China would gain a great deal from a stable Burma in the long-run but in terms of current economical gains and uh, other more attention-draining problems on home soil, there's no need for them to invest more effort on other fronts to help, given that China's current GNP (where foreign income is concerned) is more primarily reliant on other countries. And China still needs time to sort out its own understanding and its growing role of influence, when it comes to foreign interaction where moral/humanitarian effort is concerned. Comparing the 1976 quake in Tangshan (whereby the government thought that asking for external help would be a loss of face) with the present situation, the government is still a little awkward and uncertain when it comes to external help. The slight delay in accepting was probably a combination of aftermath inaccessibility + a policy involving how to factor in foreign aid/helpers that still needs tweaking + the last vestige of a rather inflexible mindset that has outlasted the Berlin Wall, I'd call this a major improvement in a somewhat quick time.
I can't quite comment on the US during the Cold War era Vs. China floundering in this era, given that it was USSR Vs USA geopolitics back then and now, circumstances have changed quite a bit. The EU could be the most influential sphere if it stabilises, but it is currently too divided to be of much use. Meanwhile, George Bush Jr. continues his part as the global clown, while Messrs Brown takes up the domestic honours.
As to agreeing on humanitarian intervention between countries... Idealogy tends to wilt, when confronted with reality. Everybody wants the glory, nobody wants the responsibility. Or to be less flippant, IMO it's just too draining for the various countries to commit themselves to form an active watchdog that upholds justice, due to idealogical differences, self-interest and various internal stability issues at home and in such an exercise. There'd be infinite squabbles on the definition itself, who commits how much, what action to take, etc. That the markers of relativity shift, as you've noted, do not help. Too bad there's no universal pause button to save us all a lot of trouble. The Uncle Ben School of Morality has merely gotten a little more complicated, and perhaps what needs primary refinement is the method of choice and how it is executed, not so much the question of doing more than shaking heads. As to how much responsiblity, perhaps it involves the main spheres of influence doing their part to lend a firm but patient hand to the country that's in question, and everybody else to be neutral. And by main influence, I refer to the country's partners/whoever it trusts. Look where South Korea's meek Sunshine Policy got North Korea, because there seemed to have been a fundamental flaw of not taking into account North Korea's aggresively oppressive regime.
Perhaps the UN will make itself tackle the issue another time. I'd give it another 100 years at least, unless a nuclear war happens to hasten things. Or perhaps, if the idealogy of governments grow closer in time with regards to responsibility and justice, along with a willingness to face up to such a topic, there could be a consensus of sorts. This would be easier, if there were less domestic problems such as inflation and what not to worry about. But whatever it is, engagement is the key, not stone-walling... except perhaps as a last resort (if justifiable).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-18 08:48 am (UTC)China would gain a great deal from a stable Burma in the long-run but in terms of current economical gains and uh, other more attention-draining problems on home soil, there's no need for them to invest more effort on other fronts to help, given that China's current GNP (where foreign income is concerned) is more primarily reliant on other countries. And China still needs time to sort out its own understanding and its growing role of influence, when it comes to foreign interaction where moral/humanitarian effort is concerned. Comparing the 1976 quake in Tangshan (whereby the government thought that asking for external help would be a loss of face) with the present situation, the government is still a little awkward and uncertain when it comes to external help. The slight delay in accepting was probably a combination of aftermath inaccessibility + a policy involving how to factor in foreign aid/helpers that still needs tweaking + the last vestige of a rather inflexible mindset that has outlasted the Berlin Wall, I'd call this a major improvement in a somewhat quick time.
I can't quite comment on the US during the Cold War era Vs. China floundering in this era, given that it was USSR Vs USA geopolitics back then and now, circumstances have changed quite a bit. The EU could be the most influential sphere if it stabilises, but it is currently too divided to be of much use. Meanwhile, George Bush Jr. continues his part as the global clown, while Messrs Brown takes up the domestic honours.
As to agreeing on humanitarian intervention between countries... Idealogy tends to wilt, when confronted with reality. Everybody wants the glory, nobody wants the responsibility. Or to be less flippant, IMO it's just too draining for the various countries to commit themselves to form an active watchdog that upholds justice, due to idealogical differences, self-interest and various internal stability issues at home and in such an exercise. There'd be infinite squabbles on the definition itself, who commits how much, what action to take, etc. That the markers of relativity shift, as you've noted, do not help. Too bad there's no universal pause button to save us all a lot of trouble. The Uncle Ben School of Morality has merely gotten a little more complicated, and perhaps what needs primary refinement is the method of choice and how it is executed, not so much the question of doing more than shaking heads. As to how much responsiblity, perhaps it involves the main spheres of influence doing their part to lend a firm but patient hand to the country that's in question, and everybody else to be neutral. And by main influence, I refer to the country's partners/whoever it trusts. Look where South Korea's meek Sunshine Policy got North Korea, because there seemed to have been a fundamental flaw of not taking into account North Korea's aggresively oppressive regime.
Perhaps the UN will make itself tackle the issue another time. I'd give it another 100 years at least, unless a nuclear war happens to hasten things. Or perhaps, if the idealogy of governments grow closer in time with regards to responsibility and justice, along with a willingness to face up to such a topic, there could be a consensus of sorts. This would be easier, if there were less domestic problems such as inflation and what not to worry about. But whatever it is, engagement is the key, not stone-walling... except perhaps as a last resort (if justifiable).