-two-systems concept?
Agree I agree that Hong Kong's history as a British colony casts doubt on China's full claim to sovereignty It was leased for 99 years, so for many people, a democratic system is all they know Disagree Hong Kong is part of China, Beijing has never recognized the treaties brought on Hong Kong by the British In March 1963, the CPG declared that "the questions of Hong Kong and Macao were caused by a series of unequal treaties imposed by the imperialists in the past." With regard to these questions, "our consistent position is that they should be resolved by peaceful negotiations when conditions are ripe
Why do you agree that a de facto U.S. rejection of a one-country-two-systems' basis for relations with Taiwan would ultimately hurt Taiwan?
Agree It is an issue that could easily escalate, leading to war that Taiwanese and its military capacity cannot handle
Why do you agree that the AIIB is a threat to the United States' benevolent influence worldwide, through the World Bank and IMF, in favor of poor countries' economic development and poverty reduction?
Agree because they're missing out on trade partnerships **The United States and Japan are the only two G7 countries that have not signed up to be AIIB members, a move viewed by Beijing as a sign of Washington's mistrust of the Chinese government and its ambition to exert bigger regional influence. Analysts said that if Trump backed US membership of the AIIB and endorsed China's efforts to revive trade routes along the ancient Silk Road, ********* it would be a big sign of goodwill from Washington to Beijing to pave the way for future agreements. ***Washington said Italy's participation "lends legitimacy to China's predatory approach to investment and will bring no benefits to the Italian people." ***"If the US is not committed to regional trade deals, China will find a new chance to push forward its own trade deals, bilateral agreements as well as the 'One Belt, One Road' strategy," Zhang said. "The US' economic leadership in the world would be questioned, offering additional room for China to deepen its economic ties with Asia-Pacific countries." https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2044829/us-opposition-aiib-strategic-mistake-says-senior-trump
Why do you think that the United States is unlikely to achieve its objectives from raising tariffs and other barriers to U.S.-China trade?
But some of the administration's China hawks fear the president, worried about the impact of a prolonged trade dispute on U.S. financial markets and the economy, will settle for something less than fundamental changes in China's economic model. - WAPO Chinese negotiators appear to be hoping Trump will do just that and settle for large purchases of U.S. soybeans and liquefied natural gas to narrow the U.S. trade deficit with China, which is expected to hit a record $400 billion-plus when final 2018 figures are tallied. * the word objectives in unclear too, what objectives does the US have? Main point: I think the US will get short term gains from raising tarriffs and other barriers such as the prior tariffs have done according to the WAPO article, however in the long run. The Fed Reserve has already prepared for a nearcoming recession, one of the culprits being the trade war and tarriffs in the international market. The fact that experts believe that there will be long-term harm from these tarrifs leads me to believe that the United states will not achieve its objective of lowering the trade deficit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-pursuing-a-trade-deal-the-us-may-be-asking-china-to-do-the-unthinkable/2019/02/14/2cdf9ad6-3067-11e9-ac6c-14eea99d5e24_story.html
Why do you agree that it is time for China to move on from its continued efforts to use its "Century of Humiliation" as justifications for anti-Japanese verbal attacks, policies and actions?
China, for its part, still harps on its "century of humiliation" and colonial degradation that began with Britainʼs victory over Manchu-ruled China in the First Opium War in 1839. In this "century of humiliation," Western powers intervened and imposed unequal treaties on the Qing dynasty in Beijing and Imperial Japan invaded and occupied parts of China. Chinaʼs experiences under Japanese and Western colonialism were a key factor in the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, which convinced many Chinese that only it could restore the countryʼs pride and which today still harps on its "heroic" role in "the peopleʼs War of Resistance against the Japanese aggression. It's time to move on from these continued efforts. The Chinese Communist Party has unfailingly played the history card to instill fear in Chinese society of foreign powers encircling China. As its ideological underpinnings have eroded, it has made ultra-nationalism the legitimating credo of its monopoly on power. FACT: In recent years, for example, it has sought to draw attention to the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army before and during World War II. Through government projects and subsidies, China, among other things, has expanded and renovated war museums memorializing Japanʼs 1931-1945 invasions. As though to stir its people into a frenzy of patriotism, China in 2015 introduced two new national memorial days to commemorate Chinaʼs long battle against Japanese aggression in World War II: "War against Japanese Aggression Victory Day" on September 3 and "Nanjing Massacre Day" on December 13
Why do you agree that Japan is justified in criticizing China for building the Harbin, China memorial to Ahn Jung-Geung?
Considered a terrorist in Japan, where Ahn was hanged, but a hero in South and North Korea, Ahn assassinated a top Japanese leader, Hirobumi Ito, in 1909 at the Harbin Railway Station in China. Ito was a highly decorated, four-time Japanese prime minister and the first resident-general of Japanese-ruled Korea. In recent years, that case has resurfaced after China opened a memorial hall at the Harbin Railway Station in 2014 to commemorate Ahn. Indeed, as if to cement Ahnʼs status as a hero in Korea,5 his image has appeared on a 200-won postage stamp in South Korea, while Itoʼs image can be seen on Japanʼs 1,000-yen note. The irony is that China, while portraying the Yasukuni Shrine as a symbol of Japanʼs unrepentant view of past militarism, found no contradiction in opening a memorial hall honoring an assassin. The Ahn memorial ̶ intentionally designed to be antagonistic to Japan ̶ is just one example of how national commemoration can be manipulated to serve narrow geopolitical agendas. Because it was intentionally designed for ulterior motives, Japan is justified in criticizing China.
Why do you think the best U.S. solution to North Korea's growing nuclear weapons capabilities would be to conduct surgical strikes destroying them as they develop, confident that China would not come to North Korea's aid for such limited operations?
DISAGREE In 2017 it was presumed that NK now has an intercontinental ballistic missile At this time the US has chosen "self restraint" with the North But if the US tried to do surgical strikes- there is no historical precedent for a military attack aimed at destroyed a country's nuclear arsenal In 1994 US seriously considered surgical strikes but decided against them saying it would "set off warfare that could leave hundreds of thousands dead" For the past 2 years the US military has backed off considerably- hitting Mr. Kim with sanctions instead Besides a preemptive attack would likely fail to wipe out NK arsenal most facilities are hidden deep in mountain caves/underground or are mobile. Any attack on NK is not "limited operations" Even a surgical strike would be an act of war- and encourage China to become involved China came to the assistance of NK when US forces pushed against the border during the Korean War 1950-53
Why do you agree that once India has backed out of RCEP, it is no longer useful as an alternative to CPTPP?
DISAGREE RECP: regional comprehensive economic program that includes several poorer and emerging markets: China, India (not anymore), Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines India backed out because other countries could not agree to their many demands. The US had been courting India because it's a democracy and represents a counterweight to China. RCEP should open up opportunities for encouraging development policies not strictly related to international commerce and finance RCEP sets up trade links and market predictability to make assembly-trade FDI less risky meaning it's very helpful for BRI (Something India really doesn't like) Potential conflict: Most RCEP countries trade with the US directly and indirectly (through Mexico) so is the US still involved ?
Why do you believe that rules under the United Nations Charter would make it very difficult for the United States simply to lift sanctions against North Korea?
DISAGREE The fifteen-member UN Security Council has passed nearly a dozen resolutions, all unanimously, condemning North Korea for its nuclear pursuits and imposing sanctions. The U.S. placed sanctions on several Taiwanese- and Hong Kong-based firms and associated individuals for allegedly covertly shipping fuel to North Korea in violation of United Nations sanctions. On several occasions, the United States has partially lifted its sanctions on North Korea in exchange for a promise to freeze its nuclear program and dismantle parts of its facilities. However, Pyongyang has consistently reneged on its pledges. Resolution 1874, passed after the second nuclear test in 2009, broadened the arms embargo. Member states were encouraged to inspect ships and destroy any cargo suspected of being related to the nuclear weapons program
Why would you say that a North Korean army that is twice as large as South Korea's and 20 times as large as U.S. forces stationed in South Korea would make a conventional conflict on the peninsula difficult for the U.S. and its allies to win?
DISAGREE The power of the US and allies is unparalleled in technology and strategic advances' NK operates with aging equipment and technology NK is advancing in technology and weapons development but it's nowhere near the capabilities of the US. NK spends around $3.35 billion annually on the military The US spends $693 billion annually and SK spends $43.1 billion annually A large NK force would be no match even for a smaller number of US/Allies BUT- it's important to note that the fallout from any conflict would be devastating and China would probably become involved.
Why do you think breakdown of all previous U.S. agreements with North Korea since the 1990s have been North Korea's fault?
DISAGREE: not ALL Agreed Framework 2003: ended an 18-month crisis during which North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), under which North Korea committed not to develop nuclear weapons. So NK had to freeze their plutonium production capabilities and placing it under IAEA safeguards The US had to give two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors and fuel to run them But then once Bush was elected opponents of the agreement found info on a uranium enrichment program of NK which could potentially lead to weapons and instead of confronting NK Bush just decided to stop construction on the previously agreed on reactors after various confrontations and NK conceding that they have been working with uranium NK left the NTP Six party talks 2007ish joint declaration in which North Korea commits to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and to implement IAEA safeguards and the terms of the NPT. As part of the agreement, the United States asserts that it has no intention of attacking North Korea. North Korea commits to halting operations at its Yongbyon nuclear facilities in exchange for fifty thousand tons of oil. things fall through due to standstill (don't think this is anyone's fault) NK commits to suspend uranium enrichment, invite IAEA monitors in exchange for US food aid 2012 deal falls apart after NK launches a rocket and displays mobile intercontinental missiles at military parade Kim and Trump the two leaders signed a joint statement pledging to pursue lasting peace and complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, although the declaration provides few details. Trump says Kim agreed to dismantle the nuclear material production facilities at Yongbyon in exchange for complete sanctions relief, but the U.S. president wanted more substantial steps Kim says he only asked for some sanctions relie
Why would you confirm that, given the nature of U.S.-Taiwan relations, Tsai Ying-wen visits to the United States should not be a problem for U.S.-China relations?
Disagree Given the strained relationship between the US and China right now, Tsai Ying-wen's longer-than-usual visit to the U.S. emphasize the Trump Administration's support for Tsai at a time when she has been coming under increasing pressure from Beijing, a major U.S. security rival with which Washington has been engaged in a year-long trade war. Tsai's extended stopovers showed U.S. approval for the "caution and restraint" she had shown in her dealings with Beijing
Why do you agree with Australian parliamentarian Hastie that Australia should not misjudge China the way France misjudged the rise of Nazi Germany?
Disagree with this assertion. With Nazi Germany their actions where purely agressive, some can argue that China's is defensive Nazi Germany annexed a bunch of countries something China has not done and likely will not do I think we can agree that caution to a power like China is not a bad thing, but to compare it to Nazi Germany is creating fear that is unnecessary.
Why do you agree that, since Japanese faithful believe that Yasukuni Shrine holds the spirits of all Japanese war dead, Prime Minister Abe is justified in making visits to pray there?
Disagree, Prime Minister Abe is not justified in making visits to pray there becaues of the timing in which he chose to visit the Shrine. Prime Minister Abe has typically avoided visiting the Shrine since he first became PM in the early 2000s, and did not visit them until in 2013 after Beijing claimed to have an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea as well as the Senkaku Islands, which is claims to have sovereignty over but in reality does not control (Chellaney). In response to this, Abe visited Yasukuni, as a "way to assert Japanʼs right to independence from external pressure, and it inamed nationalistic passions in China and South Korea" (Chellaney) Also signed guest book as "Prime Minister Abe," different from how he signed it before
Why do you think that, since Kiribati and Solomon Islands are such tiny nations, their shifting diplomatic relations from Taiwan to the PRC is of no significance for Taiwan's one-country-two-systems status?
Disagree, it is of big significance With Kiribati and Solomon Islands shifting their dpilomatic relations from Taiwan to PRC, it may set a precedent for all the other nations that still have diplomatic ties to Taiwan to shift as well.
Why do you think that the 1965 Japan-South-Korea treaty is the legitimate way to resolve issues of compensation due Koreans for Japanese wrongdoings during World War II?
Disagree, not a legitimate way to resolve issues of compensation $500 million dollars worth of financial aid and loans from japan The leader of SK in 1965 who signed the treaty was Park Chung-hee, authoritarian leader and arch collaborator He had served as an officer in the Japanese Imperial Army; right-wing Japanese politicians considered him a friend Because of those involved in the signing, not a legitimate way to resolve issues
Why do you agree that China's lax law enforcement system makes it a magnet for human trafficking in East Asia?
I do not agree that it China's lax law enforcement system Like many places China does have a trafficking problem In June of this year Chinese officials in conjunction with sever SE Asian nations freed 1100 human trafficking victims. I think it is unfair to blame China for a problem that happens across the world and what we have seen is their willingness to fix this problem. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3015603/chinese-police-free-more-1100-human-trafficking-victims-after
Why do you agree that efforts to extend and strengthen intellectual property rights, like those in the original TPP, disproportionately hurt poorer developing countries? might need more here?
Examples of this in the TPP had an every 3 years renegotiation of procurement discriminations had foriegn artistic royalties a 70 year extension of copyright protections ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to control content storage of links to protected content required criminal/civil proceedings for not properly identifying artists with their artistic/musical products required criminal/civil proceedings for hacking into electronics to obtain artistic/ musical works All of these are much harder for a developing country to implement and enforce also makes for the US/developing countries to have much more power to prosecute/extradite members of a foriegn country.
Why would you argue that the kind of violence breaking out in Hong Kong is justified?
For current protester leaders to encourage violence would be both morally unjustified and a serious tactical mistake. The outcome of any struggle between them and the government will be decided in large part by public opinion: if protesters can be blamed for starting violence, that will elevate the administration and its supporters. And worse yet, it might also help legitimise harsher methods by the security forces in response. But it's also a mistake to overstate the case against violence. For one thing, the claim that violence is never permissible under any circumstances probably isn't true - at least not if you're committed to the sort of liberal, republican, and democratic ideas that the US's founding fathers believed in. Modern democratic thought has long held that individuals have a right to resist and rebel against tyrannical government and political injustices, and that defeating these great social evils may sometimes demand the resort to armed force. Properly understood, these sorts of ethics are highly restrictive: it's probably not justifiable for opponents of injustice to instigate violence. But if the defenders of an unjust government take the initiative, using violence as a means of deterring protest, that is a different matter. ***If violence seems likely for whatever reason, the opposition needs to be able to defend its members against any misrepresentation of their intentions. Refusing to acknowledge even hypothetical justifications for violence gives up on a vital line of defence. https://theconversation.com/is-violent-political-protest-ever-justified-72630
In the dispute over China's state-owned enterprises' trade role, why do you think that neither side has convincing arguments? I will simplify this soon!
General demand from the US- that china's state led economic system must be dismantled- their command system isn't competitive says the US- the more market oriented is better. but US does have any practical plans for how China should do this The US is asking China to disregard an economic system which propelled their economy to what it is today China says maybe the reason that US wants them to stop is because their system is working so well- helping them to propel fast Just because the US is scared of this governmental interference doesn't give it the power to tell other countries what kind of system they should have. China calls it an invasion of economic sovereignty The basis is the xi jinping promised some major market reforms more relaxed regulatory framework for financial transactions and to have more freedom in the international financial accounts Claim has been that Xi jingping has backed out of this promise Maybe not true: in 2015 China had a huge rush of capital when trying to control the housing sector which had bubbled and the money flowed into the stock market and the government had to intervene to bring it back down So technically there has been a lot of liberalization of the economy but it blew up in their face so naturally they don't want it US is kind of a hypocrite because they have a couple of companies that sell to the commercial market major contracts with the government- who have contract overflows like like airplane, rocket producing funded by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Why do you agree that recent events illustrate why it is impossible to rein in corruption in East Asia?
I do not agree that recent events illustrate why it is impossible to rein in corruption in East Asia In China, the central bank is attempting to strengthen their anti-money laundering cooperation overseas to curb cross-border money laundering schemes In SK President Moon created an anti-corruption unit to check the corruption that people alleged take place in the prosecutor's office The person who he tapped to run this office his family was later tapped with a corruption scandal of their own
Why do you agree that violently disrupting travelers for two days a major airport is a good way to promote Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement?
Hong Kong's airport presents an easy target for demonstrators. Its open design admits large numbers of people quickly and efficiently, and the city prides itself on the ease of access. In addition to cabs, there are frequent buses as well as express trains that run every 10 minutes and take less than half an hour to make the trip from the city center. However, if protesters can be blamed for starting violence, that will elevate the administration and its supporters. And worse yet, it might also help legitimise harsher methods by the security forces in response. While protesting at the airport was a good strategic location, violently disrupting travelers may not successfully promote Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement because the opposition needs to be able to defend its members against any misrepresentation of their intentions.
Why are you concerned that fear and paranoia are distorting the Asia-Pacific response to China's rise in dangerous ways?
I am concerned because this fear and paranoia is disrupting the work of ASEAN.... FACT: The ultimate casualty, however, is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which has excruciatingly sought to shape the regional security architecture according to the principles of dialogue, multilateralism and institutionalised diplomatic engagement. Quad powers: U.S., Australia, Japan, and India After years of dormancy, the Quad powers are stepping up joint naval exercises, diplomatic countermeasures and defence technology exchanges among themselves. Goal: intimidate and constrain China's ambitions, deterring any revisionist challenge to the status quo by regional rivals. we are starting to witness the precarious return of a great power rivalry, which could tear asunder the fabric of Asian peace and prosperity. Threatening to fully sideline Asean in regional affairs unleashes a potentially destructive era of great power rivalry in the world's most dynamic region.
Why do you think that it would be foolhardy for China to resist more independence for Hong Kong, given the likely global reaction to an insistence on strictly enforcing the old 1997 one-country-two-systems agreement?
I believe enforcing the one-country-two-systems agreement is great in theory, but imperfect in practice. China resisting more independence for Hong Kong is foolhardy because they are not addressing the real issue at hand: the Hong Konger's feeling as if their elected officials are puppets towards Beijing. For instance the Basic Law guarantees rights such as freedom of speech, and assembly, equality before the law, and states the relationship between Hong Kong and the central government. The Basic Law also said that "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Because of this, Hong Kongers felt that Beijing disrespected the one-country-two-systems agreement as well as the Basic Law with the election of the city's leader consisted of candidates pre-vetted by a 1,200 member panel comprising mostly of Beijing supporters. This sparked the Umbrella Movement Therefore, for China to resist independence and letting their pleas for rights as a separate system to be respected fall deaf on the ears, it is then a foolhardy method as Hong Kong will keep asking for democracy to be upheld (2019 summer protests)
Why do you think that Friedrich List's writings sound like they were more relevant for Japan in the past than they are for China now?
I disagree They are relevant for China too: protection by the State of vital industries
Why do you agree that, despite all the hoopla, a weaker Chinese yuan is not a major concern for the rest of Asia?
I do not agree that a weaker Chinese yuan is not a major concern for the rest of Asia. Japan and South Korea will be affected greatly. Their economies will arguably experience the worst collateral damage as Trump's tariffs ricochet through China's economy The 1.3% drop in Chinese exports in June year-on-year suggests China's GDP growth of 6.2% in the first quarter could be its highest level for 2019. A weaker exchange rate could be just the thing to revive the all-important export engine. Yet it is the last thing Japan, Korea and slowing economies in Southeast Asia need in the second half of 2019. The yuan falling to weaker than seven, which suggests the U.S. and China have lost all hope of a trade deal, is a direct blow to the competitiveness of its Asian peers. Moon's economy is bearing the brunt of China's slowdown: in July, Korean exports to China fell 16.3%. China-bound shipments of semiconductors dropped more than 28%. When Korean growth is slowing, youth unemployment is 10.5% and inflation is a Japan-like 0.6%, exchange-rate headwinds are decidedly unwelcome. The same goes for Abe's Japan, where real wages just fell a sixth straight month in June. That is a blow to Abe's nearly seven-year reflation effort, one largely driven by a weaker yen. A weaker yuan reduces China's purchasing power, which augurs poorly for growth from Singapore to Vietnam to Australia.
Why do you believe that since the U.S. and Europe are world leaders in cancer cure research, East Asian scientists will always be playing catch-up?
I do not because China is building a 1 billion yuan (US$145.4 million) "superconducting computer" - an unprecedented machine capable of developing new weapons, breaking codes, analysing intelligence and - according to official information and researchers involved in the project - helping stave off surging energy demand. FACT: Chinese scientists have already made a number of breakthroughs in applying superconducting technology to computers. They have developed new integrated circuits with superconducting material in labs and tested an industrial process that would enable the production of relatively low cost, sophisticated superconducting chips at mass scale. They have also nearly finished designing the architecture for the computer's systems. Zheng said China's determination to develop the new technology would only be strengthened by the trade war with the United States. Many Chinese companies are reliant on US computing chips and the White House's threats in May to ban chip exports to Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE almost sent the company to the wall. While One billion yuan is a lot of money, it cannot solve all the remaining problems. Some technical issues may need years to find a solution, however intensive the investment. Despite this fact, China is still catching up.
Why do you think that the U.S. shifts in policy in East Asia under the Trump administration reflect predictable long-term American interests rather than the personal agency of the U.S. president's style and knowledge?
I do not think shifts in policy in East Asia reflect America's long term interests on one hand we have a President who is pushing an "America first" agenda who is balking out our allies in the region we pulled out of TPP which was our way of connecting with allies in the region and establishing trade, which led to China being able to establish their own trade union America's long term interest is supposed to be a hand in the region we are only now addressing BRI, and our allies are still joining in Italy to name one. We can also look at Japan and SK as an issue which the US hasn't taken much of an interest on, despite them being our two biggest allies in the region.
Why do you think TikTok illustrates how Chinese-originating software apps can outcompete those originating in the United States?
I do not think that Tik Tok illustrates that chinese-originating apps can outcompete those from the US but I think they have illustrated that they are just as capable of competing or generally doing well in the US-market. However, Tik Tok's relevancy is too short to determine whether it has truly out-competed other apps as tik tok is banned in other parts of the world like India.
Why do you think that this year's Golden Horse awards show that culture and art are always just culture and art?
I do not think we even talked about the golden horse awards ...anyways, child. true i doubt this will be on there- just in case my guess is that the answer is no because art and culture can have certain connotations and meanings which reflect a larger picture of a movement/a people.
Why do you think that since Xi Jinping controls the Communist Party, the Fourth Party Plenum of late October 2019 was just a rubber stamp approval of his policies?
I do think that it heading towards more of an approval of his ideas and policies To have a plenary session specifically focus on a key component of "Xi Jinping Thought" is a strong signal that Xi continues to strengthen his hold on power. Leans toward the idea that Xi Jinping is strengthening his power There have been rumours of grumbling in his party, and yet there have been no signs of that we could mention the leak of the Uyghur document but since we don't know who leaked it and why it might be hard to prove
Why would you agree that the U.S. Department of Defense is right to complain that China's program "Made in China 2025" is an unfair role for government in today's global commercial and military context?
I don't agree governments around the world have hands in their countries infrastructure it is unfair for the US to ask China not to do the same. ^ same it's like kind of unfair for the US to complain about this when it's legit their political and economic structure focussed on the importance of their state owned enterprises Historically, the US did that. They develop the colonies through the implementation of a protective tariff under Jefferson. They followed in that extent the Franz List recommendation of a specific protectionism implemented on industries of vital national interest. A lot of countries did that at the beginning of their
Why do you agree that since the greatest threat to East Asia is rising sea levels from expanding oceans, which proceed very slowly, East Asian economies have time to gradually build up their coastal defenses and other solutions?
I don't agree with the East Asian economies have time to build up their coastal defenses. This kind of thinking is dangerous for its own people since rising sea levels can have dangerous natural disaster outcomes like typhoons and flooding. Disaster preparations should be taken as soon as possible. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2164262/how-climate-change-could-cause-more-mega-storms-super-typhoon
Why do you agree that East Asian events exhibit a weakening of traditional bonds and collaboration because of the hands-off attitude in Washington?
I don't think it's just because of Washington and I am hesitant to talk about traditional bonds traditionally the three main "Asian giants" have no gotten along. All of them have residual anger from the Japanese colonial period, and we see that play out in today's time I do not think that the US is helping in anyway But the East and South China sea were issues before Trump took over Taiwan and China had a fraying relationship You can't blame Hong Kong on washington I think it is important to note that Trump's hands off approach may have allowed our allies to get further into their divisions
Why do you think that ASEAN's traditional approach to the regional security in Asia is the best way to manage the rise of China?
I don't think that ASEAN's approach to regional security is the best way to manage the rise of China China has used ASEAN to expand it's power in the region a lot of the US trading partners have created treaties with China China is also in ASEAN and it is difficult to manage China from an organization they are a part of
Why do you agree that the Washington Post editorial is persuasive when it says that by turning to an emergency ordinance, Ms. Lam is taking a wrecking ball to the ideals of Hong Kong?
I don't think that the editorial post was persuasive in face I argue that it does the opposite. It idealized Hong Kong and criminalized China "at the core of Hong Kong's discontent is a treasured conviction that it has been and will be governed by the rule of law — before the handover to China, and after" This is false, the people of Hong Kong had no say in their government under British rule, and could not choose their leader to sat that they had rule of law which is the restriction of arbitrary power is false because everything about British rule of their colonial subjects was arbitrary This article also calls the CCP Carrie Lams' overlords "But neither Ms. Lam nor the overlords in Beijing understood this," this is blatant bias and does more to discredit what they are saying than anything
Why do you agree that the requirements of economic, social and cultural rights guarantee that in practical terms they will conflict with civil and political rights?
I don't think they always have to conflict but sometimes they can It's true the ESC rights are normally placed on the back burner because by nature they require gov't action through laws as opposed to CPR where the gov't just says we are not going to do that But people can use CPR rights to defend and advocate for ESC rights That being said the people who normally can do the most with those CPR rights are companies and the rich ESC rights require taxation, the rich don't like that and could use their money to influence the gov't in that way the two rights can conflict---when those with the most money can control the conversation Citizens V. United corporations are people and money is free speech corporations then control the narrative
Why do you think Prime Minister Abe's constitutional plans will greatly complicate regional strategic relations?
I don't think they will greatly complicate regional strategic relations If they are talking about revisions to Japan's Self Defense Force
Why do you think that comparing the size of military budgets is the best way to see if China's military is as big as America's?
I don't think this is true Military budgets so how much you are spending and not necessarily what you are spending on a such quantitative measure does not take in account the quality of the goods. A such measure provide consequently an unstable and uncomplete vision of the Chinese military capability.
Why do you think that technology transfers shouldn't be part of ongoing trade disputes between China and its trade partners?
I think don't think that they shouldn't be a huge part. It is appropriate for technology transfers to be addressed, especially if it is impairing with US-based companies and IP. More info in this article https://www.wsj.com/articles/forced-tech-transfers-are-on-the-rise-in-china-european-firms-say-11558344240
Why do you agree that China need not worry about new missile base emplacements in countries near China?
I think that China has a right to worry Like every other country they have to do what is best in terms of their security and missile base emplacements near their borders are a threat China sees the move as offensive in nature in turn the missiles that they have are defensive in nature The US during the 50s nearly started a war over missiles in Cuba so I think China is allowed to do the same https://www.ft.com/content/1fede3c8-b839-11e9-8a88-aa6628ac896c
Why do you think fintech banks like Kakao Bank should be able quickly to overtake traditional banks business in South Korea?
I think that Kakao Bank should quickly overtake traditional banks business in SK because as of now 1 in 5 South Koreans use Kakao bank and exceeds other internet banks. It makes people's lives more convenient and will certainly become a competitor for traditional bank business.
Why would you say that China lags behind more developed economies in the race to produce the next generation of supercomputers?
I would not agree that China lags behind but certainly is the leader of the race among developed economies and whom is competing with the NSA to create supercomputers that can be utilized in seapower and cell phones .
Why would you say that President Trumps bold meeting with Kim Jong-en after the G20 meeting in Japan showed that the U.S. was and is on the right track for successful negotiation outcomes?
I would not say that This month Kim Jong un tested a missal and said the the US had until the end of the month to answer it's requests or it would resume its' weapons building projects "Kim says he is open to another meeting with Trump, but sets the year's end as a deadline for Washington to offer mutually acceptable terms for an agreement to salvage the diplomacy." https://apnews.com/71b0caeadf2b4277977b68e4c4c72b8e In fact i would argue that the negotiations have been deteriorating since Hanoi
Why would you agree that the seemingly arcane debate between Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher over historical sovereignty concepts is now becoming relevant for Hong Kong?
It becomes relevant because now that the 50 years of Hong Kong's economic, legal, and legislative system that is articulated under the Basic Law is soon to close, the fate of Hong Kong's sovereignty also comes to question
Why do you think that Sri Lanka's experience with "debt-trap diplomacy" completely outweighs any positive claims about the belt-road initiative's promise?
It doesn't completely outweigh all positive claims about the BRI, but it strengthens the countries who already have hesitancy towards the actual intentions of the BRI. For instance, Japan, South Korea, and Germany, also have strong trade and investment links with China that are crucial to their economic future. So while they are not prepared to ditch their alliance with Washington, they can't afford to unduly alienate Beijing, either. However, the Sri Lanka's experience gives the U.S. an "Ha, I told you so" moment, countries of diverse political persuasions still can't stay away. Some governments simply need Chinese cash to help finance roads, rails, and other infrastructure. Others want a piece of the construction action: Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Swiss President Ueli Maurer are expected to join Italy's Conte at this week's gathering. So is Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who initially shelved a high-profile rail development and other Chinese-backed projects, complaining of the excessive price tag; he's back on board after wrangling a better deal for the contentious railway. In all, the Chinese government says that 125 countries have signed on to the program. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/us-allies-washington-china-belt-road/5879
Why do you think that BRI is really nothing new and is instead just a continuation of global trends in train over at least the last 30 years?
It is a continuation of global trends in train over the last 30 years because the Belt and Road Initiative is, one has to compare the trajectory of West and East since the fall of the Berlin Wall nearly 30 years ago. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, China began advancing westward with pipelines to the oil-rich Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, Persian Gulf countries shifted the majority of their oil exports toward the fast-growing markets of the Indo-Pacific like India and China. All the while, enhanced trade agreements allowed Asians to capitalize on each other's comparative advantages in energy, food, industrial goods, technology and more. By the time of the 2008 financial crisis, Asians were already trading more with each other than with the rest of the world, insulating them considerably from the demand shock. In the decade since, China has taken the lead both diplomatically and commercially in promoting the cause of infrastructure as a global priority, and BRI is its latest effort to do so. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/30/washington-is-dismissing-chinas-belt-and-road-thats-a-huge-strategic-mistake-226759
Why do you think that the best way for the United States to respond to China's rising economy and military power is to isolate China as much as possible from now on?
It is a way to consider. Indeed, one of the reasons for implementing the BRI was that because it is a mean for China to diversified its economy, by creating new supply chains, and to find new outlets to sell its stocks. But Isolation of China will lead to nothing but angering China containment is a Cold War strategy. Even during the Cold War, Nixon understood that it would be difficult to ignore China, especially because of its demographic weight. Then, its integration to the international system was facilitated by US administrations, especially the Carter's one thanks to Brzezinski and the Clinton's one. Consequently, it could be paradoxical for the US to put China out. => Isolement is a way to consider. However, it seems really unrealistic to be made.
Why do you think that U.S. opposition to China's belt-and-road initiative is certain to evolve into a new global cold war?
It won't evolve into a new global cold war because back when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were engaged in their nuclear-tipped global struggle, dividing up the world's nation-states was much easier. The blocs were almost alternative universes, based on distinct political and economic systems, and choosing one camp or the other was clear-cut. This is not the case anymore. While Washington and Beijing have different political ideologies, akin in some ways to the former Cold War divide between the "free" and "unfree" worlds, their economies are tightly intertwined with each other's, and with the rest of the world's. Longtime security allies of the U.S., such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany, also have strong trade and investment links with China that are crucial to their economic future. So while they are not prepared to ditch their alliance with Washington, they can't afford to unduly alienate Beijing, either. Add in other divisions—the strained relations between the U.S. and Europe, for instance, or within the European Union itself—and the global picture becomes even fuzzier. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/us-allies-washington-china-belt-road/587902/
Why do you agree that RCEP is a natural next step after CPTPP?
It's even less strict that the CPTPP better for poor and developing countries I think it's the natural step because it includes China helping the BRI the US hates this This question and the last one are super related
Why do you think the term trade "war" is too strong for the current trade tensions between China and the United States?
It's not because both sides both take offensive measures when it comes to the trade war. For instance, U.S. raised 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products, and Trump has announced new tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports to take effect on Sept. 1. For instance, when the United States released the list of $16 billion of Chinese goods to be subject to 25% tariffs. China retaliates with 25% duties on $16 billion of U.S. goods. This kept going back and forth when the U.S. would raise tariffs on another Chinese good, the Chinese would respond by slapping another tariff on the U.S.
Why do you think that, for the maintenance of rights for freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, China should not be allowed to develop the capability to deny U.S. ships access to the area?
Moral equivalence argument why should the US be able to do something that China isn't Both Britain and France have the ability to block the English Channel if they both should choose.
Why do you agree that given Taiwan's now long history of democratic rule, the United States is justified in dropping the one-country-two-systems basis for its original "one-China" policy?
My personal opinion: the US didn't agree to one country two systems in agreement, and therefore do not ~technically~ have to abide. Indeed, the recognition of the PRC by Jimmy Carter and the launch of the Taiwan Relations Act were separate legislations. The TRA was moreover only accepted by China because of a "fait accompli" diplomacy from the US, as evidenced by the US archives. If the two countries agree and relate to their democracy, they should be able to meet. The two countries have had a long relationship before one-countries- two systems. However, a formal dropping of one country two systems will have international repercussions. (there is no "dropping" that had occured, tho) This question comes to ask: Can the US leave out a democracy? No: the Taiwanese democracy is now old, but weakened by the comparison with the Chinese system and power. The US are allied with Taiwan; it is moreover their interest to go alongside with Taiwan.
Why do you think that the AIIB should have committed to standards and principles acceptable to the global established order before it started supporting development programs in poor countries?
No they shouldn't have because the AIIB's Articles of Agreement have remarkably similar (and broad) operating guidelines to banks within the Bretton Woods framework, but bar members from influencing political affairs. To ensure compliance with the agreement, the Bretton Woods framework created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund—to structure the spending guidelines and exchange rates for countries in financial need. Lending from the World Bank is contingent upon "satisfactory assessment of performance against a set of indicators in the form of institutional or policy reform measures that reflect progress in implementing a country-owned reform programme." Critics have argued that because the United States is an instrumental decision maker in the World Bank, Washington can indirectly demand countries change their political institutions as a criteria for loans. U.S. is biased against the AIIB bc it sees it as a deliberate effort to undermine the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, international institutions established after World War II and that are dominated by the United States
Why are you sympathetic to the view that Taiwan's upcoming elections are unimportant for Taiwan's ultimate one-country-two-systems status, regardless of the outcome?
Taiwan's upcoming elections are important to Taiwan's one country two systems status It all depends on which party is in power However, does not have the same history that Hong Kong does with one country two systems
Why do you think that various views of Taiwan's history as part of the Japanese empire argue for the irrelevance of one-country-two-systems for Taiwan?
Taking into account Taiwan's history as a part of the Japanese empire KMT
Why would you agree that there is no moral equivalence between China and the U.S.
Possible answer? https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/10/no-isnt-moral-equivalence-communist-china-u-s/ Another possible answer is the China and the US are both attempting to do what is best for their country, and to say that despite the US doing some of the same things it is bad for China to do it because they are communist is imperialist at best. There is also the answer were you equivocate and say that in some way there is no moral equivalence, Using the federalist argument that China is locking Uyghurs in cages. While also acknowledging that morality is skewed. I would contest the concept of "moral equivalence." It is a counterproductive concept in policy-making, in all cases. Moral equivalence in politics = hierarchy based on a prioris and not on content of measures.
Why do you think that U.S. steps against Huawei is about more than just a trade dispute?
Security concern as well. For instance, the US Justice Department unsealed indictments in January that included 23 counts pertaining to theft of intellectual property, obstruction of justice and fraud related to its alleged evasion of US sanctions against Iran The core issue with Huawei has been concerns about its coziness with the Chinese government and fears that its equipment could be used to spy on other countries and companies https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-ban-full-timeline-fcc-federal-subsidies-china-trump-ban-security-threat-mate-x/
Why do you agree that President Trump should not agree to any deal with North Korea if it does not include the single most important issue concerning Japan's Prime Minister Abe?
Single most important issue= kidnapping of Japanese citizens by North Korea from 1977-1983 Disagree
Why would you say that the CPTPP is a major improvement over the original TPP?
Subjective based on country From a "Western" US-esque perspective it isn't: the CPTPP takes out much of the rules, regulations, and rights (for workers, environment etc) they stressed BUT, the US is the one who left the agreement The change stresses a shift toward a set of Asian (lower-income) principles or standards that is very consistent with other Asian countries' international trade and domestic structures. It's an improvement for Asian countries because it removed many of the "penetration" ideas of the US trying to get countries, like China, to stop using "cheating methods" (like state owned enterprises) TPP had a lot of factors in it that allowed the US law / interests to penetrate the legal systems of other countries in the agreement the new TPP doesn't allow foriegn law applications in investment agreements TPP had numerous international law provisions that forced all countries involved to adhere to, whether applicable or not allowing countries to sue another in their own court- basically allowing for extradition The CPTTP is less restricting but at the same time it lessens the scope and reach of such an agreement
Why do you believe that the risk of an unprovoked North Korean nuclear attack on the continental United States is an unacceptable risk and that the United States must use any means necessary to ensure that North Korea does not credibly obtain such a capability?
This is what I said for the short response to this question and I got a good grade so it should be okay. DISAGREE on several levels: The risk is not unacceptable and the US should not use any means Relations between NK and US have not been actually violent since the Cold War. NK's threats do not merit serious action Thus far: NK's weapons are purely defensive and if anything- simply military posturing If the US attacked NK there would be Catastrophic consequences- creating even larger problems with China and maybe SK and Japan China has a defense treaty with NK
Why do you agree that the prevalence of earthquakes in Japan explains why the government must continuously be updating its preparations to keep manufacturing processes in healthy operational shape?
The big earthquake in 2011 put manufacturing processes in big risk. Kaizen activities quickly became the norm and toyota took this on. Toyota has developed a supplier database to quickly grasp the effects of disasters on its supply chain and mitigate the impact of disruptions by securing alternative suppliers.
Why do you agree that if the current trade war led to a new cold war, that would not pose such serious risks for world commerce?
The current trade war do not led to a new cold war. Indeed, the Cold War was characterized by the creation of camps, in which little countries had to be under the patronage of one of the two Cold War superpowers, the US and the USSR. The current trade war does not lead to the creation of "camps." Indeed, only the US and China are confronting each other. It corresponds more to a confrontation between two powers. Moreover, the US are also nowadays expanding trade sanctions to their historical allies in the EU. Consequently, there is no "camps". I do not agree that a new cold war would not pose serious risks for world commerce We already see the effects that a trade war of this caliber has on farmers in the US and China both countries as big exporters and importers a hold on that would hurt a lot of countries
Why do you think that the TPP's original worker protection measures should be welcomed in trading partner economies?
The restrictions were imposed only by the US and were taken out for the CPTPP and RCEP. It's more difficult for developing countries to implement these rights because they are expensive (economic and social rights are harder to find in developing countries) While they do push the issue of human rights forward they may not be conducive to what or applicable to what other countries want out of their trading agreements.
Why would you say that experience in East Asia emphasizes that the most vital component of household safety in a national emergency is the speed of government's response?
The speed of government response to a incoming natural disaster often does not matter and isn't the most vital component of household safety. Poorer villages and farms near coastal regions often lack resources to build adequate sea defences, for example, leaving them exposed to monsoon rains and storms. Strong winds and flooding not only destroy homes, livestock and crops, but can pollute fresh water supplies and cut off food and medicine supply routes. - World Economic Forum building resistible infrastructure is the most vital component
Why do you think that President Trump is not serious about ultimately working out a peace accord with North Korea but is instead only seeking to get a Nobel Peace Prize for what is just a show of preliminary efforts to establish a thaw in relations and the appearance of ongoing negotiations?
There are several assertions here Trump is only seeking a Nobel Peace Prize and doesn't want peace with NK The current conversations are preliminary efforts to thaw relations that won't make for ongoing negotiations DISAGREE with both Trump was nominated for the nobel peace prize by SK president who received requests from the US to put forth Trump's name. For Trump's efforts in reopening conversation with NK I cannot imagine that Trump would not want peace with NK as they are a threat to US and ally security The talks are now at a stand still (especially after several missile tests from both parties) but are expected to resume- I mean Kim wrote Trump a "beautiful three page letter" ^This is just a weird question to answer- please add anything you think lol
Why do you think that devaluation of China's currency is evidence that China is using non-market forces to help its side in trade disputes with the United States?
There are two assertions here China is manipulating it's own currency China is using non market forces Notes he gave me when I asked about it -Julia Built in assumption of China deliberately would devalue it's own currency when it could very well be market led forces devaluing it there is no evidence that actually shows that China is doing this purposefully
Why do you think that sanctions like those imposed by the U.S. and the E.U. against North Korea, China, Iran and Syria are vital components of international law?
They are not components of international law because they are mostly only made by the US unilaterally They are also not a VITAL component as several countries/companies have violated the sanctions numerous times and received minimal backlash China and other countries are receiving oil shipments from a large number of Iranian tankers than was previously known The continued flow of oil underscores the difficulty the Trump administration has had in using sanctions to bring Iranian oil exports to zero after breaking with allies and partners on Iran policy. That shows there are limitations to U.S. power. China and other places are prepared to say, 'No, we're not going to follow the U.S. lead.'" sanctions have not stopped Iran from moving oil to the Mediteranean and Asia
Why would you agree that Japan has for a long time provided a good model to the region of emergency response and recovery capabilities?
They have provided a good model because of the TEC Force When a disaster occurs, the team makes the necessary arrangements with local governments, police and fire authorities, the Self-Defense Forces and other organizations or agencies to dispatch TEC Force members. When not responding to a disaster, members conduct training and educational programs. In a related development, the government will hasten the process for designating seriously damaged areas as being eligible for larger state subsidies in order to facilitate their reconstruction. The ministry believes the swift dispatch of the TEC Force will help facilitate the survey work needed for the designation, ministry officials said.
Why do you believe the U.S. and China are unlikely to fall into a "Thucydides Trap"?
This observation comes from a book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? of Graham Allison, which is heavily criticized. I agree with these critics; indeed, Allison mixed the epochs to make his argumentation. Pierre Grosser: "origines 1GM ça pose énormément de problèmes; le pb des Allemands c'était pas les Britanniques. Pas du tout ni en 14 ni à l'époque d'Hitler. Hitler c'est à partir de la fin 37 qu'il a commencé à se durcir par rapport aux Britanniques. Le Pb des Allds c'était les Fçais c'étaient les Russes. Ils ne faut pas [tout] mélanger." et critiques sur la Grèce antique. "WWI origins it poses a lot of problems; the Germans' problem was not the British. Not at all, not in 14 or Hitler's time. It was from the end of 1937 that Hitler began to harden against the British. The problem of the Germans was the French and were the Russians. You mustn't mix [everything]." There is also a lot of critics about the Allison's statements about Thucidydes. My personal opinion is that we are not likely to fall into a Thucydides Trap While China does have the fastest growing economy that growth is slowing c. The United States has points of agreement with China---environment and terror they can use those to avoid falling into a Thucydides trap The world can live with more than one superpower
Why do you agree that the limited damage from any use of North Korean nuclear weapons justifies a preemptive U.S. assault on North Korea should other approaches fail?
This question you have to address two parts, the limited damage and premptice it reminds me of the question earlier in the class that we did. I do not agree that it justifies a preemptive strike from the United States If we are the first to attack NK then China would enter a potential war on the side of NK, and that is not something that we want Also while denuclearization is the goal...the price we pay for living in a nuclear age is the potential for another country to strike. The truth is we don't know what NK is going to do but we do know the effects if we attack first. conflating NK's capability and intent just because they can doesn't mean they will https://www.38north.org/2019/07/ckillough071019/
Why would you contend that the degree of high-tech invasive technology used and the scale of the resources behind Xinjiang camps is proof that Beijing intends to destroy Uyghur culture and language?
This was a question we answered in class does anyone know the answer? I didn't do that hot on this one I think it's something like this -- this comes from his notes on mine - Julia The question assumes that they have a high degree of high tech invasive technology But the reality is that we just don't have a lot of information on the topic to confirm or deny it Sources like the white paper are inconclusive and vague/ambiguous. One thing is certain: Bejing is up to something we just don't know the extent of these "dehumanizing" camps. Also these camps are not nationwide: meaning there are places where Uyghurs can live freely in China - so it can't be China's nationwide goal to destroy the culture and language Can a camp actually "destroy" a language? when has the learning a second language effectively meant the "destruction" of a mother tongue.
Why do you think that the U.S.-China trade war is more than just American efforts to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China?
Trade war is more than just reducing trade deficit. There are several other disagreements on how this could take place, let alone other disagreements. Why: Retaliations were placed by Trump due to IP theft, specific retaliatory tariffs were placed on chinese/american items. US Treasury naming China a currency manipulator. Spats between Huawei's role in national security also elongated this mess. China's role in the drug overdoses in the US. in addition, Trump likes to villainize China in rallies and tweets which also fuels the fire and is an easy target to scapegoat for America's troubles.
31. Why do you think CFIUS is the main reason Chinese investment in the U.S. has dropped significantly in recent years?
U.S. Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and its oversight of certain transactions involving foreign investment in the U.S. that may impact national security The U.S. government's security review system has made Chinese investment in any form of technology company virtually impossible. New legislation and regulations adopted in 2018 will make those investment barriers formal and permanent. These restrictions will survive any trade "deal" made on the current Section 301 tariff dispute with China. **Technology deals will continue to get reviewed. **No deal is safe and no statute of limitations applies outside the safe harbor provided by the review process. If CFIUS determines that a deal will impact national security, it can block the deal, require significant modifications, undo the deal after it has closed, require certain owners to divest their ownership interests, or require the sale of the entire business or all of its assets after the closing. **This means that (1) Chinese investors looking for a backdoor entry into U.S. tech companies will be scrutinized and (2) deals will not be safe just because they do not involve Chinese investors
Why do you agree that new U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are a legitimate part of legal U.S. commitments to maintaining Taiwan's independence from the mainland?
U.S. indirectly recognizing Taiwan as separate, to an extent, of China. In 1982, the United States broadened its support with a document known as the Six Assurances, the first of which stated that Washington would not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan. They were intended to reassure both Taiwan and the United States Congress that the US would continue to support Taiwan even if it had earlier cut formal diplomatic relations. The United States would not consult with China in advance before making decisions about U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Given to protect Taiwan from China's growing military
Why do you believe that since the U.S. economy is now so healthy in the wake of the 2007-09 crisis, American capitalism is still the best guide for East Asian policy makers?
Well the economy isn't healthy and people aren't trusting in the system so that's BS https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-the-business-moguls-know-its-time-to-reform-capitalism/2019/08/20/95e4de74-c388-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html in this piece it talks about how CEOs' and Presidents of major corporations are fearing that the system is failing and are worried about what to do with it. Maybe we can argue that the econonmy is getting healthier and the unemployment rate is going down but..... Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and chairman of the Business Roundtable, led the signers who agreed: "Many Americans are struggling. Too often hard work is not rewarded." Dimon had warned earlier this year in his annual letter to his company's shareholders that the American Dream was "fraying for many" because of stagnant wages and income inequality. I think it becomes clear that adopting the american model is still flawed, wages are stagnate and the middle class is dying so it really isn't the best model.
Why do you agree that it is important for American political leaders to encourage Hong Kong demonstrators to confront police and demand universal suffrage?
While I do agree that American political leaders should encourage Hong Kongers to fight for their democratic rights promised in the Basic Law, I do not believe that American political leaders should encourage Hong Kong demonstrators to confront this issue with widespread violence. For current protester leaders to encourage violence would be both morally unjustified and a serious tactical mistake. The outcome of any struggle between them and the government will be decided in large part by public opinion: if protesters can be blamed for starting violence, that will elevate the administration and its supporters. And worse yet, it might also help legitimise harsher methods by the security forces in response. To actively achieve the goal of pro-democracy, perhaps American political leaders encouraging Hong Kongers to confront police (violently) may not be the best option.
Why do you think China will not be the first country to establish a scientific base on the moon's south pole?
With China as one of the leaders of innovation and also seen as a competitor, the United States and other east asian nations would want to colonize the moon in order to assert dominance over the "new age space race". the US already announced plans, before China, to relaunch a mission to the moon.
Why do you think China doesn't want to cooperate with the United States in limiting the supply of illicit drugs pouring into the United States?
disagree with that assertion Any country can have problems with the drug trade, China is no exclusion to that idea In April China banned all variant to the drug fentanyl, and powerful opioid contributing to the crisis This move is supposed to slow down the drug trade "China already treats more than two dozen variants of fentanyl and its precursors as controlled substances, thus strictly regulating their production and distribution, but it has banned those variants only after reviewing them case by case, a process that can be lengthy. " Even before the banning of Fentanyl China was doing what they could to control the trade of opioids. so to say that they don't want to cooperate isn't true Also it is hard to get all of them it doesn't mean that they don't want to stop the trade and help limit the supply
Why do you think that asking China to change its economic system as part of resolving the trade war is going too far?
i think this self explanatory. but nonetheless, according to the WAPO article linked above, the US really wants to do this. U.S. officials complain that Chinese authorities funnel generous subsidies via state banks to government-owned companies while bureaucrats craft regulations that discriminate against their foreign competitors. WSJ moral equivalence: the opposite would be a cause for laughter. wouldn't be taken seriously.
Why do you think that South Korea since the 2018 Olympics is going its own way in seeking a peaceful resolution of tensions with North Korea, a resolution that would conflict with U.S. goals on the peninsula?
two assertions here 1. sk is seeking its own agreement. 2. this agreement would conflict with the us I don't think sk is purposefully trying to phase the US out- they just value a relationship with NK more and NK doesn't want to make agreements with US. The two countries agreed to walk under the same flag in the opening ceremony SK: hoping this would thaw relations with NK But US is worried that Mr. Kim wants to evict American troops from the Korean Peninsula and to reunify the two Koreas under a single flag. and US believes that NK won't be able to be deterred peacefully as the soviet union was For the United States, the fear has been that North Korea's gestures will drive a wedge between it and its ally, South Korea. Flag is a symbolic manifestation ethnic nationalism proposed by the flag compels Koreans to cheer for their combined teams and for each other's athletes when competing against non-korean countries- like japan
Why would you say that the democracy issues are so important in Hong Kong that improving economic conditions would not be relevant for finding a resolution to the situation?
while democracy issues are important in Hong Kong, improving economic issues could help ease issues regarding Hong Kong's distrust in Beijing's adherence to the one-country-two-systems agreement. For instance, the economic housing crisis overlaps with the universal suffrage movement in that both victims accuse the Chinese government and the leaders it chooses for Hong Kong to be more loyal to Beijing affairs than Hong Kong affairs. This could be shown when activists asked city officials to turn a golf course into public housing that could house 37,000 people, but in the end, having the government (said to be pro-Beijing) set aside less than one-fifth of the land (Stevenson and Wu). And thus, activists for affordable housing and democracy are united in their shared distrust of elite Chinese officials in improving and upholding Hong Kong life and rights. However, while improving economic conditions could be a step in the right direction as it demonstrates trust in its officials to be loyal to Hong Kong issues rather than Beijing issues, it wouldn't be the end all be all resolution to the democracy issues in Hong Kong.
Why do you think it should be easy now for Japan to legalize same-sex marriage?
yea i agree I don't think it will necessarily be easy due to the vote and maybe a pressure from China (who just had to watch "their territory" Taiwan, legalize same sex marriage)
