• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I’d side with rich China over fickle US: Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,559
Reaction score
19,323
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The South China Morning Post

I’d side with rich China over fickle US: Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad
​

If forced to take sides in the high-stakes geopolitical rivalry and trade war between the United States and China, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad would prefer the economic largesse of Beijing.

He pointed to the current state of unpredictability of the American superpower as a negative factor when asked about the impact of Sino-American tensions on other, smaller nations in the region.

In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post focused on his Southeast Asian nation’s foreign policy, Mahathir said Malaysia’s strong ties with China were not “static” over time or issues.

Rather, the overarching goal must be to find ways of working with the rising power rather than to let fears about its ascent cloud the government’s judgment. In particular, he said Malaysia would not be swayed by Western scaremongering that the Chinese telecom firm Huawei was involved in spying.

“When China was poor, we were frightened of China. When China is rich, we are also frightened of China,” he said. “I think we have to find some way to deal with China.”

COMMENT:-

This is a couple of weeks late, but I thought that some might find the views interesting.
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From The South China Morning Post

I’d side with rich China over fickle US: Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad
​

If forced to take sides in the high-stakes geopolitical rivalry and trade war between the United States and China, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad would prefer the economic largesse of Beijing.

He pointed to the current state of unpredictability of the American superpower as a negative factor when asked about the impact of Sino-American tensions on other, smaller nations in the region.

In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post focused on his Southeast Asian nation’s foreign policy, Mahathir said Malaysia’s strong ties with China were not “static” over time or issues.

Rather, the overarching goal must be to find ways of working with the rising power rather than to let fears about its ascent cloud the government’s judgment. In particular, he said Malaysia would not be swayed by Western scaremongering that the Chinese telecom firm Huawei was involved in spying.

“When China was poor, we were frightened of China. When China is rich, we are also frightened of China,” he said. “I think we have to find some way to deal with China.”

COMMENT:-

This is a couple of weeks late, but I thought that some might find the views interesting.
​
Click to expand...

Chinese companies are legally required to participate in spying for the CCP, it is not scaremongering, it is fact.
 
Carjosse said:
Chinese companies are legally required to participate in spying for the CCP, it is not scaremongering, it is fact.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that JUST AS SOON as you present something that is independently verifiable that constitutes EVIDENCE and not just ACCUSATION.

However, that is beside the point (which you would have known had you actually read the article) which is that if faced with ONLY two options:

  1. dealing with "X" whom they don't like and whom they suspect but DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "X" enters into; or
  2. dealing with "Y" whom they don't like and whom they suspect AND DO NOT trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Y" enters into;

they are going to be really tempted to go with dealing with "X".

PLEASE NOTE - The do NOT see that there is any chance of dealing with "Z" whom they do like and whom they do not suspect and DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Z" enters into; or
 
Honestly, if I were a foreign country I wouldn't get into any deals with the US, especially with Trump in office. Even a deal that is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in the form of a treaty can just be revoked, unilaterally, by Trump without the Senate's approval. That is something we have to fix, even if Trump wasn't President.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Honestly, if I were a foreign country I wouldn't get into any deals with the US, especially with Trump in office. Even a deal that is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in the form of a treaty can just be revoked, unilaterally, by Trump without the Senate's approval. That is something we have to fix, even if Trump wasn't President.
Click to expand...

Some people are having a bit of difficulty understanding Mr. Trump's position when he says that NAFTA 2.0 (which limits tariffs on the auto parts trade) is his greatest achievement and he is going to impose tariffs on the auto parts trade in excess of those provided for in NAFTA 2.0 unless the Mexicans do what he tells them to (which is ratify NAFTA 2.0) and he isn't going to take them off even if the Mexicans ratify NAFTA 2.0 because NAFTA 2.0 creates a horrendous "national security" problem for the US because it limits tariffs on the auto parts trade and he would never have had anything whatsoever to do with NAFTA 2.0 if he had been the President of the United States of America (rather than Barack Obama) when it was negotiated under orders from Hillary Clinton and her deep state gang of Muslim feminazis who want to make interracial same-sex marriage mandatory and force every pregnant woman to have an abortion that would be carried out by a Death Panel.

I have no idea why, do you?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'll accept that JUST AS SOON as you present something that is independently verifiable that constitutes EVIDENCE and not just ACCUSATION.

However, that is beside the point (which you would have known had you actually read the article) which is that if faced with ONLY two options:

  1. dealing with "X" whom they don't like and whom they suspect but DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "X" enters into; or
  2. dealing with "Y" whom they don't like and whom they suspect AND DO NOT trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Y" enters into;

they are going to be really tempted to go with dealing with "X".

PLEASE NOTE - The do NOT see that there is any chance of dealing with "Z" whom they do like and whom they do not suspect and DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Z" enters into; or
Click to expand...

Well that wasn't hard.

Why would a nation, especially a very Muslim one, want to do business with China who imprisons in concentration camps and murders its Muslim population. It would be like Israel supporting Nazi Germany.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Honestly, if I were a foreign country I wouldn't get into any deals with the US, especially with Trump in office. Even a deal that is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in the form of a treaty can just be revoked, unilaterally, by Trump without the Senate's approval. That is something we have to fix, even if Trump wasn't President.
Click to expand...

Some treaties do have out clauses, is that really news to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Carjosse said:
Well that wasn't hard.

Why would a nation, especially a very Muslim one, want to do business with China who imprisons in concentration camps and murders its Muslim population. It would be like Israel supporting Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Considering that you have decided to eliminate the "but DO trust to actually abide by any agreements" / "AND DO NOT trust to actually abide by any agreements" factor, I can see how your question makes sense.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'll accept that JUST AS SOON as you present something that is independently verifiable that constitutes EVIDENCE and not just ACCUSATION.

However, that is beside the point (which you would have known had you actually read the article) which is that if faced with ONLY two options:

  1. dealing with "X" whom they don't like and whom they suspect but DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "X" enters into; or
  2. dealing with "Y" whom they don't like and whom they suspect AND DO NOT trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Y" enters into;

they are going to be really tempted to go with dealing with "X".

PLEASE NOTE - The do NOT see that there is any chance of dealing with "Z" whom they do like and whom they do not suspect and DO trust to actually abide by any agreements that "Z" enters into; or
Click to expand...

TUC:

I will,prove Carjosse's point while simultaneously undermining it.

The US is worried about China spying via Huawei because it did the same — Quartz

How American Companies Enable NSA Surveillance – Foreign Policy

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
TUC:

I will,prove Carjosse's point while simultaneously undermining it.

The US is worried about China spying via Huawei because it did the same — Quartz

How American Companies Enable NSA Surveillance – Foreign Policy

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The point that "Carjosse" made was that the Chinese companies were LEGALLY REQUIRED to participate in spying. That's the point that I asked for proof on. Whether the Chinese companies are "convinced by the government" to participate in spying is something completely different.

I'm not in the least convinced that the Chinese companies are NOT "convinced by the government" to participate in spying, and I am not in the least convinced that the American companies were NOT "convinced by the government" to participate in spying. In fact I would be willing to place substantial wagers that BOTH Chinese and American companies have been "convinced by the government" to participate in spying.

Equally, I would be quite willing to bet that anyone who thinks that it is quite OK for the US government to convince American companies to participate in spying while it is an incredibly huge international criminal and moral wrongdoing for the Chinese government to do the same thing with regards to Chinese companies IS being hypocritical.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The point that "Carjosse" made was that the Chinese companies were LEGALLY REQUIRED to participate in spying. That's the point that I asked for proof on. Whether the Chinese companies are "convinced by the government" to participate in spying is something completely different.

I'm not in the least convinced that the Chinese companies are NOT "convinced by the government" to participate in spying, and I am not in the least convinced that the American companies were NOT "convinced by the government" to participate in spying. In fact I would be willing to place substantial wagers that BOTH Chinese and American companies have been "convinced by the government" to participate in spying.

Equally, I would be quite willing to bet that anyone who thinks that it is quite OK for the US government to convince American companies to participate in spying while it is an incredibly huge international criminal and moral wrongdoing for the Chinese government to do the same thing with regards to Chinese companies IS being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

TUC:

The US Government forced US companies to use inferior 32-byte encryption for foreign sales of encryption software rather than the much more secure 64-byte encryption which the tech companies wanted to sell abroad. There was little convincing and a whole lot of ordering regarding encryption technology in the early 2000's.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cheers
 
Evilroddy said:
TUC:

The US Government forced US companies to use inferior 32-byte encryption for foreign sales of encryption software rather than the much more secure 64-byte encryption which the tech companies wanted to sell abroad. There was little convincing and a whole lot of ordering regarding encryption technology in the early 2000's.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cheers
Click to expand...

The "forcing" was done by denying export licenses. There was no LAW that required the companies to comply and the companies could simply have foregone the foreign sales.

Since there was no LAW that required the companies to "participate in spying" (by selling foreign governments stuff that the US government had little difficulty in infiltrating) then that "denial of export licenses" is the same thing as the companies being "convinced by the government".

Yes, it is "picky point", but you have to remember that it isn't what you DO that counts, rather it is what you CALL it that matters. "Violating airspace" (by flying into a self-proclaimed ADIZ and to within 15 miles of another country's coastline) and "conducting normal and routine navigational training exercises 15 miles off the coast and over international waters" are exactly the same physical acts, but one is condemned and the other approved.
 
I would legit be a nervous wreck if i were living in China. ****** tankies.
 
While I agree that other Nations should be wary of making deals with the US these days I would add that trusting China is not all that much better.
Oh, as for Huawei spying, yes they did and still do. Same goes for ZTE. How do I know, I worked for both companies and have seen them in action. On the government forcing Chinese companies to spy, all I can say it was obvious that there were Chinese Agents posted at both company locations here in Dallas, heck at ZTE I worked directly for one. Trust them at your own risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom