What I'm about to say is unfortunate but true. China has a big us against the world mentality. Economic "attacks" are often seen as attacks by nation states, not by individuals, and as such, directly reflect foreign policy attitudes. Language like this only adds fuel to the fire. Given the different worldview about how the world works, motivations will always be suspect. Official party mouthpieces will never view such actions as a secular step to simply make money, and many especially uneducated people (who still make up a huge portion of the country) would agree with the mouthpieces on how to understand it. I'm not saying that we should coddle nation states. I am saying that it's unfortunate that I think an economic exercise would result in strained foreign relations at all levels. At the very least, it easily gives the government a scapegoat on which to blame things.
This mentality was necessary for national survival given their history. From being doped up and murdered by imperialist westerners during the opium wars to being occupied and raped by imperial japan.
A unite and take on the world mentality is what allowed China to win sovereignty, and given how far they've come, I'd say the "us against the world" mentality has worked wonders for them so far.
It is a typical pattern on authoritarian mentalities and regimes. You'll find the same in Russia, widely spread among the Latin American left and the supporters of far right Republican candidates (Trump & Cruz).
The best to do is to "give them enough rope so that they hang themselves", unfortunately. Authoritarian, centralized and anti free trade regimes end up broken because they suffocate economic diversity, see Argentina, Venezuela and Russia.
Sanders is simply taking power from several financial elites, and giving it to a single centralized authority. Sanders fails to realize that the biggest institution that is too big to fail, is the U.S. government. We should spend more time dismantling all the government powers, and not adding to them.
The increasing centralization of things like emergency powers that state governors once controlled (details would take research to cite) is worrisome and you make a fair point.
You lost me when you said "all" powers though. The Constitution is a 2nd draft for a reason: We need some centralized power to keep a unified front in order to benefit from the economy of scale it provides.
"reforms focusing on increasing transparency should be accompanied by measures for
strengthening citizens’ capacity to act upon the available information if we are to see positive effects on corruption. "
When I think about it, it's hard to see how this isn't an attack by us.
If this speculation hurts China, then some citizens US citizens have used a tool to attack and 'injure' a soverign nation. Seems like that would be our responsibilty the same way it'd be our responsibilty if we had a citizen milita that staged a raid into another country. Or it's your responsiblity if your kid breaks your neighbor's windows.
And what makes that 'seat of the pants' lawyering correct is that we're talking about soverign entities without an enforcable body of law to regulate their conduct, so we can't get off on a technicality.
Nobody is doing anything wrong though. They are simply buying and selling on open markets. They're not even breaking any Chinese law, or in many cases even doing anything in China itself. Any harm that comes to the Chinese economy will actually be inflicted by China trying to support policies that are not economically viable, but by the hedge funds.
When George Soros, based in New York, 'broke' the bank of England it was not an attack on Britain either by him or the US. He broke no laws. In fact by showing that the ERM was unsustainable and thereby preventing us adopting the Euro* he did us a massive favour. The UK economy is eternally in his debt.
* Alright, it's a bit of a stretch laying that entirely at his feet, but in an alternate timeline where we stayed in the ERM Euro membership was the logical outcome.
> Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
First, it is not Yugoslavia, but Serbia.
Second, USA has nothing to do with it. They only gave financial and logistic support to the opposition for political activities against the dictatorship. Should it be mentioned that the dictatorship that was overthrown had previously ruined and robbed its citizens, and had only a minority support of the citizens? Should also be mentioned that the dictatorship was brutally using police and army against its own citizens, killed political opponents, falsified several election results, push the country through several wars, etc...
I'm not an expert on all of these, but I do know quite a lot about the Great Dismissal[1].
No credible person puts any weight to any theory regarding the US/CIA being involved in any significant way with the this. Wikipedia's coverage is fine (although it is also worth noting that the CIA funded just about every conservative group around during that period, so anyone who was a member was open to the same accusations Kerr was).
That list is very suspect. Ukrainian government saw an overthrow by the US in 2014? Is it referring to the Ukrainian revolution[0]? This list requires some citations.
Re: Ukraine. Overthrowing a democratically-elected government is a revolution or a coup depending on who you ask. That the US favored a "transition" and was a major power broker isn't really disputed. It's interesting that there's no mention of Victoria Nuland, US ambassador to Ukraine, in that wiki article.
Which is precisely why "close encounters" between Chinese & US, or Russian and US, aircraft are treated seriously. Prior to the 2001 Hainan Island incident, it wasn't a serious issue most of the time.
An EP3 is not a fighter. The collision was a prop plane vs a mig 21.
"Yes officer as you can clearly see: I was driving my ferrari. Trying to get away from the old man pushing a wheelbarrow, but he chased me down. Then he slammed right into me."
