Talk:China's peaceful rise

The NYT reported: "Earlier this year, Mr. Jiang opposed and effectively sidelined a new framework for China's foreign policy Mr. Hu had developed. Mr. Jiang argued that a slogan Mr. Hu had begun using to describe China's ambitions as a great power, "peaceful rise," sent the wrong signal at a time when Beijing was warning Taiwan that moves toward independence would provoke military retaliation."

TIME reported: Last December, Hu made a major speech on "The Peaceful Rise of China," which was meant to signal his arrival as a theorist while assuring the world that China's emergence as a world power would not threaten its neighbors. But Jiang, says a Western diplomat in Beijing, "forced Hu to tone [the theory] down." In subsequent speeches, Hu has referred instead to China's "peaceful development."

This seems to contradict this article. --Jiang 21:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be looked at. BlizzardGhost 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The phraseology of the “peaceful rise” was indeed coined by Zheng Bijian (郑必坚) but was apart of a larger Chinese public diplomacy campaign that serves as the antithesis of the so-called “China Threat Theory”. This article in its current form however makes ostensibly axiomatic claims about the rationale behind such a campaign that while perhaps accurate, are based largely on conjecture. The inner workings of the Chinese Politburo and the motivations that guide their foreign policy strategy remain esoteric to all but a paucity of Chinese political elites. Consequently to delineate their strategic objectives can at best only be informed speculation based on the study of the confluence of foreign policy action and of public statements by the Chinese leadership. The article then will need to provide a great deal more citation and political context.

The article is also exploring the notion of China’s Foreign Policy Grand Strategy. A leading academic research in this area is “Rising to the Challenge: China’s Grand Strategy and International Security” by Dr. Avery Goldstein of the University of Pennsylvania. The foreign policy grand strategy that Dr. Goldstein has labeled “neo-Bismarckian,” is China’s endeavor to peacefully manage the challenges of an anarchic unipolar international system where both realist and idealist international relations theories seem to otherwise necessitate conflict.

Aron Patrick 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I tagged this NPOV. It has basically no sources, plenty of surprising citationless statements, and does not even point out anything about internal conflict e.g. in Tibet. Fix these issues, and my objections to the POV will be addressed. 71.231.179.83 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

what does foreign policy statement have to do with tibet? i realize that tibet is an important issue in america and europe but it is really get tedious when everything remotely chinese related get tagged with NPOV because of it. from what i can see your principal objection to the whole paper (it is properly cited btw it is the overview of one document and it IS listed) is that it doesn't mention tibet, what does his holiness the dalailama have to do with anything mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.254.142 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tibet may not be an issue. But the article also ignores external problems such as Taiwan and China's constant threats to start a war. Readin (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The existence of this article itself is NPOV in my opinion. Given the internal (eg: Tibet) and external (eg: Taiwan and India) issues and disputes and the way the Chinese government addresses those issues (ie: by claiming those to be "internal affairs" or threatening the use of force. Saying some issue is "internal" does not make it so and in today's world, and given China's quasi superpower status, very few issues are "internal") is anything be "peaceful". I agree that China's rise (because it is rising, that's a fact) is not as aggressive as the rise of the US or Europe in the past, but claiming it to be peaceful is NPOV (especially given that no great / super power ever reached that status peacefully). Maybe if the content of that page was in the Chinese Century page, it would alleviate the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.194.103 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tibet is not an internal problem, and Taiwan is universially recognized by ALL nations on Earth as part of China.

Why devote a page to misc supporter's gimmicks?

There have been constant incursions by chinese forces into disputed borders of its neighboring nations, along the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh being the most recent one. How does having your troops taking a stroll inside your neighboring country, stealing supplies and painting the countryside red promote harmony in the vicinity?reported by Indian newspaper The Times Of India

And seriously, why would PRC allow an "individual" to run a website with a name nearly identical to the official version, moreover with the word "china" included in the URL, from way back in the 2002 when they are starting to issue computers with built in filters to restrict the citizens from accessing anything that shows the communist regime to be anything less than Holy over the entire internet?PRC denies allegations

An encyclopedia is not the place to post political propaganda with baseless statements by PRC supporters.

I suggest to remove this page since its just a stub of baseless statements filled with an array of links to other articles over the wiki, ended with a list of links to internal and external pages. Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes this article notable? Maybe if china settles Tibetian issues peacefully, Taiwan issues peacefully and all existing border issues peacefully then this topic would hold value.

"China's peaceful rise", regardless of what the literal chinese to english translation of this phrase maybe, is in present continuous, means to say its "going on". There is no such peaceful approach going on, towards internal or external disputes from the PRC. Notability doesnt fully depend on fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic but it sure doesnt rely on claims, future theories and more claims. A topic header such as "Theory To China's Peaceful Rise" would hold more meaning rather than the current header but even then its just a little more meaning and not enough to warrant a whole page devoted to it, based on just quoted claims.Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 06:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable phrase (not a theory!) used by Chinese scholars and officials considered reflective of part of China's current public foreign policy stance and reported on by many sources. Whether or not it has any real merit is irrelevant. On wikipedia notability is determined solely by the sources. If something is widely discussed by reliable secondary sources then it's notable. Taking your WP:Soapboxing somewhere else please. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

From the cross- strait article: "The politically correct term "cross-Strait relations" has been adopted by the two sides concerned and many observers so that the relationship between mainland China and Taiwan would not be referred as "China–Taiwan relations" or "PRC–ROC relations". The former term implies the exclusion of Taiwan from China, and is considered non-neutral." T-1000 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And here's a link showing the ROC referring to the relations as cross_strait relations [1]. T-1000 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that two parties, the KMT ruling the ROC and the CPC ruling the PRC, agree on an issue does not make their view NPOV if it disagrees with other views.

The term "cross-strait relations" is useful for people already very familiar with the subject matter. Such people won't get any new information of our this article anyway. We need to make it accessible to the majority of readers.

China (the PRC) actually does consider "Taiwan" to be an acceptable term. It often refers to the "Taiwan authorities".

The simple statement that the relations remain "chilly" is a bit confusing as it doesn't show how that chilliness conflicts with a "peaceful rise". I've added a bit more information from the article. Readin (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)