China five surveys of the day

Chinese leaders often invoke the feelings of the Chinese people in denouncing foreign actions in international confrontations. But most survey research on Chinese public opinion on international affairs has looked at measures of nationalist identity rather than beliefs about foreign policy and evaluations of the government’s performance. Five surveys of Chinese citizens, netizens, and elites help illuminate the public attitudes that the Chinese government grapples with in managing international security policy. The results show that Chinese attitudes are more hawkish than dovish and that younger Chinese, while perhaps not more nationalist in identity, may be more hawkish in their foreign policy beliefs than older generations. Netizens and elites are even more inclined to call on the Chinese government to invest and rely more on military strength.

That is by Jessica Chen Weiss, via the excellent Kevin Lewis.


Let's be blunt: there is no moral difference between Red China and Nazi Germany. As Mr. Araújo, Brazil's future Foreign Affairs Minister, pointes out, either the West destroys Maoism or Maoism destroys the West. We are talking about a savage populace with no consciente or feelings as we, Westerners, understand them. A populace raised since its e

Please, troll. Xi is going to spank your Nazi president like a bad baby.

No, he won't. President Captain Bolsonaro is not a Nazi, he is a good friend of Mrs. Tsai, the sole legitimate president of China. The communist usurpers must be crushed.

The challenge of Red China is that unlike American brains which are 30% of the size of Brazilian ones, CHinese brains are around 80% of the size of our brains. So they are more formidable. But let us be clear, they will be defeated. As the Prophet Bandarra has written, the lion will rise and crush the serpent with its heel.

I wish Tyler can figure out a way to ban people like Thiago.

So you want to silent dissents at behalf of Beijing's regime?

Heya ich bin zum ersten Mal hier. Ich stieß auf fand dieses
Board und ich fine es wirklich wirklich nützlich
und es half mir eine Menge viel. Ich hoffe, etwas zurück und Hilfe geben, andere wie Sie half

It seems easy to be blinded by one's PC guilt/outrage emotions.

Examining Thiago's sentiments in greater detail, the parallel between China and 1930s Germany is driven by the sense of historic injustice. In Germany's case it was the Treaty of Versailles that every German internalized as unfair (leading to Weimar hyperinflation, etc). In China's case it's the perception of the early-mid 20th century rape of the country by the Eight-Nation Alliance and other transgressions against the older and proud culture.

The Belt and Road initiative, the disputed island projects are a modern expression of Lebensraum strategy.

Only a Brazilian-Israeli alliance can save the world from Maoism and motivate Chinese people to lower their voices on the R line.

Although I oppose Zionism, I understand that President Captain Bolsonaro considers the Zionist Entity a key ally against Red China, Freemasonry and Globalism. Therefore, I support his plans to recognize Jerusalem as the Zionist Entity's own capital.

I think China has it's eye on Australia and New Zealand and not Brazil.

Because they are cowards.

moderators take a break on Sunday, otherwise I don't get how calling 1+ billion people savage it's ok

I see, there is wisdom in numbers. 999,999,999 savages plus 1 savage = 1,000,000,000 civilized persons.

... since its early years to bate the West and despise as weakness all the moral conquests of the Civilization. Make no mistake: the Barbarians are at the gates.

China's history is one of foreign domination, foreign domination following domestic disorder and instability. Today's obsession with domestic order and stability is a product of that history.

My BS detector just went off. Is there really Chinese public opinion independent of what the ChiComs want it to be?

Not the point. Perception is reality. If people were able to discern the difference between true and false, much of what passes for politics in the USA would vanish. While the Communist Party has great influence on the general population, it is not immune to the expectations and desires of that population. Fanning nationalistic fervor is a wise prerequisite for military aggression, for instance. (Something the US failed rather badly to do in its Vietnamese adventure.) But that's not all. Any government wants - at the least - political stability. Feedback is a critical component of maintaining that. So, while the Party influences the population, it is also true that the population influences the Party. With their glaring imbalance in the number of women and men, it is a wonder (to me) they haven't become even more militarily adventurous before now. This was an expected side-effect of the one child policy. And regardless of its origin, the general Chinese zeitgeist will impact both China's economy and its foreign affairs.

>while the Party influences the population, it is also true that the population influences the Party.

Communism: you might want to look up what it is.

You staggering, unrepentant idiot.

They will wipe the west off of the face of the earth, and progressivism with it. Good riddance.

"Chinese attitudes are more hawkish"

Nah. More business-like.

How nice. Now China can sell more computers, fridges, microwave ovens, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and TVs to PNG.

In future they will complain about the electricity prices, not the number of electric appliances they have bought.

China built roads there which might benefit the Japanese and Koreans car manufacturers, but they spun that as "road to nowhere". How odd.

This is a reflection of a complain one of the CPC insiders criticized the current leadership about -- and it's likely that the CPC internal propaganda is driving public views as much as driven by them.

The critique was that Xi and the current approach is a bit of a violation, or at least has forgotten, Confucian dictate of humility and always understating one's abilities and power. The current level of initiatives -- both economic and military -- fly in the face of that approach.

One wonders how quickly the CPC initiatives for expansion (empire to my mind) would change if there were either direct conflict with the USA or the level of tension that existed with the DPRK?

Submit too quickly. Someone else mentioned the equivalence between the CPC and NAZI --which I suppose to very close to derailing the discussions based on old internet rules. However that analogy may have value as it's clear that many, especially many in the region, are rationalizing and appeasing just as the Europeans did.

The correct analogy is to 1930s Japan. Most don't understand that the Japanese were fooled into thinking that they could win in Asia because the US wouldn't fight a war requiring huge losses. The goal of Pearl Harbor was not to occupy the US but to make it unprofitable to defend its possessions (Guam and the Philippines) or come to the aid of other nations in SE Asia. They saw the US backing down in many places and assumed the best. Read Japanese historians, especially Eri Hotta.
They assumed that the US no longer had the stomach for a fight. China thinks the same thing today although they're probably a bit uncertain about the orange haired one.

Here is an excellent piece about China in today's NYT: Something the piece does is correct (in my mind) the notion that the secret of China's success flowed from China outward to Taiwan, Singapore, etc.; instead, the secret to China's success flowed in the other direction. The piece also makes the point that China is suffering from many of the same problems as America: an aging population, a high and increasing level of inequality, and flattening economic growth, and a populist response among the public for better health care and schools, less corruption, and lower inequality. Not mentioned explicitly in the piece, but one can discern a contrast between China and the U.S.: political power and economic power are separate in China while political power and economic power in the U.S. are not separate (those with economic power dominate politics). In China, billionaires are at the mercy of those with political power whereas in the U.S. politicians are at the mercy of billionaires. It will be interesting in the years ahead watching to determine which approach works best.

Comments for this post are closed