103
China’s fifth research station in Antarctica sparks concerns about its ambitions
(www.straitstimes.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
103 points (91.2% liked)
World News
32509 readers
435 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The absolute horror of research in Antarctica. Clearly a sign of colonial intent.
Where does this association that all things bad and colonialism must always be one-in-the-same? If it's not colonialism, it must not be bad. If it's not bad, it must not be colonialism.
Regardless, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?
Where do you get the info that China isn't inviting foreigners?
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306895.shtml
Also American research sites aren't somewhat open either. They kicked out the Chinese from the ISS..
I don't know if they are or are not inviting foreigners. However, I do know that inviting them and allowing them full access to the station would put national security concerns to rest.
I was talking about American antarctic stations, not all American research sites. Though I'm now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.
Your comment implied they weren't thats why I asked. Especially since the Chinese are in fact inviting foreigners as per their foreign ministry.
Iirc it was the same national security bs
Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?
National security is a legitimate concern, hand-waving it away as just "bs" is not a very practical attitude.
The word of a governmental body that has been consistent in their foreign policy and also accounts of other research projects: Why Some Scientists Choose China’s Space Station for Research - NYT Also the station is opened not even a month..
I see you moving goal posts. You're not even doing basic research and implying that there's no invites for international cooperation going out. How about you back up your initial claim that they aren't or at least edit your post?
For rubes, as anything can be a national security concern. Anything can be used dualy (militarily and civilian)
In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I'm not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I'm just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I'm withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.
No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let's say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.
And of course (what you conventiently omit) past examples which I provided.
In deed you are consistent, in holding the default position that aligns with the current hegemon the US: China Bad.
Then why are you concern trolling? No research, no right to speak.
Can you point to any chinese research facilities doing military research to hold this type of skepticism?
Also the argument for anything can be a national security concern goes more like: Hey you have a research station? My nation security is violated because you could be doing military research and spying Hey you have a civilian port and are producing X amount container ships a year? My national security is violated as you could easily turn these into naval battle ship production facilities Hey you're stockpiling food? My national security is violated as in the event of war you could be feeding your soldiers
Michael Parenti
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”Again, I'm not forming an opinion yet. I apologize that this does not align with your very clearly pro-Chinese opinion. It is not China-Bad, it is China-is-a-country-and-countries-act-in-their-own-interests. These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose. I'm not trolling, I am dead serious in my position.
... you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities? You understand how silly that sounds? Where do you think their hypersonic missiles came from, gifts from some UFO or something? I suspect the technology was researched through the scientific method.
Transparency is generally the key to securing trust. Otherwise yes, suspicion should be a default position. I don't fully trust my government, I'm certainly not going to trust someone else's.
Enlightened Centrist I see.
Or spreading misinformation or unjustified mistrust
I guess it's silly to ask that in deed. I'm not denying that they aren't doing military research, but these are usually within the country. You're still implying that they are doing arctic facilities to do military research, with nothing but a gut feel and no evidence whatsoever. Apart from the enlightened stance that they could be and nothing else. Which goes back to my original point that anything can be dual use.
It's just healthy suspicion man. If you expect me to just apply some kind of universal trust to a country of human beings on Earth, you are sorely mistaken. People are people. No country on Earth is some holy union of people above being concerned about, that somehow does no wrong. That's just some weird, misplaced faith.
Dude none is saying you shouldn't be suspicious and none is saying you should be applying trust universal to any country. I generally agree with your statement.
Voicing your suspicion however, when you're uninformed is not contributing to anything and makes you either a concern troll or lapdog for imperial interests.
Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well. It's not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.
I hope you're talking about the US
Chuds are also only asking questions and being skeptic when talking about lgbt and trans issues, right?
Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else. It's certainly not just the US, though we've done our fair share.
You can usually determine whether someone is trolling or not with some discussion. Just because someone says lgbt does not give them carte blanche to say whatever they want. If you really want to detect trolls, you need to remember some of them pretend to be lgbt just to cause more chaos.
It's not "both sides-ing" to assert that no position should be immune to criticism. No matter how underdog they are. Being an oppressed underdog should not give someone license to just do whatever the fuck they want like you're some fictional char like Batman or something.
"Subjecting others to their control" is not a useful definition of imperialism. Also, I believe you're mixing it with the definition of "authority".
Also there's a reason that it's not commonly defined as where you have finance capital shaping the states foreign policies in order to export surplus capital, secure commodities and cheap labor in foreign countries
I agree, a variety of other global north countries engage in it too.
Not sure where you get that I'm saying this. Please carefully reread my comments and let me eat my own words when you find it and I might be able to clear up the misunderstanding. What's I'm saying is this:
Otherwise you're functionally indistinguishable as a concern troll.
Also regarding China: They're definitively not above criticism, but when you do, it better be substantiated.
China's system is opaque. Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point. I'm simply not willing to give them any extra faith. For the third time, suspicion is default. Suspicion exists until evidence to the contrary is provided. This is just a basic safety principle in the modern age and is healthier than faith-based alternatives. I know you didn't say that, incidentally, I was getting out ahead of a potential criticism before it appeared, saving us the time of having to discuss it. I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?
I think it's a very useful definition of imperialism, actually. It captures the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades. Economic and military (the original) imperialism are simply other methods. I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.
You don't think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?
It's not a coincidence why it's opaque (to you).
Wild if true
This aligns with US foreign policy
True, ugh.
No, because you rob you make the term imperialism meaningless. Why have "authority" and "imperialism" as words, when they basically define the same thing?
Also I don't follow how "Subjecting other to their control" captures "the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.". I believe you're mixing things up with "hegemony". Can you please elaborate if you don't?
It's not equating imperialism with global capitalism. It's saying that Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.
Not that's just a product of imperialism.
Do Chinese citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers? Or are they forced to simply trust them? And yes, I do not think 100% of everything that comes out of our State Dept is automatically a lie. Some things are true, some are false. The default of suspicion applies regardless.
Imperialism is empire-building. That's the root word imperial, of-an-empire. It's authority exerted over other people, foreign lands. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both worked on imperial projects, back when it was more commonplace. Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers. The Mongols had a hegemonic empire. Napoleon, while being imperial, did not have a hegemonic empire, as the British and Russian empires contested and eventually defeated him.
So, I don't understand this difference between steps/products of imperialism, and just imperialism. Either you're empire-building, seeking authority over more and more peoples, or you're not.
The CPC is the largest political body in the world with ~100M members. Roughly one in 15 Chinese is a member. So yeah I'd say so. For you to get a better understanding I recommend reading: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners - Roland Boer Also people not only seem to trust, but are also satisfied https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
You're giving me history examples and not answering my question. I still don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?
Hegemon is not only the state, but the dominant ideology. So when you say "the new, informational-based methods of attack that" it says to me that you see changes in hegemony aka people having a different ideological framework than the dominant one. And the different ideological framework comes via (foreign) information.
Oh come now, the decisions of a country are made by its leaders, not every single member of its political party. Otherwise that would be true democracy, and unbelievably cumbersome and impractical. Also, I'll remind you a fifth time, my default in the modern day is suspicion. I simply don't believe people automatically. This is independent of the things they say and how good they sound. Like, when I'm buying a product, I do not simply believe the user reviews. Instead I try to look for someone providing a little bit of actual evidence of their objectivity. That would earn a higher degree of trust, though still not total faith.
I would describe it as an influence or informational or perhaps espionage empire. You can have a military empire, where people do as you say or you kill them, yes? You can have an economic empire, where you use economic coercion instead of military. Or, in the modern day, you can control through another form of power--control in the information space. While propaganda is certainly nothing new, it has reached a degree of power we've never seen before. Or so I'm arguing, anyway.
I disagree, I think that muddles what "a hegemon" is. An idea, not being a conscious thing, cannot be a hegemon. Only a human or group of humans can be. There's nothing wrong with ideas competing because ideas alone cannot control. What one person realizes, another can too. While the idea can be influential, it cannot truly exert force. So, you could have an information empire, but having a hegemonic information empire is probably impossible without some kind of supernatural mind control. In this new way of looking at imperialism that I'm proposing, anyway. I acknowledge this is new, and traditionally empire was mainly economic and/or military.
What is democratic centralism?
What you are describing is not imperialism, you're describing instruments of national power. (Military, Diplomacy, Economy, Information). Which can be used for imperialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_power
As I say there's more and less useful definitions of imperialism. I prefer Lenins as it's still very relevant. Even if you might not like him, I'd recommend reading "Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism". You seem to be intellectual and interested in the topic and will benefit from having read it, even if you don't plan on adopting it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
When I say that hegemony is the dominant ideology' it can only be held by a group of people. what you're describing is a change in hegemony. You see informational warfare coming in. In some sense even our discussion is a symptom of that.
It's instruments of national power
That would be the process by which you select your leaders. Not too different from a democratic republic. It does not mean every single one of them understands the inner thoughts of those leaders, though. It's a selection process. Does a selection process give you the power to understand their secret minds, or do you simply think they have no secrets?
Yes, national power is exactly what we're talking about. Exercising it over a broad area, of people who did not before fall under your control, is empire-building. Or, imperialism. Power + new lands/people = imperialism.
Hegemony simply refers to degree of competition. If an empire is contested by near-peers, it does not have hegemonic control. This is core to what the word means in the English language.
I appreciate the sources, but if you as a believer cannot adequately explain these things from them, I'm not sure the sources will be of much benefit.
Let me ask you your question backtto you. Do any citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers then?
In western societies there's an emphasis on democracy as a process. In China they see democracy when the outcome is in the interest of the majority. Which there undeniably is.
No, were talking about imperialism which you conflate with instruments of national powet. Congratulations under your definition everything any nation does is imperialism.
Opening a new embassy? Imperialism Creating a state news outlet? Imperialism Economic Relations? Imperialism
Not useful in terms of analysis.
No, which is why I have a default position of suspicion towards the words of my own officials. Because they're people, just like me, no better, no worse. They can make mistakes, exercise poor judgement, change their minds, etc etc.
Not just national power, but expanding national power over people who were not part of your nation. The word is in its roots, people can redefine it into whatever they want, but it still has that historical root. I think this loyalty towards its historical meaning is more valuable than any redefining it for other purposes.
That is not dialectical thought. While I agree that individual politicians could change their mind, it's not how nation states operate. Nations have interests. The individual decision making of a politician stays in bounds of the interest, otherwise they get replaced. You seem to see history as an aglomeration of decisions of individuals aka great man. I don't subscribe to great man theory/your ideology.
Any state uses it's instruments of power to expand their influence and follow their interests. When they open embassy in another country why are they doing it? When their state media is broadcastingy why are they doing it? When they curb other state media l, why are they doing it? Recognizing another region? It's to expand their interests and influence..
It seem to me that you're a no nations no borders type?
Correct, I am not really approaching this in a dialectical way, I do not fervently ascribe to any specific ideology. I try to take all potential influences into account. Similarly, this does not mean human history is driven by "great men" or somesuch, only that individual decisions do have an influence on events, and should be taken into account.
I do wish things could exist in such a simple way, where states operated in such a clear-cut manner, but that's just too oversimplified. The world is just messier than that, and individual egos cannot be completely separated from people's choices.
Sure, states in the abstract do pursue their own interests, though there's a great many very small states that see their interests differently from how larger bodies tend to. This is potentially distinct from the exercise of power though, and is not necessarily imperialism. To qualify as imperialism in a way that fits empires throughout history, I think you need two things: scope and expansion. An embassy, while a means of national power, is not really focused on expansion, but diplomacy. An embassy can be a simple defensive precaution. State media can be, depending on what message it is broadcasting. If it broadcasts a warmongering message, it could easily be imperial in nature. If it's just reporting local news, not so imperial. Curbing other state media is just about stability.
Nations exist, borders exist. Whether they should or not is more up to those individual peoples that live there, and how they want to set up their societies.
What national security concerns? Antarctica is on the other side of the planet. China isn’t going to invade the US from there, so I’m not especially concerned for my safety.
The article cited signals intelligence. I'm not with the NSA or anything, so I'm pretty much just going off the article.