Forces and engagement

[ian2]

"Our assessment is based not only on China’s actions, but also on the power of the forces that have been unleashed in China as a consequence of engagement. International trade and foreign investment, the entrepreneurial spirit, the Internet, judicial training, treaty commitments, foreign travel, greater

educational opportunities, and growing numbers of NGOs—all of these factors are putting pressure on the Chinese government to improve rule of law, enhance transparency and accountability, and better adhere to international norms.

"

In the above blue sentence, I have two questions:

1. Forces. This is always hard to pinpoint when you have to say it in another language. The following sentences "after the blue one) are examples of the unleashed forces. What is the best word to paraphrase it?

2. Engagement. The question here is the logical subject. Engagement is a US policy intended to engage China. So the hidden subject should be the US. But engagement always involves two sides, which means China is also part of the engagement. So what is the best replacement of engagement in this case when you don't have a subject?

Thanks.

[MikeCollins]

Are you suggesting that China has been influenced to adopt more internationally recognised policies as a result of it's international trade and co-operation?

[ian2]

Originally Posted by MikeCollins

Are you suggesting that China has been influenced to adopt more internationally recognised policies as a result of it's international trade and co-operation?

My understradning of the sentence is:

Because of the US policy of engagement, in China there are powerful forces that have been unleashed. Or Engagement policy has produced positive results that are powerful.

My question is about forces. What does it refer to?

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by MikeCollins

Are you suggesting that China has been influenced to adopt more internationally recognised policies as a result of it's international trade and co-operation?

Say:

its international trade and co-operation

~R

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by ian2

My understradning of the sentence is:

Because of the US policy of engagement, in China there are powerful forces that have been unleashed. Or Engagement policy has produced positive results that are powerful.

My question is about forces. What does it refer to?

I think the forces being talked about are societal. That is, the Chinese people are putting pressure on the government to change.

~R

[ian2]

Originally Posted by RonBee

I think the forces being talked about are societal. That is, the Chinese people are putting pressure on the government to change.

~R

Thanks. Th reason I asked about the logical subject for "engagement" is that originally it's the US who designed the policy of engagement, in other words, it's the US which tries to engage China into the the world affairs. But later on, when we use the word "engagement", it seems the word has referred to not only the US, but also other industrious countries. In fact, the engagement could be in the other direction, that is, China making efforts to engage. That was why I asked the question.

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by ian2

Thanks. Th reason I asked about the logical subject for "engagement" is that originally it's the US who designed the policy of engagement, in other words, it's the US which tries to engage China into the the world affairs. But later on, when we use the word "engagement", it seems the word has referred to not only the US, but also other industrious countries. In fact, the engagement could be in the other direction, that is, China making efforts to engage. That was why I asked the question.

Yes, but engagement requires two parties. For example, the USA and China can engage each other (in dialogue, for example), but China cannot engage by itself. (It can change by itself, but it can't engage by itself.)

~R

[ian2]

Originally Posted by RonBee

Yes, but engagement requires two parties. For example, the USA and China can engage each other (in dialogue, for example), but China cannot engage by itself. (It can change by itself, but it can't engage by itself.)

~R

Thanks a lot.

[Mister Micawber]

.
Ian, your questions are not very clear to me, but--

1-- The forces (about 8 of them) are explicitly listed in the text: 'International trade and foreign investment, the entrepreneurial spirit, the Internet, judicial training, treaty commitments, foreign travel, greater educational opportunities, and growing numbers of NGOs".

2-- I am not clear on your intent: are you looking for synonyms for the words, 'forces' and 'engagement'?
.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by Mister Micawber

.
Ian, your questions are not very clear to me, but--

1-- The forces (about 8 of them) are explicitly listed in the text: 'International trade and foreign investment, the entrepreneurial spirit, the Internet, judicial training, treaty commitments, foreign travel, greater educational opportunities, and growing numbers of NGOs".

2-- I am not clear on your intent: are you looking for synonyms for the words, 'forces' and 'engagement'?
.

Your question is right on the target. You are right, I am trying to look for synonyms for translation purposes. "Forces" is not a good collocation. In order to pinpoint the right word, I need to have a clear picture of the word "forces". I used "factors" in this case to stand for "forces", what do you think?

As for engagement, it's the same purpose. Engaging was originally designed by the US, or at least the US wanted to engage China. But it is also a two-way activity. When it comes to picking up a verb that can cover both directions, it is not so easy to locate it. That was my intention. Thanks for your attention and the question.