China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[JMA]

The likely alternative - or one likely alternative, if it sounds better - to a fall of China's current government would be a PLA takeover, with generals calling the shots instead of businessmen. That is not a certainty, of course: the future never is. There's even an outside long-shot chance that pro-democracy forces might prevail. But think about the possible consequences of a military takeover, and compare the strength of the PLA vs the pro-democracy forces... you want to place bets on that? The status quo is not ideal, but it's adequate. Given the potential for adverse unintended consequence, I wouldn't want to go rocking that boat at this point. It'll rock son enough of its own accord; the Chines economy is not nearly as strong as the uninformed make it out to be.

I suggest you are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument. Mere opinion does not cut it. Why not state your own position instead of just picking holes in what others say?

[Dayuhan]

Their (China's) option to change any plans have been snatched away by the US positioning warships on a permanent basis at Singapore. That is what is called strategic foresight.

How so? I don't see how the presence of two Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore is going to change anything. The Chinese will continue resource exploration in the South China Sea, and they will continue to push the edges when they choose to do so.

I noticed today that Philippine officialdom are now referring to the "West Philippine Sea". We may not have much of a navy but we play the semantic game as well as anyone!


If the Chinese economy falters, they can get impatient as much as they like. Their clout will diminish and they will have the status of being a 'has been'.

All salute the rising sun and not the one that has eclipsed!

If the Chinese economy falters - and if you're following the Chinese real estate bubble you'll know that the process may have already started - we could easily see impatient people forcing a change in government. The new government could easily be far more aggressive than what we have now. Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so.


I suggest you are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument. Mere opinion does not cut it.

Opinion is what you get around here, from just about everyone.


Why not state your own position

Don't panic over China, or assume that China is an "enemy". Don't assume that everything the Chinese do requires some chest-thumping puff and posture show of military force in response. I know we've traditionally needed somebody to fear, but fear rarely drives effective policy.

[JMA]

JMA,

I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.

Nearly missed this one.

My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes. It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.

There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove. The best course of action is as Truman did back then is to defer the problem to the next generation. This head in the sand mentality is repeating itself now as the generation Truman passed the problem to prepares to do the same to their children. But let our generation not kid itself and our children that there is no real problem that needs attention and continue to just kick the can down the street... let us attempt a little honesty this time.

[Dayuhan]

My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes.

I sense another bout of historical revisionism coming on... what exactly was the US supposed to do in the 1950s to "counter any potential future military threat" from Russia and China? Nuke them? How and why does one go about countering potential future threats? Are we to try to preemptively counter any threat that might possibly someday exist?


It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.

So far the US hasn't given any ground at all. The Russians certainly did: they lost an immense amount of ground with the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course that ground wasn't gained by the US, it was gained by the people who live on it, which is as it should be.

Neither Russia nor China can reasonably called "aggressively expansionist", and the US isn't "losing ground" to anyone. We're adjusting to a more multipolar world with greater economic balance, but that's inevitable and needn't be something to fear.


There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove.

Neither can either "counter and if necessary defeat" the US if push comes to shove. There's a very strong incentive not to let push come to shove, as there was during the cold war... and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If any of these powers had the capacity to conclusively defeat any other, they'd be tempted to use that capacity. The less of that the better.

[Ray]

Dayuhan,


The treaty between the US and the Philippines requires the US to assist the Philippines in the event of an attack on the Philippines. It does not require the US to support Philippine claims in disputed areas. I don't know how much clearer that could possibly be. Of course the US may take steps to support the Philippines in the absence of an attack, but that's an option, it's not a treaty obligation.

A treaty that required a stronger power to come to the aid of a weaker power in any trouble the weaker party got into would be an incentive to the weaker party to get into trouble, knowing they would be supported. For example, the US has made it clear that the defense treaty would not be triggered if the Philippines got into it with Malaysia over the Philippine claim to Sabah. Any other position would encourage adventurism.

Naval exercises and a couple of Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore don't create a position of strength. The relative balance of strength will be as it was before. The idea is to create a perception of commitment, which again really doesn't change much. Both sides will continue to poke and prod as they can, where they will, and see how others react. Nothing new.

What is the difference between a Treaty and a Strategic Alliance?

A treaty with a stronger power does not in anyway become a licence for the weaker of the two to go adventurous. It would be a total misconception, and even insulting, to believe that Third World countries have leaders who are dimwits. I don’t know how, but I am getting a feeling that you take Third World countries to be banana republics.

It would be worth noting that countries with Treaty obligations undertake dialogue before embarking on activities that might require the other partner to cooperation. It is never unilateral!

Of course, the US has made it clear that the defence treaty would not be triggered if the Philippines got into it with Malaysia over the Philippine claim to Sabah. Any other position would encourage adventurism.

Isn’t it but natural? Is the strategic interest of the US with Malaysia the same as China?

The positioning of US naval warships permanently in Singapore, you may see as ‘probe and prod’, but for China, it is a matter of serious concern since the capability to interdict China’s commercial and economic interests in the Middle East and Africa goes up a couple of notches.

It maybe worth what happened to General Torrijos, the man who oversaw the nationalization of the Panama Canal and why Noriega became the President of Panama. The importance of control of ‘strategic chokepoints’ are critical to international geopolitics and geostrategy.

In so far as what is the importance of naval exercises are mere routine and have insignificant and marginal impact one wonders then as to why mere talks create such a furore in China? Shouldn’t talks and naval exercises be taken as another day’s work by your form of reasoning?


China issues lurk behind Obama's visit to Asia

President Barack Obama visited the four Asian countries of India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan and attended the G20 Summit held in Seoul as well as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit held in Yokohama.......

Both China and the United States are playing games in the Asian and Pacific regions. However, as Clinton said, both China and the United States should not play a "zero-sum game."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/7201357.html




Breaking out of US containment

If a deeper confrontation is inevitable, what can China do? ....

China won't follow a path to war like Japan did in World War II, but that does not mean that China will surrender to US strategic containment.....

If the US takes China as an enemy, the result would be disastrous......

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-04/559852.html




If mere words and meetings can spook China, it would be surprising if positioning of warships in a strategic chokepoint that is critical to China and naval exercises would be taken as all in a day's work!

Quote:

The US Navy is larger than all the other navies in the world together. Does the US "possess far flung overseas territories"?

The Chinese have extensive commercial interests in Africa, which could at any time be threatened by insurgency, with or without a bit of stirring up by rival powers. The US maintains the capacity to "do FID" or intervene on behalf of governments it supports, why wouldn't China seek the same capacity? The vast majority of China's energy imports and large amounts of commercial exports pass through the Indian Ocean, where they could be subject to all kinds of interference in time of conflict. Isn't it quite natural for the Chinese to want the capacity to protect its commerce? Isn't that a capacity that virtually every commercial power in history has sought?

Of course the Chinese want the capacity to project power if needed. Isn't that a capacity the US already has? Is it right in one case and wrong in the other?

Does the US not have overseas territories?

Maybe this would help:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/US_insular_areas.png/300px-US_insular_areas.png

Of course, China has to have a Blue Water Navy for forays beyond the South China Seas, but then that is exactly where the chokepoints come into play. That is exactly the reason why one has to ensure that one is aware that unless one plays cricket, it would not be in one’s interest.

What is international relations all about?

Dominance, direct or subtle.

Hence, containment and quasi containment.


Observing is part of the ritual. Doesn't change the way things stand between or among the countries involved.

To believe that exercises are merely a part of an established routine with the suggestion that it is a ‘Been there, Done that’ ‘circus’, would actually indicate that importance and the nuances involved in such exercises is not understood. If indeed, they were meaningless, then in this world of soaring fuel prices, it would be better to have all naval platforms in the dry dock and mothballed!


All treaties, everywhere, all the time, are based on perceived self interest. What other possible basis could there be?

I didn't say anything about changing defence treaty obligations, I merely pointed out that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US... though treaty obligations and how (and if) they are fulfilled will always be assessed according to perceived interests at that time. That is by no means only true of the US, it applies to everyone.

Of course all treaties are based on self interest. It is so evident.

There are also fraternal ties too or so I believe was what bonded the Communist nations.

You seem to have missed my point.

My point was that inspite of North Korea having nuclear capability and nuclear weapons delivery capability, China has not dropped North Korea like, IIRC your words, ‘hot potato’, I fail to understand why you expect the US to drop its allies like ‘hot potatoes’ when they are in conflict of interest with China.

The other point is that you merely state that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US.... That is a mere opinion of yours. Maybe that opinion should be amplified with some explanation so that one can understand the rationale behind that blanket statement.



Here's a suggestion of playing:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=96627

With due regards to you and the pakobserver that you quote, an issue that one must remember is that a Nation that is a near international pariah and a near failed state, requires to boost its and its citizenry’s morale by living in a state of denial and clutching a every straw like a drowning man that appears on the horizon.

For instance:


China denies talks with Pak to build naval base at Gwadar port

China today denied any talks with Pakistan for building a naval base at the strategic Gwadar deep sea port, which was built with its assistance in Balochistan.

No such proposal figured during the just concluded visit of Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu told a media briefing here, when asked about reported remarks by Pakistan Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, about the project.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/163801/china-denies-talks-pak-build.html


In other words, further improvement may have been on the cards during the discussion, but a grandiose twist was dreamt so as to impress and give confidence to the domestic audience that all is not lost!

Therefore, one cannot find fault with the Pakistan Observer for building castles in the air and giving such impressions in their article.

[Ray]

Dayuhan



The treaties exist because of perceived interests. Why would morality have anything to do with it? China supports N. Korea because they fear the consequences of that regime collapsing. No morality involved.

Again, I would ask you that if there were not a modicum of some morality involved in Treaties, then why have the Non Proliferation Treaty at all since you seem to suggest that it is but merely a piece of worthless paper!

Then why ask the world to ratify it?


I didn't say Myanmar is a corpse, I said imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is analogous to banning a corpse from a dance floor. It's pointless to ban a corpse from a dance floor because the corpse can't dance anyway. It's pointless to impose economic sanctions on Myanmar because the Myanmar economy can't dance: they've no exports worthy of the name and little capacirty to import. Economic sanctions will only mean something if a country's economy depends on global linkages. Myanmar's doesn't.

Apparently, you fail to comprehend how Myanmar exists as you possibly you fail understand how Pakistan exists.

It is the national psyche that moves them on inspite of impediments (to the western observer) that would make a western country revolt!

People who have little and very few wants can survive; as Myanmar.

People who have extreme religious zeal, can survive with bombings done by external forces and by their own people against their own people as in Pakistan. Pakistan experiences daily attacks by TTP or by US Drones. The common Pakistanis should have been on their knees. But no such thing is evident. They die and still live on as if it were routine!!



It was a slow sink. The rats finally jumped ship, as anyone would... I mean, we talk of rats leaving a sinking ship, but who in his right mind doesn't leave a sinking ship? The Chinese didn't adopt capitalism because the US wanted them to, they did it because they wanted to, for fairly obvious reasons.

Who does not leave a sinking ship?

The boy who stood on the Burning Deck, Casabianca


There came a burst of thunder sound...
The boy-oh! where was he?
Ask of the winds that far around
With fragments strewed the sea.
With mast, and helm, and pennon fair,
That well had borne their part;
But the noblest thing which perished there
Was that young faithful heart.

It is a true story.

The story relates to an extraordinary incident of devotion and heroism witnessed during the Battle of the Nile.
It was on the evening of July 28 of 1798 that the English naval squadron under Lord Nelson sailed in. They had caught the French fleet at anchor and unprepared. The French flagship was the L'Orient and it soon found itself flanked by English ships attacking from both sides. A fierce battle was soon raging and the flashes of 2000 guns lit up the ships in the gathering darkness. L'Orient was caught by the English broadsides and was set ablaze.
It was then that the English sailors saw an amazing sight. There on that burning deck they saw a boy standing alone. He was Cassabianca, the 12 year old son of one of the ship's officers. There he stood, alone at his post. He was surrounded by flames and facing the astonished English foe. Soon afterwards the fire reached the powder magazine deep down in the hold. The boy perished when the whole ship erupted in a massive explosion.


Stations change, and evolve... it is not the right or responsibility of the US to determine anyone else's station or impose any given station on anyone.

Many may share your opinion, but it is not shared by the US Govt or by a majority of US citizens of all origin.


If the Chinese economy falters - and if you're following the Chinese real estate bubble you'll know that the process may have already started - we could easily see impatient people forcing a change in government. The new government could easily be far more aggressive than what we have now. Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so.


Could you amplify this contention of yours:

Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so

Why would it not be of interest to the US to see China go Russia's way?

Russia has been sent at least a decade back in the competition to be a world leader.

I am sure you will agree that the US wants to be the indisputable world leader.

Di.ck Cheney and George Bush thought so and so did Clinton and Obama with his quiet diplomacy does not show any indication to the contrary either!

[AdamG]

TOKYO – Japan's Defense Ministry said Thursday 11 Chinese warships were spotted in international waters off the country's southern island of Okinawa.

No territorial violations were claimed by Japan, but the movements are sensitive because Japan and China have a dispute over small islands in the East China Sea.

The ministry on Thursday said the Chinese warships were monitored passing from the Pacific Ocean into the East China Sea.

Ministry spokesman Shuichi Fukuya said they were believed to be returning from target practice and refueling exercises in waters about 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) south of Okinawa.

He said the Japanese military saw the Chinese warships heading out to the area June 8-9.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_china;_ylt=AqMTzPtkTLuoEHDKoTLsndi9F4l4;_ ylu=X3oDMTM1cW9lMG1jBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNjIzL2FzX2 phcGFuX2NoaW5hBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDIwMHBvb2wEY3BvcwM3 BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDY2hpbmVzZX dhcnNo

[Dayuhan]

The positioning of US naval warships permanently in Singapore, you may see as ‘probe and prod’, but for China, it is a matter of serious concern since the capability to interdict China’s commercial and economic interests in the Middle East and Africa goes up a couple of notches.

Maybe a couple of very very tiny notches. Given the force disparity in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, Two LCS in Singapore represents an insignificant increment in US capacity between Asia and Africa/theME.


In so far as what is the importance of naval exercises are mere routine and have insignificant and marginal impact one wonders then as to why mere talks create such a furore in China? Shouldn’t talks and naval exercises be taken as another day’s work by your form of reasoning?

The furor is part of the ritual. It's one of the most important parts of the ritual. Like American politicians, Chinese politicians often perceive benefit in convincing people that they have external enemies that they must fear, must be vigilant against, must rally together behind their government against...


If mere words and meetings can spook China, it would be surprising if positioning of warships in a strategic chokepoint that is critical to China and naval exercises would be taken as all in a day's work!

Exercises are transient; they last a few days and end, and things go back to being as they were. As above, the small deployment in Singapore makes no meaningful difference, though much will be said of it.


Does the US not have overseas territories?

Maybe this would help:

Does the US need 11 carriers to defend Guam, American Samoa, and the Marianas? Hardly. The US Navy isn't built to defend US territories abroad, it's built to protect US commerce and interests overseas, and to project American power in areas where the US has interests. The Chinese are building a navy for the same purposes. Is that a surprise? Surely we don't expect the Chinese to assume that the US Navy will protect their shipping and defend their interests in the Middle East and Africa!


What is international relations all about?

Dominance, direct or subtle.

Hence, containment and quasi containment.

Does the US dominate or contain the EU? India? Brazil? International relations don't have to be about dominance and containment. They become that way when we assume an enemy.


My point was that inspite of North Korea having nuclear capability and nuclear weapons delivery capability, China has not dropped North Korea like, IIRC your words, ‘hot potato’, I fail to understand why you expect the US to drop its allies like ‘hot potatoes’ when they are in conflict of interest with China.

The Chinese obviously don't believe that the North Korean nuclear capacity affects their perceived interests in the relationship. Why would the drop the North Koreans unless that perception was altered?

I don't expect the US to drop it's allies, unless its perceived interests in those alliances change. I expect the US to act in accordance with its perceived interests at any given time. I expect the same from other nations.


The other point is that you merely state that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US.... That is a mere opinion of yours. Maybe that opinion should be amplified with some explanation so that one can understand the rationale behind that blanket statement.

It's also the opinion of the US Government. The US/Philippine mutual defense treaty obligates the US to come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of an attack on the Philippines. It does not obligate the US to support Philippine claims in disputed territories. The US may support those claims if and to the extent that it chooses, but it's not a treaty obligation.

I don't see how that can be made any more clear.


With due regards to you and the pakobserver that you quote, an issue that one must remember is that a Nation that is a near international pariah and a near failed state, requires to boost its and its citizenry’s morale by living in a state of denial and clutching a every straw like a drowning man that appears on the horizon.

A nation clutching at straws would naturally take any opportunity to play potential and actual allies against each other, especially if those potential allies are rivals who compete with each other for influence. Of course the Pakistani Government has a bit of a problem in that regard, as none of the potential ally/rivals are terribly fond of the Islamic extremist network the Pakistani Government has harnessed itself to... but that's a subject for another thread!

[Dayuhan]

Again, I would ask you that if there were not a modicum of some morality involved in Treaties, then why have the Non Proliferation Treaty at all since you seem to suggest that it is but merely a piece of worthless paper!

Then why ask the world to ratify it?

Because it serves the interests of the signatory parties... just as it has also served the interests of various parties to ignore the treaty when it's not convenient. It's about perceived interests, not morality. Of course nations always try to present their perceived interests as moral, but we needn't concern ourselves with that particular charade.


Apparently, you fail to comprehend how Myanmar exists as you possibly you fail understand how Pakistan exists.

I know exactly how they exist. My point was simply that economic sanctions have limited impact on economies and governments that are not dependent on international linkages.


Why would it not be of interest to the US to see China go Russia's way?

Russia has been sent at least a decade back in the competition to be a world leader.

Not really a relevant comparison. Russia never had any economic success; they went from a dysfunctional Communist economy to a dysfunctional crony-psuedocapitalist economy, surviving only on energy resources. China has already experienced significant economic progress and shown the capacity for economic evolution. Economic evolution is probably the bst chance we have of seeing political evolution in China, though it will likely take generations. A significant disruption to that evolution might drive a Russia-in-the-90s scenario, but it could just as easily drive a Germany-in-1932-33 scenario. It's very possible that this could happen on its own, but I see no reason for the US to provoke it.


I am sure you will agree that the US wants to be the indisputable world leader.

Di.ck Cheney and George Bush thought so and so did Clinton and Obama with his quiet diplomacy does not show any indication to the contrary either!

Silly thing to want, and I hope we've outgrown it. The costs and responsibilities of that position far exceed the benefits.

[Backwards Observer]

A blast from the past by some guy named Ike:


Dear Winston: I have heard how earnestly you supported throughout the Conference of Prime Ministers the proposition that nothing must create a serious rift in British-American relationships. Not only do I applaud that sentiment, but I am most deeply grateful to you for your successful efforts.

I realize that it has been difficult, at times, for you to back us up in the Formosa question and, for this reason, I want to give you a very brief account of our general attitude toward the various factors that have dictated the course we have taken. You understand, of course, that we have certain groups that are violent in their efforts to get us to take a much stronger, even a truculent position. The number that would like to see us clear out of Formosa is negligible. I know that on your side of the water you have the exact opposite of this situation.

Because the Communists know these facts, there is no question in my mind that one of the principal reasons for their constant pressing on the Asian frontier is the hope of dividing our two countries. I am sure that we, on both sides of the water, can make quite clear that, no matter what may be our differences in approach or even sometimes our differences in important convictions, nothing is ever going to separate us or destroy our unity in opposing Communist aggression.

To Winston Spencer Churchill (Doc#1300; Feb 10, 1955) (http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1300.cfm) - The Presidential Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower - eisenhowermemorial.org

First Taiwan Strait Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis) - Wikipedia

***

Never a Dulles moment:


Returning to Washington last week from a grueling, 24,000-mile trip to Formosa, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles got down from an Air Force KC-135 jet transport to face a battery of cameras and microphones. Question: "Did Chiang Kai-shek agree to a reduction of forces on the offshore islands?" Dulles: "We talked about matters far more fundamental than that. That's just a detail."

From the Dulles-Chiang talks on fundamental matters emerged a fundamental result that made Dulles' trip to Formosa a diplomatic achievement of a sort. One nagging hindrance to the Administration's Far Eastern policy is the impression, widespread among the free world's leaders and opinion-shapers, that Nationalist China's Chiang Kai-shek is fanatically bent on invading the mainland at whatever cost, even nuclear world war. In an effort to correct that impression, Dulles got from Chiang a formal declaration renouncing force as the "principal means" of liberating the mainland Chinese.

Formosa Declaration (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,810558,00.html) - Time Magazine - Nov 3, 1958.

[Backwards Observer]

"I realize that it has been difficult, at times, for you to back us up in the Formosa question and, for this reason, I want to give you a very brief account of our general attitude toward the various factors that have dictated the course we have taken. You understand, of course, that we have certain groups that are violent in their efforts to get us to take a much stronger, even a truculent position." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, Feb 1955.


One nagging hindrance to the Administration's Far Eastern policy is the impression, widespread among the free world's leaders and opinion-shapers, that Nationalist China's Chiang Kai-shek is fanatically bent on invading the mainland at whatever cost, even nuclear world war. In an effort to correct that impression, Dulles got from Chiang a formal declaration renouncing force as the "principal means" of liberating the mainland Chinese. - Time, Nov 1958.

I think there may be enough evidence here to make a case that Eisenhower was a communist sympathiser and John Foster Dulles was in reality a 'peace' hog swilling at the trough of appeasement. I could be wrong, however.

[Dayuhan]

Even erstwhile enemies, who should have never approached the US, are approaching the US. It would not have been possible if there were no favourable diplomatic exchanges.

Why shouldn't "erstwhile enemies" approach each other? The US has quite congenial relations with a number of erstwhile enemies, and has been getting on reasonably well with the Vietnamese for some time. Nothing very odd or unusual about it.

[Backwards Observer]

China is a very careful country. It will not back down, but will use the prevailing parameters to calm the situation without 'losing face', and then will seek opportunities when it is in a position to seize the initiative.

Ray, long-term, how would you imagine the best-case scenario for the China question?

***



'One China idea' up for discussion: Ma

MUTUAL NON-DENIAL:The DPP said the ‘one China, two governments’ proposal ran counter to Ma’s 2008 pledge that he would not ‘discuss unification’ within his term (By Mo Yan-chih and Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporters)

The latest proposal that Taiwan and China function as separate governments within a “one China” framework could be up for discussion, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, sparking concern within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) about political negotiations across the Taiwan Strait.

'One China' idea up for discussion: Ma (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/25/2003506626/1) - Taipei Times - June 25, 2011.

***


‘One China, two governments’ rejected

AGREEING TO DISAGREE: DPP lawmakers said the Ma administration’s support for the ‘one China’ principle had opened the door to new interpretations of ‘one China’ (By Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporter)

A new proposal to bring Taiwan and China together as a single country, but with separate central governments, has failed to gain much traction with lawmakers.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators opposed the idea published by a Chinese academic with the US-based Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank, earlier this month.

'One China, two governments' rejected (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/24/2003506551) - Taipei Times - June 24, 2011.

[JMA]

No there isn't an immediate threat. However, it is prudent to discuss threats that may appear in the future. How many angels on the head of a pin is idleness, discussing what the PRC is up to ref Taiwan, is prudent.

Carl, you have been a lone voice insisting that the US should not cut Taiwan loose. I respect you for that. But, even Americans sometimes forget that they come out of a culture where everything (and I mean everything) is negotiable (that leaves you and the handful who believe in what you believe with regard to Taiwan to be in a pitiful minority). The most honest act the US can take in relation to Taiwan is to tell them that they should (starting right now) not rely on support from the US and negotiate the best solution with China that they can (while they can).

It may not happen in my lifetime but I predict with certainty that what we see with Taiwan will eventually play out with Hawaii where mainland Americans begin to question whether to risk conflict with China is worth the defence of Hawaii. (May sound ridiculous today but book mark this and in 20-25 years lets talk again). Everything is negotiable...

[Ray]

Dayuhan,

Interesting to note from your comments the precipitate change in the US policy outlook since the time of John Foster Dulles, nay, closer to time, George W Bush!!

If the US and its Secretaries of the Administration and Congressmen, including Chairmen of House Committees are so flippant and merely thrive on bluff and bluster, then maybe JMA is right, US will soon abdicate its sovereignty over Hawaii, just to buy peace!

Peace at all costs takes a new meaning!

Surprisingly, peace at all costs appears to be a one way street as per your postulations and heavily loaded against the US, who alone is pursuing the peace at all cost street.

China, by her actions, does not appear to be following the same benign thought.

Maybe I have not understood the current US Foreign Policy that you seem to be propounding.

If I have not understood incorrectly it appears that keynote to the current US Foreign Policy is to compromise and back down on principles just to ensure peace and at the same time befool the allies with worthless treaties and intermittent salves of hot air.

Maybe it is John Foster Dulles and George Bush who I imagine as the stereotypes when I think of US Foreign Policy.

I thought Govts change but not national interests.

I also am confused as to what is 'nominally Communist'? Something like 'nominally a democracy' like Pakistan was when Musharraf, the military dictator was in power to remove the 'sham democracy'?

[Ken White]

Don't pay much attention to the conflicting ramblings from the mouths of
Congress persons or the US media -- no one from the US does because they are more often meaningless than not. :wry:

National interests do change and not only with changing US Administrations but with modifications to the behaviors and intents of others. However, the US has two consistent aims or policies and has had and lived by them for over 220 years:

We hew to freedom of the seas and commerce; and we do not tolerate serious threats -- minor annoyances we live with. It's also advisable to recall that almost all our wars have been caused by someone thinking the Americans were too soft and self absorbed to actually do anything or fight... ;)

[Ray]

Carl, you have been a lone voice insisting that the US should not cut Taiwan loose. I respect you for that. But, even Americans sometimes forget that they come out of a culture where everything (and I mean everything) is negotiable (that leaves you and the handful who believe in what you believe with regard to Taiwan to be in a pitiful minority). The most honest act the US can take in relation to Taiwan is to tell them that they should (starting right now) not rely on support from the US and negotiate the best solution with China that they can (while they can).

It may not happen in my lifetime but I predict with certainty that what we see with Taiwan will eventually play out with Hawaii where mainland Americans begin to question whether to risk conflict with China is worth the defence of Hawaii. (May sound ridiculous today but book mark this and in 20-25 years lets talk again). Everything is negotiable...

If the American culture and all it stands for is negotiable (everything, that is), then would it be correct to surmise that it is not based on principle, morality or resolve? Everything is up for the grabs?

I wonder if such a culture could have made the US as powerful as it is today.

I find it rather odd that the US would for the fear of a conflict with China, hand over Hawaii to the Chinese 25 years hence.

Would Alaska go the same way to avoid risk of a conflict with Russia?

Why forget the French and the Spanish. They might be embolden to ask for the return of their territories.

Too imaginative, I would say.

I am surprised that Iraq and Afghanistan could break the will of a nation as powerful as the US!

[Ray]

Don't pay much attention to the conflicting ramblings from the mouths of
Congress persons or the US media -- no one from the US does because they are more often meaningless than not. :wry:

National interests do change and not only with changing US Administrations but with modifications to the behaviors and intents of others. However, the US has two consistent aims or policies and has had and lived by them for over 220 years:

We hew to freedom of the seas and commerce; and we do not tolerate serious threats -- minor annoyances we live with. It's also advisable to recall that almost all our wars have been caused by someone thinking the Americans were too soft and self absorbed to actually do anything or fight... ;)

And how do you feel about risk of conflict with China causing US to hand over Hawaii to China or equivocating over the obligations of treaties in context with the South China Sea?

On one hand, I find brave words against intolerance to threats, and in the very next, there is abdicating of the same for the sake of not raising the risk of conflicts and even going to the extent of handing over a part of the US to buy peace!! (not you, though).

I am not suggesting that there be war. But to avoid war, it does not mean one cowers frightened into the corner.

Very confusing message.

[JMA]

I thought Govts change but not national interests.

You couldn't find any two Americans who agree on what constitutes US national interests. This (I suggest) accounts for the wild swings in foreign policy observed with each change of Administration. Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak).

[Ray]

You couldn't find any two Americans who agree on what constitutes US national interests. This (I suggest) accounts for the wild swings in foreign policy observed with each change of Administration. Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak).

I had a great laugh over this post!

Especially this one - Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak)

So, Russia and China are better bets? ;)

I hope the Indian Govt is reading this thread. :)

[JMA]

If the American culture and all it stands for is negotiable (everything, that is), then would it be correct to surmise that it is not based on principle, morality or resolve? Everything is up for the grabs?

I wonder if such a culture could have made the US as powerful as it is today.

I find it rather odd that the US would for the fear of a conflict with China, hand over Hawaii to the Chinese 25 years hence.

Would Alaska go the same way to avoid risk of a conflict with Russia?

Why forget the French and the Spanish. They might be embolden to ask for the return of their territories.

Too imaginative, I would say.

I am surprised that Iraq and Afghanistan could break the will of a nation as powerful as the US!

Who (which generations) built the US? Everyone under (say) 50 years rode in on the coat-tails of the efforts and sacrifices of those who passed before.

Make no mistake there are still many fine Americans but their voices are being increasingly drowned out. In my generation we had a minority who maintained it was "better to be red than dead" and that type of thinking is now close to the majority view in the US (sadly).

I thought I would leave it at Hawaii but what is the geographical connection of Alaska to the US? Add 15-20 years to the hand over of Hawaii and you will see the fate of Alaska being negotiated. After all Alaska is closer to Russia than the US (and if you apply current US logic like with the Falklands/Malvinas) and the US should agree to hand Alaska back to Russia by the latest (say) 2050 if not before.

Right now there will be an emotional rejection to the thought of giving up Alaska and maybe Hawaii but this will pass...

The French and the Spanish (like the Brits) are already burnt out and what we are seeing with the US is the last kicks of a dying horse. Sad but true.

The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.

I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?

...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...

[Dayuhan]

Make no mistake there are still many fine Americans but their voices are being increasingly drowned out. In my generation we had a minority who maintained it was "better to be red than dead" and that type of thinking is now close to the majority view in the US (sadly).

Most of us preferred to be neither red nor dead, and managed to achieve that. I don't see anybody proposing "that type of thinking", here or elsewhere, neither do I see any serious external threat to US security. Internal is another story, and the US needs to pay attention to its economic competitiveness far more than it needs to worry about the Chinese, the Muslims, or any other external bogeyman.


The French and the Spanish (like the Brits) are already burnt out and what we are seeing with the US is the last kicks of a dying horse. Sad but true.

What we're seeing now is the belated realization that you don't have to control the world to live in it, and that trying to control the world is a self destructive fool's errand.


The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.

The US has no Empire, and is thus spared the miserable and counterproductive task of bankrupting itself in an effort to hold an empire together. Iraq and Afghanistan are divisive because Americans see enormous cost with no clear goal and no clear gain or prospect for gain. That's naturally divisive, and it should be: what good is democracy if the people don't question their government?


I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?

The US can't "lose" Saudi Arabia. You can't lose something you haven't got, and we don't own Saudi Arabia. The Saudia do, and they - like the Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans, Kuwaitis, Nigerians, etc - will continue to sell the US oil until the oil runs out, or until the US can't pay for it any more, both of which are more serious threats than having someone else come along and take Saudi Arabia away.


...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...

The world survived total Anglo domination, I suppose it will survive the loss of total Anglo domination.

There is a real risk that the US will burn out its money and its will fighting pointless and unnecessary wars, and will have little or nothing to fall back on if ever it is necessary to fight... but there is always a real risk of something. I personally choose not to be terrified. I don't think the challenges and threats are greater than they have been at any other point in recent history.

[Ray]

JMA,

That is an extraordinary analysis, but then I am hardly equipped to comment.

Yet, this is interesting and I presume seems to be worrisome to many:


...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...

You feel the mindset will change?

I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!

[Ken White]

And how do you feel about risk of conflict with China causing US to hand over Hawaii to China or equivocating over the obligations of treaties in context with the South China Sea?However, I believe that such risk is badly overstated by some for their own purposes. The US politicians do it to garner headlines; the US media prate on about it to generate headlines and the US State Department responsible for equivocating over treaties worldwide excels at vacillation in an effort to justify their jobs. China and others (?/) also feed it for their own purposes. IOW, ho hum, another day, another 'crisis.' :rolleyes:
On one hand, I find brave words against intolerance to threats, and in the very next, there is abdicating of the same for the sake of not raising the risk of conflicts and even going to the extent of handing over a part of the US to buy peace!! (not you, though).No, not me because I was a soldier, not a politician or a newsman. I repeat my suggestion that most of that prating is best ignored. If one does read it, one should note that collating it will indicate a truth somewhere between the poles. JMA and his agenda not withstanding (smart and good guy but he's still really upset with us for not adequately supporting Rhodesia back in the 70s when he was a hard charging Lieutenant...) the US will, like every other nation, do what it perceives as in its interest in accordance with the adminstration of the day's whims -- we American do whims and we do not do continuitiy... :D
I am not suggesting that there be war. But to avoid war, it does not mean one cowers frightened into the corner.I agree. I think most, not all, Americans would also agree. Whether the government of the day -- or tomorrow -- also agrees (I think most will, to what extent is unanswereable) is time and circumstances dependent. Then again, one man's cowering is another's prudent avoidance and yet another's tactical ploy.
Very confusing message.Yep. By design or accident, it is that -- it's the American way. Shifty folks, we. Get misread all the time... ;)

[Ken White]

Who (which generations) built the US? Everyone under (say) 50 years rode in on the coat-tails of the efforts and sacrifices of those who passed before...That's partly true -- but, like many of your assertions regarding what you've read and 'discerned' of the US of A, Inc. it is far from totally so... :rolleyes:

For the next few paragraphs of your polemic, ably answered by Dayuhan, all I can say is: "Return of the gloom peddler!" :eek:

Ignoring all that wild eyed speculation and getting back to reality, this is fairly true:
The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.Well, we've been far more debilitated and divided in my lifetime than we are now but the "attention span" is indeed part of it, another part is wild-eyed idealism by some and still another, perhaps the most important, is that we aren't mean enough -- unless and until we get really severely pushed...

Moving right along, this statement by you, as I'm sure you know, is totally specious:
I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?We're going to harness the hot air from the US Capitol for electrical energy and use all the oil for big cars and tacky neon plastic clothing...
...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...¿Que se dice? ¿Por que no, Hombre? :D

(I would note, however, that the Hispanic has a sense of history and likes continuity, is notoriously proud and can be combative. Some things to bear in mind... ;) )

[Ken White]

I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!It's also notable that many Hispanic Americans can be equally passionate and gung ho. We're not nearly as populous as India but we have an amazing diversity and it is extremely difficult to categorize the American demographic due to that diversity and our geographic size and dispersion.

Many commentators make the mistake of trying to compare the US to other nations and it rarely works well. We are not in any sense 'an' or 'the' "Exceptional Nation" but we are in fact small 'e' exceptional in many respects due to those dispersion and diversity factors plus the fillip of most of us are here because we or our forebears didn't like where they were and decided to do things differently...

[Backwards Observer]

Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...

Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages :rolleyes:)

Dr. Henry the K back in Beijing:


Kissinger's new book offers insights on how the ice was broken in Sino-US relations, reports Li Xing in Washington.

Henry Kissinger is scheduled to arrive in Beijing on Friday for a series of public and private meetings as a guest of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.
He will discuss with his hosts his latest book, On China, which has been touted in the Chinese media and much coveted among the Chinese.

As he summarized after he received a lifetime achievement award from the Asia Society in Washington last week, he attempted to share with the readers his historic analysis of how the Chinese and Americans handle their problems and how "this translated itself into the actual interaction" between the United States and China.

The book "provides us with his insightful views on Sino-US relations over the past 40 years, including his meetings with four generations of Chinese leaders", Zhang Yesui, China's ambassador to the US, said during the Asia Society event.

A highlight of the trip will be his meeting with a celebrated party of old friends - and children of his old friends - to recall the memorable 48 hours he spent in Beijing in July 1971 on his secret mission to break the ice in China-US relations.

Among the many memoirs are some by a small circle of Chinese and Americans who worked to make the visit not only a success but also to initiate changes that have transformed the world. Numerous Chinese and American journalists have also come up with their accounts to unravel the "mysteries" surrounding the events that led to the secret trip and US President Richard M. Nixon's historic visit to China in February 1972.

Unraveling mysteries behind Nixon's 1972 China visit (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/24/content_12765224.htm) - China Daily - June 24, 2011.

[JMA]

JMA,

That is an extraordinary analysis, but then I am hardly equipped to comment.

Yet, this is interesting and I presume seems to be worrisome to many:

Just my personal crystal ball.

I watched the sun set on the British Empire and still today there are those (notably those critical of the SDR [strategic defence review]) who still believe Britain has a role in the world that requires a military capably for global intervention. (They use the theoretical need for a Falklands War 2 capability as an argument)

The US is just a replay of this. That is why I speak of a 20 year and 30 year time frame. The writing is on the wall. My generation of Americans won't believe it nor will a large percentage of the next one. But as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow the world and the US role in it (and the USA itself) will be much changed in 30 years time (and that probably means IMHO Hawaii and Alaska will no longer be part of the Union).

Like the "winds of change" blew through the British Empire and Africa so are they now blowing through the world (at the US's expense).


You feel the mindset will change?

I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!

The US was once a huge "melting pot" where over time immigrants were Americanized with all the hybrid vigour that goes with that. A great nation was born. Miscegenation was not embraced (by both sides) so Chinese and black people sort of fitted in as minorities. Fast forward and it is all about embracing the culture and language and less about just mixing for the sake of mixing. With the Hispanics it is first a language issue and many have one foot South of the border so don't see the need to jump into the melting pot as they are only there to get work, live a better life and sent money home to the extended family who they hope will join them one day in the US (where they will live their culture from back home).

I have friends from schooldays who emigrated to the US and 40-50 years on are more yank than the yanks and their kids only connection with the mother continent is that is where dad was born (and maybe where gran and grandad live). That is the way it should be.

Perhaps your reference to the attitudes of the Indian origin Americans you speak of is that they are really Americans now (or at least genuinely want to be such) and will as such embrace main stream US opinion rather than espouse the line from mother India?

The key answer from immigrants is to the question "where is your home"?

Unless the Hispanic migrants willingly jump into the "melting pot" they will become a separate (and growing) political pressure group with their own agenda. My information is that the majority are not and as more get the vote they will be able to exert greater language and political pressure within the US system.

Any ideas on the effect in 20 years from now?

[JMA]

JMA and his agenda not withstanding (smart and good guy but he's still really upset with us for not adequately supporting Rhodesia back in the 70s when he was a hard charging Lieutenant...) the US will, like every other nation, do what it perceives as in its interest in accordance with the adminstration of the day's whims -- we American do whims and we do not do continuitiy...

Actually first a troopie (for one year) then 2nd Lieutenant through to Captain. Hard charging? Yea... is there any other way to approach troop commanding in a war?

I have stated that I have never met an American I did not like (obviously my sample is small). I have found Americans to be good, generous and big-hearted people. In a group though they can get a little... tribal ;)

A great nation with (possibly) the worst political system in the world. This through the calamitous effect its foreign policy has had on the world post the 1940's.

Many Americans accept that their system is fatally flawed but few will take responsibility for the damage they have caused in the past 60 odd years.

How things have changed from the days of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln where the low point has now been reached where the defining moment in a presidency is making a 50:50 call to send in a small team after a HVT.

Can you believe it that this "bold decision" has made this president... the question must be asked what was he before he made this "brave"decision?

It was not America who handed the country to Mugabe it was Carter. And you need to know that it was all about the possible recognition of Bishop Muzorewa's Zimbabwe Rhodesian government. The Brits would recognise it if Carter would. But Carter owed the Congressional Black Caucus for their support in getting him elected so he refused to recognise Muzorewa and demanded new elections (as what was wanted by the CBC).

Of course neither Carter nor the CBC of the day will accept the result of their decision nor will they take responsibility for the deaths and destruction in Zimbabwe since 1980. Politicians with no conscience. You see with an inconsequential stroke of the pen Carter consigned a country to the trash heap. Happened many times in the last 60 years under different US Presidents.

No one I know (and certainly not me) holds the US responsible for Carter and CBC actions in this regard. The US electorate realised their mistake and bombed Carter in the next election.

Being the president of the US demands a high level of skills and abilities that few if any incumbents have displayed certainly during my lifetime.

The only thing worse than incompetent civilian politicians are soldiers taking over and trying to run a country.

As I have said here before small countries with the usual incompetent politicians have less scope for creating international mayhem than the US does. Here lies the problem. With the US, Russia and China starring in a Charlie Chaplin/Laurel & Hardy/Keystone Cops show the prognosis is not good.

[Backwards Observer]

Ever so slightly on topic:


That Shakespeare. Who'd have picked him as a Sinophile?

Odds bodkins, zounds and strike me pinke. The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, has just been to Stratford-upon-Avon and paid little Britain the most terrific compliment.

Our economic growth may be only a 10th of Chinese growth rates; our tax rates may be - absurdly - higher. The Chinese may be set to be the economic and political powerhouse of the 21st century, and I wouldn't be surprised if they again mop up more gold medals than anyone else at the Olympic Games. And yet Wen has been to watch Hamlet and declared that we can still claim to be the birthplace of ''the greatest writer who ever lived''.

[...]

He went global while he was still alive, carried overseas by Elizabethan merchant adventurers. The play Wen watched was first performed in Indonesia, would you believe it, in 1609. In the decade after he died Shakespeare was performed in Germany, in German, by travelling players. He has been big in China for 120 years, being known first as Shashibiya and then just as Sha Weng, ''Old Man Sha''.

That Shakespeare. Who'd have picked him as a Sinophile? (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/that-shakespeare-whod-have-picked-him-as-a-sinophile-20110628-1gp2y.html) - Sydney Morning Herald (Daily Telegraph article by the Mayor of some English city) - June 29, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

New Report from The Lowy Institute Interpreter:



Understanding China's world-view

One of the keys to understanding the implications of China's rise will be assessing the degree to which China and the West understand the motives behind each others actions. Given the high degree of economic interdependence and geographic distance between the US and China, it is much more likely that misunderstanding rather than malice will be the cause of any future conflict. (links to Lowy Institute Report - Crisis & Confidence: Major Powers and Maritime Security in Indo-Pacific Asia)

Understanding China's world-view (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/06/29/Understanding-Chinas-world-view.aspx) - The Interpreter - June 29, 2011.

[Fuchs]

Maybe I mentioned this before in SWC...


U.S.shipbuilding 2010 - deliveries
http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/statistics/activity2010.htm

16 Large Deep-Draft Vessels and Structures
(= actual "ships", including five for the USN)

29 Offshore Service Vessels

9 Crew Boats

81 Towing Vessels

23 Passenger Vessels > 50 feet in Length

8 Commercial Fishing Vessels > 50 feet in Length

19 Other Self-Propelled Vessels > 50 feet in Length

14 Large Oceangoing Barges (> 5000 GT)

Without Great Lakes, Mississippi/Missouri and the Gulf of Mexico oil industry there would be almost no shipbuilding industry left in the nation that produced insane quantities of ships and warships in 1942-1945 and won the Pacific War that way. The current shipyard capacity of the United States would be hard-pressed to meet the peacetime shipbuilding program of the early 1900's.

-------------------------

The global shipbuilding share of the United States in 2009 was 0.4%, less than Croatia's, Denmark's and Poland's (individually!!!). China: 28.4%.
(source: http://www.sajn.or.jp/e/statistics/Shipbuilding_Statistics_Mar2010e.pdf PDF page 5)

[Dayuhan]

The Koreans, among others, build ships cheaper.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

A number of recent posts in this thread on disorder / insurgency / terrorism in China's far west provinces have been moved to a more appropriate thread, re-titled as 'China's Far West provinces: a Small War':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=246

That thread is the Central Asia area, not Asia-Pacific as this is.

There maybe similar posts in other threads yet to be found.

[Backwards Observer]

Tell me Sister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEtbGuLoefg), all men are (not) brothers?


China losing Asian popularity contest
By Jian Junbo

LONDON - Though China purses a "good neighbor policy" in Asia, it faces increasing criticism from regional officials, media and populations. It seems the time is ripe for Beijing to review and improve its Asia strategy.

China losing Asian popularity contest (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MH17Ad01.html) - Asia Times - Aug 17, 2011.

Water Margin (All Men Are Brothers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Margin) - Wikipedia

Special Bonus Link (http://www.theonion.com/articles/china-agrees-to-erase-portion-of-us-debt-if-americ,20913/)

[Dayuhan]

owner of a ronery heart

Not the only one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs

[Backwards Observer]

Dream of the Red Flattop?


Make Money Not War -- China's Other Aircraft Carrier
China launches second aircraft carrier after a £9.6m refit... as a luxury hotel

Days after sea trials for China's first aircraft carrier Varyag caused heightened tension in the South China Sea, a second carrier is stirring up interest in the country. But the Kiev, although like the Varyag a former Soviet aircraft carrier, is welcoming guests in its new role as a leisure facility.
Former Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser Kiev has been part of a military theme park since 2004. Now it is a luxury hotel

Make Money Not War - China's Other Aircraft Carrier (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/08/make-money-not-war-chinas-other.html) - China Defense Blog - Aug 14, 2011.

Dream Of The Red Chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber) - Wikipedia

[Ray]

A power shift in Asia

Washington is obsessed with decline: the upshot of the worst economy since the Great Depression, the prospect of massive defense cuts that could signal the end of the American military’s imperial-like reach, the collapse of Arab regimes with which the Pentagon and CIA closely cooperated. But nothing of late quite captures what is going on in terms of a global power lift as much as the U.S. refusal to sell Taiwan new F-16 fighter jets.......

By 2020, the United States will not be able to defend Taiwan from a Chinese air attack, a 2009 Rand study found, even with America’s F-22s, two carrier strike groups in the region and continued access to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. Moreover, China is at the point of deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. surface warships, even as Taiwan’s F-16s, with or without upgrades, are outmatched by China’s 300 to 400 Russian-designed Su-27 and Su-30 fighters. Given that Taiwan is only 100 miles from China and the U.S. Navy and Air Force must deploy to the Pacific from half a world away, the idea that Washington could permanently guarantee Taipei’s de facto sovereignty has always been a diminishing proposition. Vice President Biden’s recent extensive talks with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping (who is poised to succeed President Hu Jintao), may have reinforced the notion inside the administration that Taiwan is better defended by a closer American-Chinese diplomatic understanding than by an arms race.......

Decline is rarely sudden: Rather, it transpires quietly over decades, even as officialdom denies its existence and any contribution to it. The Royal Navy began its decline in the 1890s, Princeton University professor Aaron L. Friedberg writes in “The Weary Titan,” even as Britain went on to win two world wars over the next half-century. And so, China is gradually enveloping Taiwan as part of a transition toward military multipolarity in the western Pacific — away from the veritable American naval lake that the Pacific has constituted since the end of World War II. At the same time, however, the United States pushes back against this trend: This month, Obama administration officials — with China uppermost in their minds — updated a defense pact with Australia,giving the United States greater access to Australian military bases and ports near the confluence of the Pacific and Indian oceans. The United States is making room in Asian waters for the Chinese navy and air force, but only grudgingly.

Decline is also relative. So to talk of American decline without knowing the destiny of a power like China is rash. What if China were to have a political and economic upheaval with adverse repercussions for its defense budget? Then history would turn out a lot more complicated than a simple Chinese rise and an American fall.

Because we cannot know the future, all we can do is note the trend line. The trend line suggests that China will annex Taiwan by, in effect, going around it: by adjusting the correlation of forces in its favor so that China will never have to fight for what it will soon possess. Not only does China have some more than 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles focused on Taiwan, but there are 270 commercial flights per week between Taiwan and the mainland, even as close to a third of Taiwan’s exports go to China. Such is independence melting away. And as China’s strategic planners need to concentrate less on capturing Taiwan, they will be free to focus on projecting power into the energy-rich South China Sea and, later, into the adjoining Indian Ocean — hence America’s heightened interest in its Australian allies.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...jrK_story.html


So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?

[Ken White]

So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?In reverse order, that may or may not be true; it's been predicted -- wrongly -- before but it's bound to happen sooner or later. :wry:

It has been my experience that Mr. Kaplan, his namesakes and other authors who attempt as 'impartial observers but not participants' to describe the international political and military scene make at least as many erroneous calls as those that are even somewhat correct... :rolleyes:

All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote -- and I cannot read the entire article, your link doesn't work... ;)

[Bill Moore]

I think it is irrefutable that the U.S. is in decline, but not because we're becoming weaker, but because others are becoming stronger (the rise of the rest). If we strive to maintain the same level of dominance we had during the Cold War over the entire globe we may end up destroying ourselves economically.

Just to be provocative, how big a deal is it if the U.S. can't defend Taiwan? If we're assessing our global strength on that one scenario that is only important because we say it is important, then I think we may be grossly underestimating our residual global power.

Furthermore, it is assumed that just because China "may" have greater air capability than Taiwan, and that China "may" develop the means to keep our ships at bay that all is lost. Hardly, war is much more complex than that and there are many options for the Taiwanese and those who may want to help the Taiwanese that will make the objective of taking Taiwan too expensive for China. It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).

[Dayuhan]

So, if one is to believe Kaplan, the US is a 'has been'?

The article might also be seen as evidence that a certain form of recurring hysteria is alive and well in the USA.


It is hard to believe that after 10 years of asymmetrical warfare (take the term for what's it worth) that we still think largely conventionally, and are only examining this as a head on confrontation (that may never happen to begin with).

Exactly. Given China's dependence on trade and the quantity of merchandise exports and commodity imports that could be interdicted without coming anywhere near China's geographically limited force projection range, why would we want to confront them in the Taiwan strait or the South China Sea?

[Ray]

All that said, I do not get your sensing out of that quote

I too am not sure as to the implications of what Mr Kaplan has implied.

Hence, I thought maybe those who are more qualified here, having interacted within thinktanks in the US could throw some light.

Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-power-shift-in-asia/2011/09/23/gIQAhIdjrK_story.html

In case, it does not work, Google 'Power shift in Asia Kaplan' and you will get the above article.

Thanks.

[Ken White]

Reading the entire article, I now see where you drew your inference...:wry:

There's no doubt we are in one of our many periods of decline. A few have been major, most were minor. How this one will end remains to be seen. Neither friend Kaplan or I can predict that but from my vantage point of 20 more years than he's amassed (and my oldest son about his age isn't worried at all...) and having lived through other periods of gloom and despair, I'm not particularly worried at this point. But then, I'm not trying to sell articles... ;)

We'll see...

[blueblood]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-power-shift-in-asia/2011/09/23/gIQAhIdjrK_story.html


Still unable to grasp that what kind of resistance these odd 66 F-16s were to provide in case of war. But the refusal is likely to dent American image and will definitely boost China's.

On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.

[Fuchs]

On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.

2-3 decades ahead?

I'd say they aren't even going on parallel courses, so there's no point in comparing it like this.

I do believe that you create a false impression though.
The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.


In regard to the highly technicized air-sea warfare for island chains etc I'd like to point out that there were only 16 years between Germany's navy being a backwater navy with a handful of colonial cruisers and being a rival to the Royal Navy, exceeding it in competence and design quality.
Germany did not have a 150:1 shipbuilding capacity ratio, nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!

[Ken White]

But the refusal is likely to dent American image and will definitely boost China's.Images mean little -- and the US has never worried overmuch about theirs (regardless of the occasional sniveling in our rather pathetic news media who must sell something)... ;)
...economically not so much.Economic cycles are unpredictable and can change abruptly -- the sines cross in interesting patterns. As I'm sure the Chinese are quite aware...
The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind...nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!Better to keep in mind that the US did not even try to defeat the Chinese or even the North Koreans 60 years ago. That was a political decision and far from a military issue -- as are the cancellations of ships (and as is the poor performance of our shipyards...).

The US foreign efforts of all types including wars are always a reflection of US domestic politics -- even in WW II -- and the amount of effort we expend is quite cyclical due to that factor...

Political will by the US will only be shown in an existential case, we haven't really had one of those since 1865 -- even World War II was a war of choice for the US but there were reasons for a better than usual effort. Every war since was a minor, "we'll do it but it's not a big concern to us, not really..." sort of effort. In WW II, we mobilized the nation and spent about 35+ % of GDP on the armed forces annually (~50% for Germany, 45% for the UK); for the US in Korea it was 11%, for Viet Nam 8% and has been 4-6% since. While those figures are not totally conclusive, they are broadly indicative of the amount of effort.

Perhaps a better indicator would be major Shipyards in the US. In 1938 there were 8 government and 8 civilian. By 1945 there were 9 government and 132 civilian yards. Capacity ramps with need. :wry:

Existential and choice have differing parameters, amounts of effort -- and qualities of overall performance. Most US Wars started because someone thought the Americans were to lazy, narcissistic and inconsequential to fight (and that includes the current set). That has always been a mistake...

[Dayuhan]

On the topic of US being as "has been", militarily US is at least 2-3 decades ahead of China but economically not so much.

Some choose to see China's economy as an unstoppable juggernaut (some once chose to see Japan's the same way) but in reality it has significant vulnerabilities and is as likely to be a cause of crisis as a driver of dominance. All of China's greatest vulnerabilities are domestic.


The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.

The US certainly couldn't conquer China, in any lasting sense, but there's no earthly reason why the US would want to. The US could certainly defeat China in any number of military scenarios. All of these are of course unlikely, since neither side has any great incentive to initiate conflict.

[blueblood]

2-3 decades ahead?

I'd say they aren't even going on parallel courses, so there's no point in comparing it like this.

I do believe that you create a false impression though.
The U.S. hasn't been able to defeat China 60 years ago. Keep that in mind.


In regard to the highly technicized air-sea warfare for island chains etc I'd like to point out that there were only 16 years between Germany's navy being a backwater navy with a handful of colonial cruisers and being a rival to the Royal Navy, exceeding it in competence and design quality.
Germany did not have a 150:1 shipbuilding capacity ratio, nor had the Royal Navy become too incompetent to develop a new ship type in less than 15 years (without cancelling it)!

Germany was a European industrialized nation much before WW2 and Germany's shipbuilding was not outright inferior to that of the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_turret_ship_Zhenyuan

This is one such example. It was superior to any warship that Japan or Russia had in the late 19th century.

In the case of China, they became industrialized and created their shipbuilding industry in less than two decades. They are still no where near the western designs nor implications in their naval vessels.

As for the victory of China during Korean War. You might not agree with me but the fact is Americans get involved in a war but they find it difficult to sustain it. Despite of all the gung ho attitude of US citizens and its military, there were itching to get out of Astan merely 3 or 4 years after it started.

Korea was just another example. Europeans lost more troops in many single battles during WW2 than the combined US casualties since 1776.

For the technological gap between West and China, let's leave it for another day.

[blueblood]

Some choose to see China's economy as an unstoppable juggernaut (some once chose to see Japan's the same way) but in reality it has significant vulnerabilities and is as likely to be a cause of crisis as a driver of dominance. All of China's greatest vulnerabilities are domestic.
.

Thank you. From a western point of view they are not very wrong. Japan was China of yesterday but only in economic growth. Today's China is a different beast altogether. You can compare it to pre WW2 Imperial Japan. Strong economy, strong armed forces and capable of doing something very big and unfortunate.

As a citizen of the so called next big thing after China and a supposed counterweight, I know the ground realities. Unlike US, Australia etc Asian countries have a lots of historical baggage to carry and have a lion's share of problems and China is no different. Neither there is a hope that somehow these countries will learn to get along.

[Dayuhan]

The strength of China's economy is debatable. High growth is not necessarily an indication of strength or resilience, and China has some serious and intractable economic issues looming, as well as all manner of other domestic problems.

I'm looking at China from fairly close range, across a body of disputed water, and I'm not at all convinced that I need to be terrified. Concerned, possibly, but there are always things to be concerned about. I don't see any point at all in the US embarking on a budget-busting arms splurge to "counter" some prospective Chinese threat, and I don't think any massive adjustments to current policy are really called for.

[Steve the Planner]

Unlike USSR in 1980, we could start any arms race we want with China, and they just wouldn't care.

As others have said, their strengths, weaknesses and interests are domestic.

[blueblood]

I can't really say anything about the strength of China's economy but they are definitely burning too much money in the extravagant infrastructure. Creating ghost cities, multi billion dollars dams and bridges. I know they lots of cash to spend but this much, I don't think so.

In near future China might outspend US in the arms race, plus PPP factor is also involved. The only sensible course of action I can see for US is to pass the baton of global sheriff to someone else and start doing what it does best, innovation.

[Ken White]

As for the victory of China during Korean War. You might not agree with me but the fact is Americans get involved in a war but they find it difficult to sustain it. Despite of all the gung ho attitude of US citizens and its military, there were itching to get out of Astan merely 3 or 4 years after it started.We have a 'rule' of thirds and three. The thirds are 1/3 of Americans will agree with any given war; 1/3 will disagree with that war and the remaining 1/3 will support it if its going well and will not if it's going poorly -- all will be pretty quiet for about three years; after that they want to see progress or quit. We're an impatient and 'now' oriented crowd. :cool:

There were one or two exceptions to that. Our Revolution and Civil War, our only existential wars to date (and in many senses, the Revolution does not count...). Such an exception is likely to be true in the future if another existential war presents itself. :wry:

That 'supporting' 1/3 BTW will depend on which which political party started the war; those adhering to that party will support the war, those liking the other party will not. For the non-political, wavering or middle third, the issue is not the number of casualties (we're fairly bloodthirsty and most, not all, Americans do not fret over the casualties, they know they are a part of warfare) but performance. That middle third will continue to support as long as they think progress is being made.

All our wars are very much enmeshed with US domestic politics. Plus, as I wrote, we are not a patient people. Never have been -- the rule of thirds and three is informal and some say erroneous but history shows that except for the two existential wars, it has been pretty much true for all our wars s for over 200 years to include World Wars I and II (in neither of which was our existence threatened...). I do not see that changing in the near future.
Korea was just another example. Europeans lost more troops in many single battles during WW2 than the combined US casualties since 1776.True. Also irrelevant and not much for those Europeans to brag about. ;)

Casualty counts are notoriously inaccurate and IMO misleading, however, if you're into casualty counts, for those prior wars -- and now -- you might want to look at numbers of US casualties versus opponents military casualty totals by conflict or engagement. The relative counts are far more important and telling than the raw numbers...

[blueblood]

Images mean little -- and the US has never worried overmuch about theirs (regardless of the occasional sniveling in our rather pathetic news media who must sell something)... ;)
Economic cycles are unpredictable and can change abruptly -- the sines cross in interesting patterns.


From what I've seen, US is the one of the few countries which was and is very much concerned for it's image. China definitely tops that list.

Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

[blueblood]

We have a 'rule' of thirds and three. The thirds are 1/3 of Americans will agree with any given war; 1/3 will disagree with that war and the remaining 1/3 will support it if its going well and will not if it's going poorly -- all will be pretty quiet for about three years; after that they want to see progress or quit. We're an impatient and 'now' oriented crowd. :cool:

There were one or two exceptions to that. Our Revolution and Civil War, our only existential wars to date (and in many senses, the Revolution does not count...). Such an exception is likely to be true in the future if another existential war presents itself. :wry:

That 'supporting' 1/3 BTW will depend on which which political party started the war; those adhering to that party will support the war, those liking the other party will not. For the non-political, wavering or middle third, the issue is not the number of casualties (we're fairly bloodthirsty and most, not all, Americans do not fret over the casualties, they know they are a part of warfare) but performance. That middle third will continue to support as long as they think progress is being made.

All our wars are very much enmeshed with US domestic politics. Plus, as I wrote, we are not a patient people. Never have been -- the rule of thirds and three is informal and some say erroneous but history shows that except for the two existential wars, it has been pretty much true for all our wars s for over 200 years to include World Wars I and II (in neither of which was our existence threatened...). I do not see that changing in the near future.True. Also irrelevant and not much for those Europeans to brag about. ;)

Casualty counts are notoriously inaccurate and IMO misleading, however, if you're into casualty counts, for those prior wars -- and now -- you might want to look at numbers of US casualties versus opponents military casualty totals by conflict or engagement. The relative counts are far more important and telling than the raw numbers...

True US never faced existential threat and most likely will not meet any in near future. I always found American politicians as fairly sophisticated and indifferent to dirty politics but then again, I live in India and we elect megalomaniacs and people who never graduated high school. My point is American citizens are completely unaware of the kind of misery real wars bring and even then they find hard to fight a war which cannot be even termed as war. I can completely understand that Europeans or Asians don't like to be involved in wars but why Americans? Casualty count in Astan is half the civilians lost in 9/11. The spirit to avenge them died an early death.

Nope casualties of your enemies never portray a good picture when your enemy is a third world nation and is using the frontline equipment that were retired by other nations decades earlier. I was never a fan of American style of warfare but let's not go there.

[Dayuhan]

So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

The crashing of China's economy would be something to fear, not something to hope for.

[blueblood]

The crashing of China's economy would be something to fear, not something to hope for.

Not sure why but I wasn't the one who is dreaming.

[Ken White]

From what I've seen, US is the one of the few countries which was and is very much concerned for it's image. China definitely tops that list.If that's based on US media and 'culture' as exported, that is totally understandable if erroneous. If it's based on what diplomats and politicians says, it is only slightly less so. If it is based on some experience with Americans as individuals, I'd say it was surprising...
Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.I'm not pinning my hopes on anything -- like Dayuhan, I'd strongly prefer to not see China crash and I also would like to see them get all the oil they want. I merely made an observation.
My point is American citizens are completely unaware of the kind of misery real wars bring and even then they find hard to fight a war which cannot be even termed as war. I can completely understand that Europeans or Asians don't like to be involved in wars but why Americans?American may be unaware in the sense of most not having experienced warfare directly -- but that doesn't mean they're stupid; the penalties of war are fairly easy to discern. Add to that the fact that we are selfish, introspective and object to being disturbed and war is unliked and unwanted by most.
Casualty count in Astan is half the civilians lost in 9/11. The spirit to avenge them died an early death.For most Americans there was never a "spirit to avenge them" -- there was a sense that some punishment for disturbing us needed to be dispensed. We did that and most Americans approved. Then G. W. Bush got an attack of conscience and decided to stay a while; most Americans did not approve -- they asked why?
Nope casualties of your enemies never portray a good picture when your enemy is a third world nation and is using the frontline equipment that were retired by other nations decades earlier. I was never a fan of American style of warfare but let's not go there.Why not go there? That's why this board exists; your opinion is valuable. We're far from perfect, just like everyone else... :wry:

Not just third world. I was referring primarily to World War II --all the post 1945 wars were too distributed and too inconclusive too mean much insofar as casualty comparisons go.

Been my experience that old kit can do just as much damage as the newest stuff. An old SMLE in Afghanistan will reach out and touch people a lot further than the newest 5.56 M4 mods; the PKM is still probably the best all round MG out there. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have but how you use it... :D

[Dayuhan]

Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

Anyone who thinks massive state-dominated economies can't crash is certainly dreaming.

I don't think it takes a whole lot of thought to see why a serious economic disruption in China would not be a good thing at all for the region, the US, or anyone else. Just got to get past the knee-jerk assumption that whatever is bad for China is good for everyone else, and vice versa...

[Ray]

Notwithstanding the western capitalist mode of economy, the countries where there is liberalisation and globalisation and yet under govt scrutiny, they did not suffer in a major way during the economy meltdown that sort of crippled the totally capitalist Govts.

Therefore, the chance of China's economy collapsing when the Govt can 'tweak' the economy by changing priorities and diverting funds cannot be overlooked. More so,when it is not accountable to the people as would be in democracies, including socialist democracies.

In so far as the issue of the US 'capturing' China is concerned, one wonders why should it?

Is there any requirement to waste finance and effort to do so? The mighty USSR bit dust without a single shot fired even in anger.

There are many ways how to defeat a country.

Sun Tsu comes to mind:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

The US has done it to the mighty USSR following this dictum.

If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Already, the Chinese aspirations have been notched way high!

China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077139,00.html

[Dayuhan]

Notwithstanding the western capitalist mode of economy, the countries where there is liberalisation and globalisation and yet under govt scrutiny, they did not suffer in a major way during the economy meltdown that sort of crippled the totally capitalist Govts.

Therefore, the chance of China's economy collapsing when the Govt can 'tweak' the economy by changing priorities and diverting funds cannot be overlooked. More so,when it is not accountable to the people as would be in democracies, including socialist democracies.

There is no "totally capitalist" economy anywhere on this planet.

I would hesitate to attribute the relatively low impact of the crisis on China to government scrutiny or tweaks. I think it would be more accurate to say that as a relatively new entrant, China's interdependence is not as fully established or its business cycles as fully synchronized as those of the long-term planet.

China's economy can (and likely will) still suffer major problems, and I don't think it at all likely that government is going to be able to do all that much about them. The banking system is very opaque, very corrupt, very messy, huge sums out in very shaky loans backed by questionable assets, when they are backed by anything. Real estate is in major bubble mode. Nepotism and cronyism are major issues. Growth is still there, but the percentage of that growth driven by totally speculative activity, particularly in real estate but also in equities, grows every year. Lots of potential for trouble.


In so far as the issue of the US 'capturing' China is concerned, one wonders why should it?

There would be no point at all in any such effort, IMO.


Is there any requirement to waste finance and effort to do so? The mighty USSR bit dust without a single shot fired even in anger.

There are many ways how to defeat a country.

To me the great risk in dealing with China is not that China will grow forever and devour the world, but that the China we know will fall flat on its face, face a popular uprising, and that out of the mess rises a hard-line military-dominated government promising to ditch all those corrupt evil businessmen, return to the pure communist path, and make China great again.


China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077139,00.html

There's a whole lot of pissed off people in China, at every economic level.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,


To me the great risk in dealing with China is not that China will grow forever and devour the world, but that the China we know will fall flat on its face, face a popular uprising, and that out of the mess rises a hard-line military-dominated government promising to ditch all those corrupt evil businessmen, return to the pure communist path, and make China great again.

I think that is definitely one possibility.

[Ray]

I think that is definitely one possibility.

That is what is possibly being aimed at?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ray View Post
China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...077139,00.html


Posted by Dayuhan,
There's a whole lot of pissed off people in China, at every economic level.

What could be the reason why people are leaving when China and Chinese are flourishing and getting rich?

Obviously, even now China's environment is conducive to making more and more money while foreign countries are economically floundering.

What are the rules in China to take money out of China?

[Ray]

China is doing well!


China's 'Underground Great Wall' could swing nuclear balance

The Chinese military has reportedly built a huge underground tunnel network from which nuclear missiles can be deployed. Picture: PLA artillery troops conduct a drill. (File Photo/CFP)

China's strategic missile squadron, the Second Artillery Division, has built an "Underground Great Wall" stretching for more than 5,000km in the north of the country, according to a report in Hong Kong's Ta Kung Pao on Saturday. Citing the People's Liberation Army's official newsletter, the paper said the underground tunnel system has been built to conceal nuclear weapons to ensure the nation's second strike capability.

According to state broadcaster CCTV, the tunnel network, reportedly hundreds of meters underground, has been under construction since 1995 and can withstand several nuclear attacks. A documentary broadcast by CCTV in March 2008 revealed that the PLA had been building underground facilities enabling it to launch a counterstrike in case of a first strike scenario. The news has received very little attention both in the west and in Asia, despite the vast scale of the project.



http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20110823000030

From another place. Cant vouch for the veracity.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5448/zzzu2.jpg

[Backwards Observer]

Que sera sera... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVuEC3r7a-o)


FEATURE: Warming ties with China stoke Taiwan’s identity crisis

By Ben Blanchard / Reuters, Greater Kaohsiung, Oct 26, 2011

[...]

When it comes to China, the crucial aspect for many Taiwanese is they want the right to decide their own future.

“You can’t choose your relatives, but you can choose whether to spend time with them,” said Kaohsiung gallery curator Jemmy Chu, overseeing an exhibition on 100 years since the fall of China’s last emperor and establishment of the Republic of China.

One day, perhaps, China could have a democratic revolution too, he said.

“At the moment China is like a bad grandmother who you would not want to have anything to do with. That could change. People complain about China, but the Taiwanese have short memories. We were once exactly like them and we were able to change,” Chu said.

Warming ties with China stoke Taiwan's identity crisis (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/10/26/2003516710) - Taipei Times - Oct 26, 2011.

Special Bogus Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzIG_iZRWY)

[Backwards Observer]

Somewhat related to this area of concern, a review of Niall Ferguson's, Civilisation:


To a reader from the world the British supposedly made, Empire belonged recognisably to the tradition of what the Chinese thinker Tang Tiaoding bluntly described in 1903 as ‘white people’s histories’. Swami Vivekananda, India’s most famous 19th-century thinker, articulated a widespread moral disapproval of the pith-helmeted missionaries of Western civilisation celebrated by Ferguson:

Intoxicated by the heady wine of newly acquired power, fearsome like wild animals who see no difference between good and evil, slaves to women, insane in their lust, drenched in alcohol from head to foot, without any norms of ritual conduct, unclean … dependent on material things, grabbing other people’s land and wealth by hook or crook … the body their self, its appetites their only concern – such is the image of the western demon in Indian eyes.

Watch This Man (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man) - Pankaj Mishra - London Review of Books - Nov 3, 2011.

(A tip of the topee to the 'not drenched in alcohol' and no doubt, sanely lustful mat sallehs at The Interpreter (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/))
...
To a Louse (http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/552.htm) by Robert Burns
...
no. wire. hangers! (http://movieclips.com/ZQMf-mommie-dearest-movie-no-wire-hangers/)

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses the treasonous and immoral behaviour of companies that do business with China:


In 2001, a book was published titled, "IBM and the Holocaust." A New York Times book review describes how IBM had "global control of a technology that was enormously helpful, indeed indispensable, to the Nazi machinery of war and annihilation." The Times review quotes the author of the book as saying that many companies did what IBM did. They "refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits obtainable from trading with a pariah state..."

Arguably that assessment rings true today. Only the pariah state has changed.

Those in positions of leadership, be they in the private sector or in government, do our country a disservice when they gloss over or ignore the actions of the Chinese government. They put us squarely on the wrong side of history.

The Chinese government brutally represses its own people. It persecutes people of faith. It censors the Internet. It maintains labor camps.

The Chinese government actively engages in cyber-espionage. It steals state secrets. It aligns itself with countries directly at odds with U.S. interests. It supports genocidal governments and buttresses rogue regimes.

There's a legal term, "willful blindness," that aptly described our dealings to date with China. Faced with these painful truths, blindness is no longer an option.

In the words of British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, "Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know."

Wolf: U.S. Should Not Cooperate With People's Liberation Army to Help Develop China's Space Program (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=35130) - Space Ref - Nov 2, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses treasonous and immoral behaviour of Nepal:


"We're not just going to cut them, we're going to zero them out," said Wolf, a Republican from Virginia and outspoken critic of China.

"If they're not willing to do it, then they don't share our values and if they don't share our values, we do not want to share our dollars," he told a congressional hearing on Tibet.

US lawmaker threatens Nepal aid over Tibetans (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ha_ppnb9l8h2-n3xYmGtGUmm6QfQ?docId=CNG.415a7b70d2c87769867bb726 3cd5057f.bc1) - AFP - Nov 4, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses lack of Human Rights in China:


"The Congressional-Executive Commission on China has recently issued its tenth annual report on China's human rights and rule of law developments. The report also marks a decade since China acceded to membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) after being granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the United States the previous year.

"I opposed PNTR for China, given its abysmal human rights record, unfair trade practices, and disdain for the rule of law. Over a decade later, we can see that economic engagement with and trade liberalization for China did not produce political liberalization and thus granting PNTR was a mistake. Documented in the Commission's report is a clear picture of a China where human rights lawyers disappear, 'black jails' illegally imprison those who seek to voice dissent, Falun Gong practitioners are mercilessly persecuted, and the internet is censored by thought police."

Ros-Lehtinen Opening Statement at Hearing on Human Rights, Rule of Law in China (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?storyid=%7Bccb6f28e-e42c-4ee7-8f0a-25be08dde5f7%7D) - Menafn.com - Nov 4, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

3. Rick Santorum hopes for war with China

Gaffe: "You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

2012 GOP race: 6 biggest foreign policy gaffes (http://theweek.com/article/index/221059/2012-gop-race-6-biggest-foreign-policy-gaffes) - The Week - Nov 3, 2011.

it's funny 'cause it's true (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY)

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses China Israel Bilateral Trade:

[no recent statements]

...



Israel and China - Exports and Imports

Israeli export to China reflects its relevant advantages: Agro-technology such as drip irrigation, seeds, green houses, has been one of the first fields, where Israeli companies have managed to use their unique technologies and know-how. In other fields such as telecommunication, software and medical equipment, Israeli companies have managed to penetrate and even dominate some niches. The Israeli companies usually offer advanced though simple products and technologies which are much more suitable for the Chinese market.

While Israel and China's trade relations reached their hights in 2007, the relations coudn't avoid the down turns of the financial crisis. In 2009, bilateral trade have sunk by 17% yoy to levels of US$4.56 billion. Israel's trade deficit has shrank as well by 16% to US$2.47 billion. Exports reached US$1.04 billion while imports narrowed to US$3.52 billion.

However, Israel and China's trade relations have experienced a tremendous recovery in 2010 as trade levels reached US$6.7 at year end, a 44% growth yoy. Israel's Trade deficit to China at the end of 2010 stands on US$2.6 billion as imports reached US$4.7 billion and export reached US$2.1 billion.

Trade Mission to China (http://www.israeltrade.org.cn/english/doing_business_with_china/bilateral_trade/000052/) - Embassy of Israel, Beijing.

[Backwards Observer]

New Greg 'Beowulf' Sheridan approved joint think tank report up at the no es borracho Lowy Institute Interpreter:


The term 'Indo-Pacific' has crept into the international relations vocabulary of late. Lowy Institute scholars have started adopting this term, and it appeared in Hillary Clinton's recent Foreign Policy essay on 'America's Pacific Century'.

It's also a conceptual building-block for a unique new report jointly produced by think tanks in Australia, India and the US, and released last Friday. Shared Goals, Converging Interests: A Plan for US-Australia-India Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific was produced by authors from the Lowy Institute, the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, and India's Observer Research Foundation.

India, US, Australia: Stronger Together (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/11/07/India-the-US-Australia-Stronger-together.aspx) - The Interpreter - Nov 7, 2011.

Special Bonus Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes&feature=related)

you have my undivided attention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHy1rFeBDzQ)

[Dayuhan]

Hillary Clinton sharing conceptual building blocks with the Heritage Foundation? How odd.

I wonder how the Japanese, the Koreans, and the ASEAN folks will feel about being left out of the summary.

[Backwards Observer]

I wonder how the Japanese, the Koreans, and the ASEAN folks will feel about being left out of the summary.

Frankly, I've never heard of these 'countries' you mention, and I doubt anyone else has either.

[Dayuhan]

Frankly, I've never heard of these 'countries' you mention, and I doubt anyone else has either.

You are qualified to serve as an Ambassador of the United States...


"You mean there are two Koreas?"

- U.S. ambassador designate to Singapore Richard Kneip, after being asked his opinion during congressional hearings on the North Korea-South Korea conflict (1993)

[Backwards Observer]

You are qualified to serve as an Ambassador of the United States...

Hot diggity dog! Jes let me grab mah golf clubs...

[davidbfpo]

After reviewing other threads on China in South Asia and the South China Sea dispute I came across this on the Lowry Institute's emailing; the commentary started on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, so posted in a seperate thread.

At the end is a stunning insight, what does SWC think? The author is an IISS analyst and has been in China studying the language for three years now, so may have passed the 'Ken White' how do you understand them test!


China is the world's foremost rising power and her influence will be felt wherever she pops up. As we sat down to a sumptuous meal around a large garlanded table after our discussion, our new Chinese friends gave us no sense of having really thought through the implications of what their newfound accidental influence means.

The impression was rather that China is stumbling onto power it does not want, and with which it doesn't know what to do.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/11/07/China-hasnt-yet-grown-into-its-role.aspx

[AdamG]

Beijing, Nov.10 (People's Daily Online) --India's defense ministry has already approved a 13-billion-U.S.-dollar military modernization plan and has decided to send an additional 100,000 soldiers to the China-India border areas over the next five years. This move is regarded as India's second phase of a military buildup along the China-India border.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7641109.html

[Ray]

Shambaugh and others wrote then that China had emerged from a long era of suspicion and insularity and had begun to join regional organizations, send peacekeepers to U.N. missions, and improve bilateral relations in the neighborhood. Yes, China's military was rapidly modernizing in ways that gave the Taiwanese a fright, but such signs of belligerence had been offset, Shambaugh concluded, by "bilateral and multilateral confidence-building measures."

But five years is a long time for a country growing, and changing, as rapidly as China. "Asian Alliances" argues, in effect, that China has now fully emerged from its defensive crouch. In recent years, China has developed a new generation of ballistic and cruise missiles, attack submarines, tactical and stealth aircraft, radar, and space-based intelligence, as well as an anti-satellite missile, which together give it the capacity to establish "contested zones" in air, sea, and space, and thus push the United States further and further out from regions of the Pacific that it has long patrolled and protected. And China's behavior in the neighborhood has turned markedly bellicose, aggressively pursuing its claim to islands in the South China Sea and sending its blue-water navy on long-range exercises off the Japanese coast.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/02/over_the_horizon


China’s massive infrastructure build-up in Tibet is causing concern to the government of India. Defence minister A K Antony has spoken in parliament of the rapid development of rail, road, airfield and telecom infrastructure and military camps being undertaken by the Chinese authorities in Tibet. He assured the MPs that ‘necessary steps’ were being taken to counter these developments.

Antony acknowledged that a road network stretching across 58,000 km coupled with five operational airfields at Gongar, Pangta, Linchi, Hoping and Gar Gunsa have come up in Tibet. Besides, extension of the Qinghai Tibet Railway (QTR) line to Xigaze and another line from Kashgar to Hotan in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region is also in progress.
Effectively controlling the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is crucial for China’s security as Tibet comprises approximately one-fourth of China’s land mass.
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/china-is-building-tibet-as-future-war-zone.html

[Ray]

As per military analysis China has the capability to deploy and sustain 34 divisions over a month along the Line of Actual Control.

China can do so by mustering troops from the Chegdu and Lanzou Military Region without having to carry out stocking or dumping in advance.

China has a distinct advantage over India when viewed against India's 09 Divisions along the Northern borders.

As a major upgrade, China is doing/done the following in Tibet and Xinjiang:

1. Connection with all major counties in Tibet with border roads completed. Road network increased from 51,000 kms in 2008 to 58,000 kms in 2010. Plan to increase black topped roads by another 70,000 kms is on the anvil.

2. Extension of Qinghai - Tibet Railway from Golmund to Lhasa and thereon to Shiagatse (close to Sikkim). Rail connectivity is planned to link Katmandu in Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan , Pakistan and Central Asian Republics.

3. Eleven new rails lines are on the anvil for Tibet and Xinjiang for rapid deployment of the PLA.

4. 18 air bases in Tibet and Xinjiang have the capability to put India under the range of Sukhoi 27.

The infrastructure development along with building of logistic hubs at a rapid pace is worth note since it is far in excess of the requirement for the local population. It is a known fact that the PLA has built tunnels for storage of military hardware.

The fact that Pakistan is China's all weather friend and supplies military hardware to include J 17 is of serious concern to India. It maybe recalled that China has 1000 troops in POK to upgrade the Karakorum Highway and fast pace the link to Gwadar, Karachi and Bin Qassim. This will give 'strategic depth' ( at term not quite what it means in the military sense, but more in the political realm) as also permit China to control the Persian Gulf.

China's Dong Fang Electric Supply Corporation and the Pakistan Railways have signed the feasibility study contract on a Havelian - Khunjerab Pass rail link.

[Dayuhan]

It maybe recalled that China has 1000 troops in POK to upgrade the Karakorum Highway and fast pace the link to Gwadar, Karachi and Bin Qassim. This will give 'strategic depth' ( at term not quite what it means in the military sense, but more in the political realm) as also permit China to control the Persian Gulf.

That would give China a presence in the Indian Ocean, but I'm not sure that presence could be equated with control. They are certainly not the only party with such a presence.

Given that China now holds only 30 days worth of oil in strategic reserves, and that a huge portion of Chinese commerce passes through waters near India, could not India respond to aggression in the north by interdicting China-bound oil shipments from Angola and the Gulf, and outbound shipments of Chinese goods moving toward Europe, Africa, and the Middle East?

[Ray]

The first phase—located in Zhejiang's Zhoushan and Zhenhai, Liaoning's Dalian and Shandong's Huangdao—commenced operation in 2008. These four bases hold the equivalent of 30 days of China's oil imports.

The construction of the Duzishan oil base in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region started last September, marking the beginning of the second phase of China's strategic oil reserve plan. It's estimated China has by now completed construction of the Duzishan oil reserve base. The base is scheduled to start filling oil in the coming October. The second phase consists of eight oil reserve bases, located in cities include Guangdong's Zhanjiang and Huizhou, Gansu's Lanzhou, Jiangsu's Jintan, Liaoning's Jinzhou and Tianjin.

The last phase of China's strategic oil reserve plan is expected to be completed in 2020. Chongqing's Wanzhou district, Hainan Province and Hebei's Caofeidian are reportedly likely to be chosen as oil bases for the third phase.

Once the strategic oil reserve plan is finished, China will have oil reserves equalling about 100 days of net oil imports.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/2010-07/21/content_20545379.htm

[Ray]

US does not fear China, says Obama

CANBERRA: President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that the United States does not fear China, even as he announced a new security agreement with Australia that is widely viewed as a response to Beijing's growing aggressiveness. ......

During his news conference with Gillard, Obama sidestepped questions about whether the security pact was aimed at containing China . But he said the US would keep sending a clear message that China needs to accept responsibilities that come with being a world power.

"It's important for them to play by the rules of the road," he said. And he insisted that the US is not fearful of China's rise. "I think the notion that we fear China is mistaken . The notion that we're looking to exclude China is mistaken," he said. ......

China was immediately leery of the prospect of an expanded US military presence in Australia. Foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said on Wednesday that it was worth discussing whether the plan was in line with the common interests of the international community.

Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes said the agreement was not only appropriate , but also a response to the demand from nations in the region that have signaled they want the US to be present. The US and smaller Asian nations have grown increasingly concerned about China claiming dominion over vast areas of the Pacific that the US considers international waters, and reigniting old territorial disputes......

Rhodes said the US military boost would amount to a "sustained US presence"


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/-US-does-not-fear-China-says-Obama/articleshow/10763444.cms

[davidbfpo]

Found via Lowy Institute mailing a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists briefing, which opens with:
Today, China is the only one of five original nuclear weapon states that is increasing its nuclear arsenal. According to some estimates, the country could “more than double” the number of warheads on missiles that could threaten the United States by the mid-2020s. Earlier this year, China published a defense white paper, which repeated its nuclear policies of maintaining a minimum deterrent with a no-first-use pledge. Yet China has yet to define what it means by a minimum deterrent posture. This, together with the fact that it is deploying four new nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, invites concern as to the scale and intention of China’s nuclear upgrade. The authors estimate that China has a total inventory of approximately 240 nuclear warheads.

Link:http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/6/81.full

Having lived through the 'Cold War' and the superpowers massive nuclear arsenals the Chinese are hardly in the same league IMHO.

[Dayuhan]

The last phase of China's strategic oil reserve plan is expected to be completed in 2020. Chongqing's Wanzhou district, Hainan Province and Hebei's Caofeidian are reportedly likely to be chosen as oil bases for the third phase.

Once the strategic oil reserve plan is finished, China will have oil reserves equalling about 100 days of net oil imports.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/2010-07/21/content_20545379.htm

100 days of imports at today's level, or 100 days at the level of imports expected in 2020... an expectation that could easily be inaccurate?

Even if this plan comes off as planned, China will still be vulnerable it disruption of both commodity imports and manufactured exports.

I'd expect a fair bit to happen in China by 2020. Their economy is looking more and more at risk, and they are not in a good position to handle a serious crash.

[Ray]

China tells navy to prepare for combat

Chinese President Hu Jintao has urged the country's navy to prepare for military combat and advance naval modernisation as part of efforts to safeguard world peace.

The navy should "accelerate its transformation and modernisation in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for military combat in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security and world peace", Hu said in a speech on Tuesday that comes amid US and regional concerns over China's naval ambitions.................

China, which publicly announced around 50 separate naval exercises in the seas off its coast over the past two years, usually after the event, says its military is only focused on defending the country's territory.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/china-tells-navy-to-prepare-for-combat-20111207-1ohm4.html


The various exercises carried out by navies around the South China Sea, the clashes therein earlier, the proactive 'cocking a snoot' at China by Vietnam and the explorations by foreign oil consortium in the SCS, seems to have irked China.

All these activities seem to have angered China to openly state and expose the real intent of rapid naval modernisation, till now cloaked with pacifist idiomatic flourishes.

For long, the Chinese Govt controlled media has been speculating of the US intent to 'encircle' China.

The 'Peaceful Rise of China' seems to have been adequate a soother to disarm other countries wherein China has been able to become a superpower in the making, near capable of challenging the position of the US as the sole superpower.

[AdamG]

Gonna need some reading music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvm50nmyRTc)

[davidbfpo]

What I found of note was the timing, not the content.

One, the statement came into the public domain on the 7th December 2011, the anniversary of Pearl Harbour; a day likely to have a naval focus in the USA (although perhaps not the main target). I expect the actual speech was yesterday, but have not searched for the original reporting.

Second, as the BBC report:
Senior US and Chinese officials are currently holding talks on military issues. The one-day meeting takes place every year, with the stated aim of ensuring there are no misunderstandings between the two nations.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16063607

[Ray]

Defensive Realism in the Indian Ocean: Oil, Sea Lanes and the Security Dilemma


http://www.chinasecurity.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304&Itemid=8

Dated but worth a read.

[Ray]

China’s Indian Ocean ‘String of Pearls’ Is No Military Threat — At Least for Now
Ashley S. Townshend | September 20, 2011

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/chinas-indian-ocean-string-of-pearls-is-no-military-threat-at-least-for-now/466367


Has the statement from China herald the 'Now' and the threat that was imagined as exaggerated has finally arrived on the horizon?

[Markus]

The thing I don't get is that China has done very well out of America, including and especially use of the world's sea lanes courtesy of the US Navy. If it hadn't been for America, the Chinese middle class/apparatchiks would still be crawling around in the mud with the peasants.

Why mess with a good thing?

[Bob's World]

All Navies have this mandate. Right?

The Chinese want so much to be like the US. They aren't, and won't be.

An interesting article. After reading through the thread I did a quick Google search to see what others had written about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power. Interestingly, the article most on point was written by the Chinese...

http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/83.full

[Bob's World]

When did this happen? After the War of 1812 the American Navy never even came close to the Royal Navy until after war between the countries was acknowledged by both sides as being well nigh inconceivable. To my knowledge, after the heavy frigates got bottled up we never challenged the RN.

Read what I wrote. I said "...about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power."

It is a matter of history that the US was able to focus internally to develop a Continental nation and build our global commerce under the protection of the British Navy. Perhaps you place the wrong meaning on the word "challenge"? Not challenge as in head to head battle, we were allies and competitors. But rather challenge for the status as we climbed to "near peer," to "peer" and ultimately to surpass as the premier navy on seas.

China too has benefited from a powerful US Navy as they established themselves on their continent. The Chinese article lays out that it is now their turn to similarly rise to take their place some day in that role as top global naval power, and that the US should see and accept their rise in the same light that the Brits viewed ours.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Both the RN and the USN created and maintained oceans free on any real threat to anybody's commerce. The system they established and maintained made it look as if there wasn't any threat out there. There wasn't any threat out there because if any had started to arise it would have been crushed. The primary purpose of the systems was/is to insure free commerce for all countries that ultimately benefits both countries greatly. It was not to gain short term advantage.

That is what makes China's apparent naval ambitions so scary. There is no real reason for it. The system as it exists benefits everybody and doesn't cost the Chinese anything. Does anybody believe that a repressive police state that runs the biggest espionage operation in the history of the world and for whom pirated intellectual property is a significant part of their GDP, does anybody believe they would set up and run as benign a system as the RN and USN have? I sure as hell don't.

It should be observed that China will have a very hard time getting to be a really important naval power. They don't have a real naval tradition. They aren't an island nation. Their geographic position is lousy. I don't get the "Woe is me. The Chinese are coming and can't be stopped." subtext I sometimes detect in various publications here and there.

[davidbfpo]

This thread has moved with speed into matters of historical naval strategy and the use or misuse of naval power. I am thinking of a new thread for these posts, so leaving the Chinese Navy with it's own thread; a cross reference will be added.

[davidbfpo]

I have created a new thread, moving x31 posts and copying x3, it is 'Naval strategy, naval power: uses & abuses' and is on:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=14735

Please keep discussion on this thread to developments in Chinese naval power.:wry:

[davidbfpo]

A commercial satellite reports it has spotted China's first aircraft carrier was at sea a week ago:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16190926

Casino? Comes from this:
As other Soviet warships were cut up for scrap, a Chinese company with links to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) bought the Varyag, claiming originally that it would be turned into a floating casino.

[Fuchs]

I recommend this blog for the purpose of keeping an eye on what's getting published about the PLAN:

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/

Example:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/12/beijings-starter-carrier-and-future.html

[carl]

Empire may or may not be the right word. But we are doing something that may edge close to it. The question is why are those places important enough to fight for. Some of them aren't really allies in the two way street sense of the word but they are still important. There may not be a continuous perimeter on land but if you look at it from the ocean there may be something approaching one.

There isn't a potential enemy out there that has unfettered access to the oceans. Japan was one but we turned them into a friend that holds part of a perimeter. China may or may not become one but they are hemmed in by islands that are friendly to us. Even the former enemy communist Vietnam may end up back on or in the perimeter depending on what happens in the next 20-30 years.

I don't know if we have an empire or not but we support and maintain what looks like a perimeter manned by allies whose primary value is they stay friends.

[Dayuhan]

If China is "hemmed in", why are so many people so concerned over what China is up to in Africa, or Central Asia?

I'd suggest that the traditional idea of geographical containment is no longer particularly relevant, and neither is the idea of a sort of physical "perimeter" on a global scale.

The question of why we would or would not fight in any given place or case is always interesting, especially since it largely depends on domestic politics at any given moment. Again, though, I don't see how it relates to this idea of an empire, nor have I seen any credible definition of "empire" that would accommodate the US.

[carl]

If China is "hemmed in", why are so many people so concerned over what China is up to in Africa, or Central Asia?

I'd suggest that the traditional idea of geographical containment is no longer particularly relevant, and neither is the idea of a sort of physical "perimeter" on a global scale.

The question of why we would or would not fight in any given place or case is always interesting, especially since it largely depends on domestic politics at any given moment. Again, though, I don't see how it relates to this idea of an empire, nor have I seen any credible definition of "empire" that would accommodate the US.

Excitable I guess. I don't see what the big deal is about the Chinese in Africa. China has a land border with Central Asia. They are hemmed in by islands seaward, not landward. One reason people are concerned about Chinese activity in the South China Sea, I think, is that is a push against the perimeter. (Alert for David, this may call for another thread jump.)

Why is the idea of containment no longer relevant? Why is not a global perimeter relevant?

Maybe it has nothing to do with what an empire is or isn't. It is interesting though. It looks a little like a grand strategy.

[carl]

It's been a long time since we were seriously worried about anybody's navy.

That is the whole point.

I think we were worried about the Russian Navy during the Cold War, judging by the ink spilled writing about it, the steel fabricated and the oil burned in various exercises conducted. And it takes a long time to build up a big proficient navy with all the things that go with it, to the point where it can can fight another big proficient navy. All kinds of things can affect that so it just doesn't happen very often in history.


Is anyone, anywhere, trying to "penetrate our perimeter"? For that matter, what is our perimeter?

The Chinese may be. That is what worries people.

I already said what appears to be driving much of our definition of the perimeter: making sure that no potentially hostile nation has free access to the oceans. So if China were to become seriously hostile, the perimeter might be South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, then the Malaysian peninsula and the Indonesian islands.


Possibly that was the intention, but American economic hegemony has substantially declined since that time. Economic hegemony is seldom a product of conscious choice or intent: it emerges from superior economic performance.

Economic hegemony also has to do with history. Everybody but us was thoroughly wrecked by WWII. All that destructive fighting was well away from our shores and we tried hard to keep it over there.

[Bob's World]

The purpose of the first assertion shared here is to establish perspective. Yes, as American Pride points out, many agonize over ability of the US to maintain its Cold War position regarding Taiwan in the face of a rising China, just as many Britains certainly agonized over their ability to retain effective control over Suez. Of the two, I would posit that Britain's concerns then were far more rational than our own now. Britain's were along the line of "we must have access to the canal for our economy to function"; while the most honest assertions regarding Taiwan are so some form of "we can't allow China to do something we don't want them to do."

To me that always sounds a bit like a petulant child. Yes, the Asia-Pacific region is vital to the US economy, but a reunified China is logical, probably inevitable, and in no way offers the same type of show-stopping issue envisioned by the Brits. And even the Brits were wrong about the loss of canal control being a showstopper.

Control is hard to relinquish, but at a certain point many issues long managed through control are better managed by a transition to influence. The more we focus on the former, the less we possess of the latter. Better to transition on ones own terms, and not cling so long as to have transition forced upon you.

[AmericanPride]

After Suez, Britain faded away militarily. If Red China took Taiwan, I think John Lehman or his ghost would finally see a 600 ship US Navy.

That may be true, but given the gross inefficiencies in America's defense economy, what would be the cost? The war on terrorism, frequently diminished as a "small" war, has itself drained much of the wealth and energy of America in general and the military establishment in particular. I very much doubt America's ability to effectively to defend its interests abroad against an aggressive great power, specifically China, with defined national interests and an ostensibly coordinated whole-of-government approach to foreign policy. When does the downward trend stop, and what measures are necessary for its reversal?


Control is hard to relinquish, but at a certain point many issues long managed through control are better managed by a transition to influence. The more we focus on the former, the less we possess of the latter. Better to transition on ones own terms, and not cling so long as to have transition forced upon you.

You and I agree on this point.

[carl]

I think the Suez is very much the wrong analogy. Historical analogies are only a little bit useful and sometimes less than that if people get wrapped around the axle debating if the analogy is the right one or not; but I think the rise of the rise of the German navy before WWI is more appropriate one as far as real threats are concerned.

If Taiwan were lost it would be a serious naval defeat. Preventing Red China from taking the island means keeping control of the Taiwan Strait and that is a naval task. If we could not help the Taiwanese do it, it would be because our Navy was weak relative to a hostile navy. We would then build it up so it was strong again. Since the start of the 20th century that is what we have always done. I judge we would do it again.

It would be expensive. Navies always are. But it may not be as expensive as feared. We could afford all the contracting fol-der-al in the past. A serious naval defeat tends to concentrate the mind of nations and things tend to get done more better.

But the best way to avoid that expense is to keep the Navy strong enough, and our alliances strong enough so that the Red Chinese aren't tempted to try it. That would be expensive too, but only a tiny fraction of my above listed alternative. Taking, holding, crossing and continued holding of the straits is a pretty tall order and the force needed to frustrate that isn't nearly so big as the alternative listed above.

We wouldn't have to spend anything if we just told the Taiwanese too-da-loo of course; but the long term consequences of abandoning a free nation with whom we are formally allied to an expansionist police state may be rather bad.

The reason for concern here is the nature of Red China. India is a large country and it is strengthening its' navy. We don't mind that a bit. If the Australians decided to build some aircraft carriers and 20 nuke boats we would stand up and cheer. The French could decide they needed a balanced 200 ship fleet and we would be sighing with relief. But Red China is a concern. It won't be forever though. I am optimistic that it will eventually turn into something considerably less scary. So our task, in cooperation with allies, is to keep them from yielding to the temptation to embark upon a glorious naval adventure until they get to that less scary state and they don't want to anymore. We can do this best, in my view, by maintaining a strong Navy and system of alliances; not yielding to angst, throwing up our hands and deciding we are doomed and we'd better get used to it.

That may be viewed as trying to control rather than trying to influence, but I think that is a distinction without a difference in this case. If you want to influence a potentially aggressive nation with a strong navy, you had better have a strong navy too.

[Bob's World]

The real question is "what would be the affect on America the day after a reconciliation between China and Taiwan"?

Answer: Little to none.

The best the US can hope to do in efforts to control this dynamic is to reset the conditions of failure. Worst case we engage in an "Air-Sea Battle" over the matter and lose hundreds or thousands of lives, Billions in hardware, and an unmeasurable amount of regional and global prestiege and influence. We should not play a game that can only at best be tied, but never won.

Britain waited until they got thier nosed rubbed in the Suez issue. I recommend we get in front of that occuring in similar issues that we cling to beyond their expiration date as well.

[carl]

Mr. Jones:

Agreed, a reconciliation would not affect us at all. But the word reconciliation means something peaceful arranged with the consent of both parties. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a Red Chinese conquest of Taiwan, against the will of the Taiwanese. That would be a very different matter.

I read your second paragraph as meaning if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position? If it is, I believe we would lose all global prestige and influence.

I don't know exactly what you mean by your third paragraph. It is a bit amorphous. I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?

[AmericanPride]

carl: My use of 1956 Suez Crisis is not to illustrate the military impotence of a declining imperial power. Instead, its important to acknowledge that the event (1) demonstrated British acknowledgement of its own decline and (2) illustrated the role of economic and political power in undermining military capabilities. I do not think a Taiwan conflict will see the direct engagement of US and PRC forces. Rather, the Chinese would likely deter direct US participation through economic leverage. This would mark the start of a new dynamic in international security as well as demonstrate the utter uselessness of US military power and investments.

Alternatively, Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905 might prove to be another useful analogy in demonstrating how imperial hubris leads to total shock and failure. But, as I said, I believe direct US/PRC conflict to be very unlikely.

[Bob's World]

Mr. Jones:

Agreed, a reconciliation would not affect us at all. But the word reconciliation means something peaceful arranged with the consent of both parties. I am not talking about that. I am talking about a Red Chinese conquest of Taiwan, against the will of the Taiwanese. That would be a very different matter.

I read your second paragraph as meaning if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position? If it is, I believe we would lose all global prestige and influence.

I don't know exactly what you mean by your third paragraph. It is a bit amorphous. I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?


Certainly it would be very different for the people of Taiwan, but the end effect for the US is the same. Many also like to play the "we must stay loyal to allies or our other allies will doubt our resolve." Here is a news flash: They already doubt our resolve, and by clinging to positions they all see as largely senseless causes them to doubt our intelligence as well.

We should not fight wars or even battles over things that are not important. If things are important, than we should fight them at any cost.

Any conflict that when it is over and one has not achieved their desired ends, but can walk away from it with a casual "wow, that sucked" attitude to simply continue business as usual, was a largely senseless conflict to begin with.

Vietnam falls in that box, as too likely will Iraq and Afghanistan. A defense of Taiwan would reside there as well. We are too easily led into senseless conflicts by Chickenhawk politicians, bad intel, and poor strategy. All of those factors will always be out there, but we don't have to keep making the same mistakes of following blindly where they lead.

[carl]

Mr. Jones:

Yes, things would be very different for the Taiwanese. They probably wouldn't like it much.

This is just a general observation, intellect without resolve, backbone if you will, only results in a failure, but one that can be rationalized very creatively.

Now near as I can judge, your answer to my question: "...if the Red Chinese tried to take Taiwan by force, we allow them to do so and abandon the Taiwanese. Is that your position?" is, yes we should abandon them.

Also your answer to my second question: "I take it to mean we should find out what Red China wants and give it to them. Is that correct?" has not yet been tendered. What is it?

I have another question, if it came to it, what countries would you defend in the face of Red Chinese aggression? This is only if it came to it. You are ready to give up the Taiwanese, how about the Japanese, or the Philippines or even New Zealand, where would you draw the line?

Oh, I just thought of another question. Does the Korean War fit into the "wow, that sucked" box?

[carl]

carl: My use of 1956 Suez Crisis is not to illustrate the military impotence of a declining imperial power. Instead, its important to acknowledge that the event (1) demonstrated British acknowledgement of its own decline and (2) illustrated the role of economic and political power in undermining military capabilities. I do not think a Taiwan conflict will see the direct engagement of US and PRC forces. Rather, the Chinese would likely deter direct US participation through economic leverage. This would mark the start of a new dynamic in international security as well as demonstrate the utter uselessness of US military power and investments.

Alternatively, Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905 might prove to be another useful analogy in demonstrating how imperial hubris leads to total shock and failure. But, as I said, I believe direct US/PRC conflict to be very unlikely.

The economic power and political power that removed the British and French from the Suez was American. We told them to go home and they did. I don't see how that can apply to the thing we are talking about.

I don't think direct conflict between us and the Red Chinese is probable but I don't consider it very unlikely. How would they deter us from defending the Taiwanese if we so chose except by military force? They could refuse to buy bonds and we could counter by refusing to pay them back. In that case they would get hurt as much or even more.

Unless human nature has changed there will never be a time when military power is utterly useless. If there were a conflict over Taiwan, what would stop them would be military power and what would stop us is the same.

The Russo-Japanese War is a better example of how a really lousy navy is smashed by a good one. The prime lesson I believe is have a good navy rather than a lousy one.

I rather hope all this won't ever come about. Taiwan and the mainland are pretty closely tied economically and as long as everybody is happy with the polite fiction there is no reason to fight. I worry though that all those ships the Reds are building means somebody isn't happy with the polite fiction.

[Dayuhan]

Control is hard to relinquish, but at a certain point many issues long managed through control are better managed by a transition to influence.

What exactly do we control? How do you relinquish something you haven't got?


If Taiwan were lost it would be a serious naval defeat. Preventing Red China from taking the island means keeping control of the Taiwan Strait and that is a naval task.

Control of the strait is not exactly a navy vs navy issue... the US Navy's problem in that area is proximity to the mainland and land-based missiles and aircraft. For that reason, the US response to an imminent invasion - it's not like the preparations could be kept secret - would likely involve interdiction on inbound shipping (oil and other raw materials) and outbound shipping (manufactured goods bound for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East) in the Indian Ocean.

I personally think such an invasion is so unlikely that discussing it is largely a hypothetical exercise... look at China's minimal military sealift capacity. Do you think anyone would seriously want to mount an amphibious invasion on the scale of the Normandy landings in the age of satellite surveillance and guided missiles?

If the Chinese economy crashes (a real possibility), leading to major turmoil and the rise of a militarist government, then it's a possibility. Other than that, not likely.


I do not think a Taiwan conflict will see the direct engagement of US and PRC forces. Rather, the Chinese would likely deter direct US participation through economic leverage.

What economic leverage would that be? Economic leverage is a major factor deterring such an invasion.

[AmericanPride]

The economic power and political power that removed the British and French from the Suez was American. We told them to go home and they did.

That's the point. The US (and the other NATO allies) did not fire a shot. Yet they managed to repel a combined British, French, and Israeli invasion of Egypt. It marked very clearly the end of European adventurism in the Middle East. And it was the Europeans that were the last to find out that the game was over.


How would they deter us from defending the Taiwanese if we so chose except by military force? They could refuse to buy bonds and we could counter by refusing to pay them back. In that case they would get hurt as much or even more.

As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.


Unless human nature has changed there will never be a time when military power is utterly useless.

Inability to achieve one's desired political outcomes = useless. The current US capabilities and force structure is not suited for a wide range of future threat scenarios; PRC/Taiwan included.


The Russo-Japanese War is a better example of how a really lousy navy is smashed by a good one.

It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.

[AmericanPride]

What economic leverage would that be? Economic leverage is a major factor deterring such an invasion.

As China's economy modernizes, the economic leverage will continue to gradually shift in its favor. Time is on the side of the PRC. I do not think the PRC will initiate any confrontation. Most likely, economic integration will eventually lead to political capitulation on the part of the ROC. Or, the PRC may find some provocation in a world of economic turmoil to exploit.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I can't disagree with much of what you say. When I said naval, I meant in the full sense of the word to include land based forces affecting control of a body of water etc., not just ship vs. ship. It would involve all kinds of things, including my favorite, naval mine warfare.

[carl]

Suez involved one ally telling some other allies that they couldn't do something. I don't see how it fits at all. If, God forbid, the Red Chinese and us had a confrontation, it would not be an a disagreement between allies, but one between enemies. That is an entirely different matter.


As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.

Why is the US more vulnerable to economic shocks than Red China? If Red China made economic threats that might result in a trade war. That would be bad for everybody but especially for an export type economy like Red China's. They would really get hurt.

Cyber attacks, sea and space attacks would be acts of war. Then the fight would be on. Maybe those things would neutralize US response, maybe not. The thing is a two way street. Maybe all the sluice gates for the Three Rivers Dam would malfunction.


Inability to achieve one's desired political outcomes = useless. The current US capabilities and force structure is not suited for a wide range of future threat scenarios; PRC/Taiwan included.

If you can't achieve your goals, you failed. That doesn't mean the tools you used were useless, they were useful, but you lost. Perhaps they kept you from losing worse. The current US capabilities relatively speaking are pretty darn great right now, more than enough to deter any Red Chinese adventures. But even if they were not, they are not fixed forever.


It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.

We'll have to disagree on that. I think one of the main reasons the Russkis lost was a plain old fashioned Russian type lousy navy. Hubris, yea maybe, in the sense that they may have let race affect their ability to judge military capability. I don't think we would be affected so much by that. We fought them once in Korea and found out they knew what to do; besides many of our people seem to think they are 10 feet tall now.

I think the US can credibly defend Taiwan. I think you are wrong when you say we cannot. If you are wrong your premise is gone and there is not a mark of anything.

[Dayuhan]

As China's economy continues to develop and modernize, its dependence on the US market lessens. The US is significantly more vulnerable and sensitive to economic shocks than China. A combination of economic threats, precision cyber attacks targeting US communications, and sea and space denial weapons could neutralize any credible US response. I do not anticipate a PRC-initiated confrontation, at least not for many more years.

It's also a great example of how misappropriated military power and imperial hubris leads to disaster. The US cannot credibly defend Taiwan from the PRC. This is the mark of America's relative decline in its ability to effectively project power. The US needs to retool its naval and air forces, enhance the security of its networks, and develop protections for its soft infrastructure.


As China's economy modernizes, the economic leverage will continue to gradually shift in its favor. Time is on the side of the PRC.

Why would economic leverage shift in China's favor? China is not the economic juggernaut it's portrayed as being; they have deep and severe domestic problems. I don't see how time is on the side of the PRC at all; quite the opposite. They're having their economic moment in the sun; they are not managing it particularly well and the chickens will come home to roost. What "economic" threat" can the PRC bring to bear on the US that will not have as great or greater adverse impact on them? The more China modernizes and the more they integrate with the global economy, the higher the cost of a potential dis-integrating action becomes.

All the Taiwanese and allies need to do to defend themselves is to make the cost of aggression higher than the PRC would want to bear. Those costs are potentially very high, from both a military and an economic perspective.

Certainly the PRC could rain missiles on Taiwan until the Taiwanese surrender (if they do). They would then have to face the possibility of oil imports and merchandise exports being cut off. The risk and potential complications of an actual physical invasion would be extremely high.

[Ray]

An Indian fox for the Chinese dragon

National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon has been surprising and shocking the Chinese by refusing to be bullied.

Menon speaks Mandarin Chinese fluently but he negotiates with Beijing in English.......

He is a sharp and complex individual who even the Chinese find it difficult to fathom. Since the day he took over as NSA from MK Narayanan in January, the India-China bilateral equation has undergone a perceptible change......

The fact is all NSAs, from Mishra, to JN Dixit, or to Narayanan, kept talking about drawing a boundary line between India and Tibet Autonomous Region of China. It is not that Menon is not interested in settling the border issue, but he and the UPA government have made it clear that they are not overtly eager if Chinese are not interested......

The previous NSAs were interested in maintaining status quo on the border dispute and they thought that fending off Beijing’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh was an achievement. Menon is made of different stuff. He turned the tables on China by asking Beijing to return Indian land lost in the 1962 war if it wanted to settle the border issue. ....

India last year cancelled an unprecedented 30,000 business visas issued during Nirupama Rao’s tenure as ambassador to China. New Delhi then raised the issue of China granting stapled visas to Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh residents though Beijing had being doing so since 2008-2009. Beijing was flummoxed again when New Delhi suspended defence dialogue after China refused to give a visa to Lt General B S Jaswal, who was then Northern Army Commander, for a bilateral visit on the grounds that he was serving in Kashmir.....

India resumed the defence dialogue only after a Major General level officer serving in Kashmir was permitted to go to Beijing this year and China stopped issuing stapled visas. The next point of friction was India’s ONGC tying up with the Vietnamese to explore hydrocarbons in South China Sea, which China has claims comes under its sovereignty. China vehemently objected to Indian presence in South China Sea, but New Delhi quietly responded by saying that it was going as per international laws. The latest and strongest Indian move was India’s cancellation of the SR dialogue last November. China wanted New Delhi to cancel a Buddhist Conference, which was to be addressed by Dalai Lama, during the same period but India refused to bend. It is evident from all these events that New Delhi has decided not to diplomatically molly coddle the Chinese any longer but are prepared to deal with them on the same plane.

More at:

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/inside-story/2011/12/21/an-indian-fox-for-the-chinese-dragon/


The latest trend in the India China equation that impacts the Region.

[AmericanPride]

Suez involved one ally telling some other allies that they couldn't do something. I don't see how it fits at all. If, God forbid, the Red Chinese and us had a confrontation, it would not be an a disagreement between allies, but one between enemies. That is an entirely different matter.

As I have previously stated, that is not the part of the analogy on which I am focused. Feel free to address the aspects of the analogy that I have claimed to be relevant.


Why is the US more vulnerable to economic shocks than Red China? If Red China made economic threats that might result in a trade war. That would be bad for everybody but especially for an export type economy like Red China's. They would really get hurt.


Why would economic leverage shift in China's favor? China is not the economic juggernaut it's portrayed as being; they have deep and severe domestic problems. I don't see how time is on the side of the PRC at all; quite the opposite. They're having their economic moment in the sun; they are not managing it particularly well and the chickens will come home to roost.

China's economy will not forever be a export-oriented economy. With a huge population, it has long-term advantage in market potential, labor resources and costs, as well as general advantages in market stability, governance, and planning. The urbanization of China and capitalization on investments and trade returns will produce a post-industrial economy not unlike that of the United States that but co-exists simultaneously with China's industrial economy, given the expansiveness of the country's market. China is vulnerable to a trade war in the near-term, which is one reason why I have repeatedly stated that the PRC will not initiate a confrontation in the near future.


If you can't achieve your goals, you failed. That doesn't mean the tools you used were useless, they were useful, but you lost.

There is no substitute for victory. If you lost, your resources and strategies were useless for the given scenario.


All the Taiwanese and allies need to do to defend themselves is to make the cost of aggression higher than the PRC would want to bear.

The ROC is incapable of doing that in the long-term.


The more China modernizes and the more they integrate with the global economy, the higher the cost of a potential dis-integrating action becomes.

That assumes of course that the international community would actually protest in an meaningful manner a PRC annexation of Taiwan. As I said previously, I think the most likely outcome will be continued economic integration that will lead to the political compromise and eventual capitulation of the ROC. At some point, this process may be disrupted by nationalist protest or defiance, which may or may not spark military confrontation.


It might approach accuracy to say that while the US is not an empire by any accepted or reasonably arguable definition of empire, the perception of imperial presence and design is widespread and does affect people's decisions and actions, and therefore must be taken into account. Since that perception will prevail no matter what the US says or does, there's little point in trying to reverse it, but its impact on reactions and decisions must be taken into account in planning.

The US is not an empire. It is the only the richest, most powerful subject in a universal financial empire interconnected through a web of powerful individuals, families, and corporations (specifically banks and financial institutions). What has occurred is a de-territorialization of 'empire' through a deconstruction of controls and accountability of financial transactions. Finance capitalism has experienced runaway growth since the 1970s and has outpaced every other economic sector around the world. Consequently, it has an undue and overwhelming influence on policies, politics, and security. In the US in particular, it has resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and not by force of arms, but by the weight of the law and companies "too big to fail". But the US public pays for it through income taxes (due to the collapse of tax revenues in capital gains and corporate taxes), the elimination or privatization of social services under the guise of efficiency and arbitrary minimal government, and the appropriation of private and public property. This not only has compromised the integrity of the political system, but also guts the capabilities of a defense economy already cumbersome by its own inefficiencies.

[carl]

As I have previously stated, that is not the part of the analogy on which I am focused. Feel free to address the aspects of the analogy that I have claimed to be relevant.

I would address it if I could figure out what it was. That is the trouble with historical analogies, everybody gets confused about what they mean and how they apply, especially me.


China's economy will not forever be a export-oriented economy. With a huge population, it has long-term advantage in market potential, labor resources and costs, as well as general advantages in market stability, governance, and planning. The urbanization of China and capitalization on investments and trade returns will produce a post-industrial economy not unlike that of the United States that but co-exists simultaneously with China's industrial economy, given the expansiveness of the country's market. China is vulnerable to a trade war in the near-term, which is one reason why I have repeatedly stated that the PRC will not initiate a confrontation in the near future.

The key as you say is long term. When that long term comes there will be less potential for conflict I hope. Our problem is how to dissuade them from adventures in the short term and in the short term they have a lot of disadvantages that will help do that.

Just as an aside, I would say the only long term advantage they have over anybody is market size and labor resources, nothing else. I think they have a marked disadvantage in governance, all repressive police states do, in the long run of course. Central planning hasn't worked to well either.


There is no substitute for victory. If you lost, your resources and strategies were useless for the given scenario.

Risking you getting mad at me, "no substitute for victory" is a platitude. For example, all that the Confederate States did was not useless even though they lost. They fought so hard they were able to maintain a form of slavery, more or less, for nearly 100 years after the war ended. They fought so hard that the northern states weren't inclined to make the effort to stop them from doing so. So all their resources and strategies weren't useless after all. Even in defeat they were able to establish and maintain a close approximation to the pernicious system they fought for.

A smaller example would be the Glowworm's fight with the Hipper. She lost and the Hipper completed her mission. But the Glowworm's resources weren't useless. They enabled her to fight and that fight had an effect on what the RN thought of itself and what the German navy thought of the RN. That is important.


The ROC is incapable of doing that in the long-term.

Perhaps. But the short term is the problem. In the long term the hope is Red China will grow up a bit and not risk any adventuring. That long term inevitability of inferiority may be very long term. A wealthy island can make an invasion extremely expensive for the attackers.

Whoops. That was Dayuhan's to answer. I'll stop now

[Dayuhan]

China's economy will not forever be a export-oriented economy. With a huge population, it has long-term advantage in market potential, labor resources and costs, as well as general advantages in market stability, governance, and planning. The urbanization of China and capitalization on investments and trade returns will produce a post-industrial economy not unlike that of the United States that but co-exists simultaneously with China's industrial economy, given the expansiveness of the country's market.

That's an extraordinarily optimistic view of China's economic prospects, and one that fails to acknowledge the enormous obstacles, constraints, and problems that China is coming up against.


The US is not an empire. It is the only the richest, most powerful subject in a universal financial empire interconnected through a web of powerful individuals, families, and corporations (specifically banks and financial institutions).

I commented before on the appealing principle of "malevolent design", and its impact on conspiracy theories around the world.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

The issues around this subject Defending Taiwan / Republic of China / RoC re-appeared in the discussion of 'Is the US running an empire?' and for continuity some thirty posts have been copied to this thread. Hopefully reading them will make sense, or refer to the 'empire' thread for context please:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=14742

[Ray]

Maybe that war with China isn't so far off

China, as it approaches a leadership transition, wants to avoid friction. However, the United States appears to welcome it and, in the election year, might even incite it.

The US, under the Obama administration and thanks in large part to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team at the State Department, has been quite adept in putting China at a geopolitical disadvantage in Europe, Africa and Asia.........

The Obama administration jumped into the South China Sea issue - an insoluble tangle of disputes between the nations bordering the sea and the People's Republic of China (PRC) - with the argument that the US has a national interest in freedom of the navigation in the South China Sea.

This posture usually involves an invocation of the critical economic importance of the South China Sea, citing the fact that 25% of the world's crude and half the world's merchant tonnage currently pass through its waters.

As a look at a map and a passing acquaintance with patterns of maritime traffic reveals, the vital nature of this waterway is something of a canard. It is a big ocean out there. There are big ships out there as well, ships that are too big to pass through the Strait of Malacca that feeds into the South China Sea - they are called "post Malaccamax".....

Smaller nations bordering the South China Sea welcome the US as a counterweight to China in their sometimes bloody but low level conflicts over fishing and energy development issues.

Any US attempt to lord it over the Lombok Strait in a similar fashion would presumably not be welcomed by Indonesia, which exercises full, unquestioned sovereignty over the waterway.

Also, if traffic shifted to the Lombok Strait, the Malacca Strait - that romantic but shallow, narrow, and increasingly problematic passageway to the South China Sea - would be superseded, a rather bad thing for faithful and indefatigable US ally Singapore and its massive port facilities at the east end of the strait......

Perhaps biggest wake-up call for China was not downtrodden and put-upon Myanmar opening to the West, or the eternal flirtation between Pyongyang and Washington. As long as the terms of engagement remain civil and economic, contributing to an economic order with Beijing at its center, China can cautiously welcome a flow of investment into the rickety economies of the two authoritarian satellites........

Thankfully, the Obama administration, unlike the George W Bush administration, has its hands on a variety of diplomatic and economic levers to advance its agenda, not just the military option......

There is a danger that China will draw the lesson that the US believes that snubbing China is cost-free: that China is too dependent on global trade and too weak militarily to be taken seriously as an antagonist.

Perhaps, resentful Chinese leaders will decide that the PRC, despite its reliance on a peaceful, trade-friendly international environment, needs to push back in a more overt way than simply bullying Vietnamese fishing boats in the South China Sea.

That would be a risky decision, given that the US has announced that Asia is a key US national interest - presumably, an interest it is prepared to defend with the full range of options available to it. Or, as Secretary Clinton put it: "Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests ... "

America possesses the doctrine, the means, and the motivation to make mischief for the PRC. All that is lacking, for the time being, is a suitable opportunity - or a fatal miscalculation by either side.

2012 promises to be an anxious and unpleasant year in US-China relations.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ML22Ad06.html

[Dayuhan]

A look at what's going on inside China... and at the tip of an economic iceberg:

http://tinyurl.com/7u6xqr8

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan,

Good article, even if economics is not my forte. This paragraph struck me:
The craze for vacant real estate is due in large part to a lack of attractive alternatives. Strict controls on capital outflows prevent most Chinese citizens from investing any real money abroad. Chinese bank deposits earn very low interest rates -- lower, for the past year now, than the rate of consumer inflation. The public sees the country's domestic stock exchanges, which have endured volatile ups and downs over the last few years, as little more than high-risk casinos. In contrast, real estate, which has not seen a sustained downturn since China first converted to private homeownership in the 1990s, has long looked like a sure bet.

How would the world economy and international banking react to Chinese individual private investors appearing en masse? Let alone the Chinese state's reaction to a perceived need for the free flow of information.

[Dayuhan]

Chinese individual investors are already a presence, particularly in global real estate markets, but I wouldn't say they're appearing en masse. Places as disparate as Vancouver and Singapore have seen property driven up by Chinese buying, partly as investment and partly (I suspect) as pre-flight capital. How these trend plays out remains to be seen; it will depend largely on what happens on the mainland in the next couple of years.

It does look like a collapse in the Chinese residential construction industry is underway, and there could be serious implications. The construction and building materials industries are major employers, and a breakdown will leave a whole bunch of unemployed males without a lot of options... that can easily translate to disorder. Add that to the people in the middle class and above who have poured life's savings and borrowed money into properties that have plunged in value and in some cases may no longer be salable at all, and you could have trouble.

[davidbfpo]

Cheers Robert H. who in his SWJ Blog column has commented upon 'Has the Air Force already lost the battle for Taiwan?':http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-preparing-for-the-next-korean-war

He cites a RAND study:
A recent detailed study concludes that the Chinese air force will badly outgun the U.S. Air Force in the skies over Taiwan and that the only hope for preventing Chinese air superiority over the island during a conflict is through the threat of heavy bombardment of the mainland, with all of the danger that implies. The study also demonstrates that the Air Force and Navy lack some of the proper tools for fighting in the Pacific's vast expanses.

Link:http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD267.html

[Firn]

Dayuhan,
How would the world economy and international banking react to Chinese individual private investors appearing en masse? Let alone the Chinese state's reaction to a perceived need for the free flow of information.

The already existent capital controls make it hard for private investors to shift capital outside of China. If there is heavy investment by Chinese investors it might be facilitated by the large amount of ethnic Chinese using various ways and channels to allow for some outflow of capital. A Chinese company buying a Western one won't have, of course, generally that kind of problem.

The control of capital by the state is of course connected with the policy of the state to acquire large amounts of foreign currency (or equivalents) to keep the Renminbi 'artificially' low thus facilitating the export So this control regime is very unlikey to change.

An if such a massive bubble bursts the party will try everything to keep the money inside China, and will use monetary and fiscal policies as well as other tools like regulation changes to avoid low growth, a recession or even worse. [That they allowed this sector to run as red hot as it is, shows unsurprisingly that even the wise Chinese technocratic communists can make errors just as we simple democratic Westerners did and do. ]

All that makes it unlikey that we will see private Chinese investors appearing on masse on the international markets.

[Ray]

A prominent Chinese military commander has lambasted the Chinese political system in a recent interview and predicted a political transformation toward democracy within the next ten years.
Lieutenant General Liu Yazhou is the Political Commissar of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) University for National Defense. He is also the son-in-law of former Chinese President, Li Xiannian. His public statements make him the first senior active-duty military officer to publicly criticize the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) policies without backlash from the regime.

In a recent interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Weekly, Liu said, “A system that does not allow its citizens to breathe freely, nor to maximally unleash their creativity, nor puts those who can best represent the people in leadership positions, is doomed.”
He further pointed out that the former Soviet Union also used to stress [social] stability above all else and regarded it as the ultimate goal.

“Stressing stability as a principle of overriding importance, and moneymaking as the only way to settle everything, will only lead to contradictions being aggravated, and everything will come against you.”

Liu also predicted that a political transformation from authoritarianism to democracy will inevitably take place within ten years.

Expressing reprehension for the “money diplomacy” and “economic powerhouse” concepts embraced by the CCP, Liu said “having more money does not mean having more soft power.”


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/lieutenant-general-liu-yazhou-lambasts-china-political-system-chinese-communist-party-ccp-41543.html

[davidbfpo]

Ray,

A good catch, with staggering content. For a political commissar to say that openly is amazing. One wonders whether he is alone or the views reflect a debate with the PLA or CCP.

[tequila]

That occurred in 2010. (http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinese-general-backs-the-american-dream-20100811-11zsr.html)

[Bill Moore]

“Stressing stability as a principle of overriding importance, and moneymaking as the only way to settle everything, will only lead to contradictions being aggravated, and everything will come against you.”

Great find Ray, and the excerpt about sounds a whole lot like our COIN doctrine. Is our doctrine based on communist principles and doomed to fail?

[davidbfpo]

A NDU / INSS report 'Buy, Build, or Steal: China’s Quest for Advanced Military Aviation Technologies' that maybe of interest (Note I've not read it):http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/china-perspectives/ChinaPerspectives-4.pdf

The Executive Summary concludes:
two important conclusions. First, the Chinese military aviation industry will have to rely primarily on indigenous development of advanced “single-use” military aviation technologies in the future. The Chinese government is pursuing a range of “indigenous innovation” and technology development programs, but mastering advanced technologies becomes more difficult and expensive as a country moves closer to the technology frontier. This leads to a second, related conclusion: China will likely rely more heavily on espionage to acquire those critical military aviation technologies it cannot acquire legitimately from foreign suppliers or develop on its own.

[Ray]

Commentary: Constructive U.S. role in Asia-Pacific welcome, but not warmongering

Legitimate interests of the United States, the world's biggest power, in the Asia-Pacific region are generally respected by other countries.

The U.S. role, if fulfilled with a positive attitude and free from a Cold War-style zero-sum mentality, will not only be conducive to regional stability and prosperity, but be good for China, which needs a peaceful environment to continue its economic development.

However, while boosting its military presence in the Asia-Pacific, the United States should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this won't help solve regional disputes.

If the United States indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2012-01/06/c_131346348.htm

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Lowy Institute, in Australia, for highlighting a speech by Hilary Clinton and opens with:
The speech Hillary Clinton gave in Washington last week to mark the 40th anniversary of Nixon's visit to China didn't get much attention. Other than Linda Jakobson's short post, on which more below, I've seen no reference to it here in Australia or in US media.

...But the speech deserves careful attention, because some of what it says about the US-China relationship is very different from what President Obama said here in Canberra last November...

..More importantly, she several times said that Asia will need a new order which will be very different from the status quo, plainly implying that America's role will therefore be different too.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/03/12/Hillary-on-China-A-Nixon-moment.aspx

[AdamG]

Coup in China?


The mutiny was supposedly led by a leftist faction inside the Politburo headed by Zhou Yongkang, the chief of China’s massive internal security apparatus, and the recently ousted leadership contender Bo Xilai.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/why-the-coup-rumours-in-china-arent-going-away/article2376711/

[Ray]

India,South Korea draw close; step up business, military ties
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/03/25/143--India-South-Korea-draw-close-step-up-business-military-ties-Roundup-.html

Strategic Posture Review: Japan

Japan and India penned a joint security declaration in October 2008 and have developed dialogue channels focused mainly on maritime security: safety, freedom of navigation and anti-piracy activities. The bilateral agenda also emphasizes joint exercises, and in 2009 the Indian navy invited Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) to participate in the Malabar Exercises with the U.S. Navy. A bilateral exercise between the Indian navy and the MSDF is scheduled to take place in 2012. Japan and India signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement that entered into force in August 2011, and Japan provides substantial development aid for projects such as the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11726/strategic-posture-review-japan

[jmm99]

The Indians (Sanskrit type) are making my little map (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=133268&postcount=16) become more real. :)

Cooperation in Friendship.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

A long FP Blog article and too tired to read all six pages, but I noted the well connected General Liu is cited, so will read fully tomorrow.

It starts with:
In many fields of international competition, China is less sanguine about its abilities than outsiders. Chinese leaders often remind Westerners that China is a developing country, with hundreds of millions of people living in poverty, an unbalanced economy, and high social tensions. What should most worry Beijing, and provide some comfort to those who fear Chinese military expansionism, is the state of corruption in the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/16/rotting_from_within

[Dayuhan]

This would indeed indicate that there are internal problems within China as some claimed.

Rotting From Within
Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/16/rotting_from_within?page=full


How far this would be correct, one wonders.

Corruption is rampant at every level in China; it's by no means confined to the military. It's getting a lot of attention right now due to the Bo Xilai scandal, but it's been well known for a long time.

[Firn]

I recently watched this docu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku76TVslBGI), which I found very interesting even though I knew much of the narrative. It strongly reminds me of the saying that the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not be to be exploited by it. Some gains in efficiency and the resulting rise in wealth were certainly amazing, the fruits of a giving people the chance to better their status quo on their merits. Of course the spirit of those who just took the chance, like the people of Xiao Gang was quite amazing and drive by dire need. That they signed a legal pact among each other to support the those and their families who might get imprisoned or killed by the state carries some sad irony with it. (Such reactions are of course not unique, but rather common if not so overt)

Sustaining China's Economic Growth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9uw6geq1OE) was eye-opening for me, especially concerning the implication of cultural differences, the (lack) of a good financial system and the lack of a social security net on things like the MPC or MPS (marginal prop. to consume/save) and the way to invest.

[Dayuhan]

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137602/damien-ma/china-digs-it?cid=nlc-this_week_on_foreignaffairs_co-042612-china_digs_it_3-042612

[slapout9]

Link to article by F.William Engdahl about the high speed train line being built from China all the way to the English Channel and how this help China's prosperity into the next century.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/China%20Land%20Bridge%20to%20Turkey%20Europe.pdf

[Ray]

It belongs to China

The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty.

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/04/28/it-belongs-to-china/




China map lays claim to Americas

A map due to be unveiled in Beijing and London next week may lend weight to a theory a Chinese admiral discovered America before Christopher Columbus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/world_enl_1137169236/img/1.jpg

Therefore, the world belongs to China!

[Fuchs]

Corruption is rampant at every level in China; it's by no means confined to the military. It's getting a lot of attention right now due to the Bo Xilai scandal, but it's been well known for a long time.

Don't they establish a tradition of annual quasi-summary executions of low and middle level party officials and bureaucrats for corruption? IIRC something like that has been going on for years.


China map lays claim to Americas

A map due to be unveiled in Beijing and London next week may lend weight to a theory a Chinese admiral discovered America before Christopher Columbus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...9236/img/1.jpg

This is certainly of great interest for sociologists, psychologists and political scientists.

Such a fake can easily be disproved with a simple C14 analysis, and much of the map is simply not believable for a critically thinking modern (wo)man. Whom are they trying to fool and why don't they get that phony BS is a rather poor representative for a great country? It's as if Manhattan was built by Hollywood fake building producers, all Potemkim-style fakes.

On top of that, jingoism can be really harmful to a country that needs to address major domestic issues.

[Dayuhan]

Don't they establish a tradition of annual quasi-summary executions of low and middle level party officials and bureaucrats for corruption? IIRC something like that has been going on for years.

They do, but it's less about corruption than about falling out of favor or stepping on the wrong toes. Corruption is always a convenient excuse to get rid of someone, especially since the accusation is always true, since practically everyone in government is corrupt. It's well known on the street and the level of cynicism is proportionally high.

[Ray]

If China's philosophy is to get rid of its detractors (domestic) by hook or by crook i.e. without any scruples or tenets of law, then why the razzmatazz being trotted out to make one to believe that China is a nation working overtime towards global harmony and peace.

Would they not be equally unscrupulous and thus, not taken at face value?

[jmm99]

from Ray
Therefore, the world belongs to China!

since 2002, when Gavin Menzies published "1421" (Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/1421-Year-China-Discovered-America/dp/006054094X), Menzies Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies) and a less charitable analysis (http://www.1421exposed.com/)).

Re: BBC World Map (Link1 (http://www.1421exposed.com/html/wade_challenge.html) and Link2 (http://www.1421exposed.com/html/on_the_fake_map.html) - of many).

As my favorite old judge once said: "Some humor has to be injected into these proceedings; otherwise, they become too serious."

Ya gotta love those Hans if you're an Indian (of either kind). :D

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

If China's philosophy is to get rid of its detractors (domestic) by hook or by crook i.e. without any scruples or tenets of law, then why the razzmatazz being trotted out to make one to believe that China is a nation working overtime towards global harmony and peace.

Would they not be equally unscrupulous and thus, not taken at face value?

All nations claim to be working toward global harmony and peace, even those who whack their detractors (though those accused of corruption in China are not necessarily "detractors", often just those who wound up on the wrong side of internecine power struggles) and those who invade countries whose governments they dislike.

[Ray]

China's South Sea Claims: Fact or Fiction?


http://www.cpamedia.com/politics/china_soulth_sea_claims/

[Dayuhan]

I think it's probably a fact that the earliest existing historical records of the various shoals and islands in the SCS are Chinese. Whether or not that constitutes a valid claim of ownership, or whether it's more valid than, say, claims based on geographical proximity (based on UNCLOS recognition of exclusive economic zones, among other things), is a matter of opinion and to some extent of international law, not sure it's possible to say that's a question of fact or fiction.

As a matter of historical precedent, such things have belonged to whoever can take and hold them.

[Fuchs]

Lots of claims for South Atlantic and South Indian Ocean islands (Crozet, for example) would change owners if old claims of discoverers never given up in a treaty would be overruled by some convention that says proximity counts more.

Not going to happen.

[Ray]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif/300px-Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif

[Ray]

China when in an adverse situation states the treaties were unequal.

But when it suits them, the maps and treaties are valid!

Interesting is this Wiki summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

Tibet was also an 'unequal treaty'!

[Ray]

Interesting excerpts taken at random.

A detailed paper worth reading.

Peking Reaches Out: A Study of Chinese Expansionism

It is common knowledge that in 1959 Mao Zedong said: “Our goal is the whole wide world . .. where we will create a mighty state" and that in 1965 he presented China with the task of “absolutely getting hold of Southeast Asia" in the near future. And today, far from disavowing these and similar statements, Peking uses them as a guide. Politics, propaganda and armed force combine to further Maoist foreign policy doctrines, in a range of ploys which extends from historical fabrications and the publication of maps showing the “lost Chinese lands" to armed provocation and outright aggression against neighbouring states......

A maiden work of this order was Su Yen-tsung’s The General Tendency of the Modification of China’s Borders, [249•22 which was published shortly after the Hsinhai revolution. Coming after it, Hua Chi-yun’s China’s Borders [249•23 gained wide currency. Indeed, its author, possibly the Kuomintang’s leading authority in the field, completed his treatise in the spring of 1930, shortly after the Kuomintang provocations on the Chinese Eastern Railway, the raids on Soviet territory, and the rupture of SovietChinese relations. Hua Chi-yun’s conceptions, which reflected the official moods.

Hua Chi-yun advocated the thesis of the need to “return” to China the lands it had “lost”. He claimed that “China’s old borders" had embraced vast territories extending from Kamchatka to Singapore and from Lake Balkhash to the Philippines. Korea, Burma, Vietnam, and Bhutan were seen as “conceded tributaries”, which had been within the “old borders”. Considerable tracts of Soviet Far Eastern territory along with the Island of Sakhalin, part of Kazakhstan and the Soviet Central Asian republics, sections of Afghan and Indian territory, and the Ryukyu Archipelago were also included among China’s “losses”. The Mongolian People’s Republic was generally ignored as a sovereign state and was designated as within China’s contemporary borders. Maritime boundaries stretched hundreds and thousands of miles away from the mainland, taking in the islands of the East China and South China Seas. The special map appended to the chapter, “Revision of Frontiers and Lost 250 Territories”, illustrated this projected programme of territorial aggrandisement.

The book examined a set of political, economic, and cultural measures devised to bring about a rapid Sinification of non-Han inhabitants of border territories. Having roots deep in antiquity and the Middle Ages, China’s intercourse with Korea, Siberia, Central Asia,Afghanistan, India, and Vietnam was analysed with the author seeking to prove China’s “historical rights" to the lands beyond its borders. Hua Chi-yun challenged the validity of quite a number of border treaties and tried to justify Kuomintang’s claims to the USSR, Burma, and India.

http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/PRO.pdf

[Fuchs]

China when in an adverse situation states the treaties were unequal.

But when it suits them, the maps and treaties are valid!

Interesting is this Wiki summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

Tibet was also an 'unequal treaty'!

Tibet was conquered.
Armageddon would happen if we began reversing all unfairness based on previously lost wars.

[jmm99]

The starting point for Chinese historical claims is the Han Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Han_map.jpg

To that starting point, were added various other claims (maritime, such as "1421"; tributary and protectorate claims - note the Han Protectorates of the Western Trade Routes).

The New Han Golden Age was declared by Mao, To the Glory of the Hans (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_03.htm) (1919).


The great union of the Chinese people must be achieved, Gentlemen! We must all exert ourselves, we must all advance with the utmost strength. Our golden age, our age of brightness and splendour lies ahead!

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

This link somehow is not opening.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_03.htm (To the Glory of the Han).

Missing out possibly a Gem!

[Bob's World]

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Jesus of Nazareth

"our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." John O'Sullivan, 1845

"Go west, young man" Horace Greely, 1851

Etc, etc. Powerful nations (and influenctial informal leaders such as those listed above) have historically sought to achieve and sustain their largest possible spheres of territory, control and/or influence.

It seems to me, that nations get into as much trouble when they seek to hold onto too much, than they do when they seek to take on more. I suspect that China realizes that expanding their economic reach and overall influence is far more productive than attempting to aggressively acquire some physical real estate and it immediately resistant populace. They have enough internal forces of resistance and revolution to contend with as is. In the future? That is different, but for us to obsess on the potentiality of this future game now is to risk losing out on the game that is actually currently in play.

[tequila]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that the PRC seeks territorial claims in North America, or based on an article written by Mao in 1919?

[Ray]

t seems to me, that nations get into as much trouble when they seek to hold onto too much, than they do when they seek to take on more. I suspect that China realizes that expanding their economic reach and overall influence is far more productive than attempting to aggressively acquire some physical real estate and it immediately resistant populace. They have enough internal forces of resistance and revolution to contend with as is. In the future? That is different, but for us to obsess on the potentiality of this future game now is to risk losing out on the game that is actually currently in play.

So why is China so keen to expand and on fictitious grounds want to expand their Empire?

[Ray]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that the PRC seeks territorial claims in North America, or based on an article written by Mao in 1919?

Not today.

They are in no position to do so.

Who knows? Maybe at a later time frame when they can.

SCS was no big deal till now.

Now they developed 'muscle'.

[jmm99]

The link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_03.htm) just opened for me - so obviously we have a very clever Han block on Indian access to the article. Short article - a snip from a longer 1919 piece by Mao - .pdf attached.

No, I'm not "suggesting" - seriously or otherwise - that this 1919 piece is a PRC claim to North America, or to the World for that matter. What I am seriously "asserting" is that to understand current Chinese foreign policy, one must look to the origins of that policy as asserted by its leaders.

References back to the "The Glory of the Hans" are scarcely limited to Mao's 1919 snip; nor are Mao's references back limited to the Han period and its policies. One which is very relevant to current Chinese law and politics is Mao's 1912 piece on Chinese Legalism and Shang Yang (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/China/Mao%20on%20Shang%20Yang.htm) (several centuries prior to the Han Dynasty), with some WFF links on Chinese Legalism (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/China/China%20Legalism.htm) ("Rule by Law").

As an example of the Chinese historical approach to assertion of territorial claims, see Jianming Shen, China's Sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands: A Historical Perspective (chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/94.full.pdf) (2002), e.g. (Chinese characters omitted from quote):


III.A. Discovery

China was the first to have discovered the islands in the South China Sea. Chinese history books contain numerous references to the Chinese people's knowledge and actual use of the South China Sea throughout history.

In "Yi Zhou Shu" (Scattered Books of the Zhou Dynasties) written in the early Qin Dynasty, it was recorded that "in the Xia Dynasty [21st century-16th century B.C.] the tributes from the South Sea [by the southern "barbarians" to the Xia rulers] were zhuji dabei [pearl carrying shellfish]," turtles and hawksbill turtles, and these tributes continued through the Shang Dynasty (16th century-11th century B.C.), the Zhou Dynasties (11th century-221 B.C.) (comprising the West Zhou (11th century-771 B.C.) and the East Zhou (770-221 B.C.)), and the Qin (221-206 B.C.) and Han (206 B.C-220 A.D.) Dynasties (see Exhibit I). ...

JMM: 64 pages in all - a good brief from the PRC viewpoint.

But see, Wade, The Zheng He Voyages: A Reassessment (www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps04_031.pdf) (2004), for another person's "non-1421" view from Singapore:


Returning now to the three sets of Ming policies and practices detailed above, and in the light of the ideas and definitions of Armitage, Osterhammel and Emerson, it appears that there is quite some basis for classifying them as the actions of a colonial state.

1. The eunuch-led voyages at the beginning of the 15th century constituted only a proto maritime colonialism as there was no real rule over a people or territory. There was rule over nodes and networks. The military constituted the force on which the Ming armadas depended and their role was the maintenance of the pax Ming, which provided the Ming state with a capacity to influence polities and, at least in some ways, to achieve some short-term economic advantage.

2. The Ming invasion of Đại Việt is perhaps the most obvious example of a colonial adventure. There was invasion, occupation, the imposition of a military and civil administration, economic exploitation and domination by a court in the capital of the dominating power. The obvious decolonisation which occurred following the failure of this enterprise underlines its colonial nature.

3. The Ming invasion and occupation of the Yun-nan Tai polities during the 15th century was the most successful of the colonial ventures examined, as many of the areas colonised during the Ming still form a part of the People’s Republic of China today. There can be little doubt that these actions by the Ming rulers were colonial in nature. They involved the use of huge military force to invade peoples who were ethnically different from the Chinese, to occupy their territory, to break that territory into smaller administrative units, to appoint pliant rulers and “advisers” and to economically exploit the regions so occupied. The Ming colonial armies, local and Chinese, provided the actual or threatened violence necessary to maintain the Ming colonial administration in the Tai areas of Yun-nan.

Examination of the colonial experience in Southeast Asia has long remained limited to the period subsequent to the arrival of European forces in the region. The discussion above, even if not sufficient to sway all readers to all of its argument, should at least open an avenue for recognising that in investigating colonialism in Southeast Asia, we need to extend the existing temporal limits and include within our considerations the actions of the successive polities we know under the rubric “China”.

And so on and so forth ...

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

You should like this quote from a scholar of the Han Dynasty (LINK (http://pages.uoregon.edu/chn305/unit8.html)):


One of the first writers to articulate an explanation for the rapid decline of the Qin was the young genius Jia Yi (201-169 BCE).... The final sentence of Jia Yi’s essay is an effective summary of his argument: " . . . it failed to rule with humanity and righteousness and to realize that the power to attack and the power to retain what one has thereby won are not the same."

From the U of Oregon, Chinese 305: Ancient Chinese Literature - From the Beginnings to the End of the Han. (http://pages.uoregon.edu/chn305/)

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

I do like that. To find a new idea, read an old book.

Human nature is like gravity. Just when you start to think you're something special... it brings you back down to earth.

[Dayuhan]

SCS was no big deal till now.

Now they developed 'muscle'.

Actually not true, the Chinese have been pushing SCS claims for decades, and there have been incidents for decades. Just because people just started paying attention recently doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal until recently.

Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,


Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

It is rather annoying how you constantly exaggerate everyone's else's position in a feeble attempt to make your arguments appear more rational. Who on this thread, or any other thread even suggested that?

No one? Um, then why do you make such outlandish claims?

A nation doesn't have to invade another nation to be a threat to that nation's interests. China illegally enforcing it territorial claims to secure its access to energy can be quite detrimental to the affected nations, and they have every right to be concerned.

China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

[jmm99]

Taiwan, the Philippines or Vietnam within, say, my lifetime - which may or may not be a short guarantee. :)

As to planning, I'd expect that the PLA planning folks are war gaming all three scenarios. E.g., we might expect something similar to this 2009 RAND report, A Question of Balance: Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG888.html) - 180+ pages of NOT a "slam dunk" for the US vs PRC.

But, on the whole, I'm a gullible sort and accept that, like their peace-loving agrarian reformer ancestors of 1948, the present PRC folks are peace-loving cultural reformers in the mold of Zheng He.

How do I know that to be true ? The People's Daily, Zheng He: Master explorer (http://english.people.com.cn/90001/98705/100621/7342090.html) (April 6, 2011), tells me so:


China's motives were not conquest but expanding influence and knowledge of its culture. China had been richer and more cosmopolitan than any country in Europe for thousands of years. Already in the 1400's China and India represented more than half of the world's GDP together. A paragon of fair trade practices with conflicts internal rather than international. Then, like now, China supported stability over change domestically and abroad.

Zheng He's China wanted global prominence and respect matching its superiority. His mission: a charm offensive without historical precedent. He was the face of expansionist friendly China. People's Daily described him as an "Ambassador of Peace." For the most part he was, unless provoked to defend national interests for which he is credited with masterful genius. Not until World War I would the world see the naval might Zheng He mobilized for his journeys as he single-handedly revolutionized navigation.

China was ahead of the world in most areas of development. He's fleet was larger than anything the world had known, with expeditions of up to 317 ships and around 28,000 men aboard — experts calculate 20,000 of them were military men. Crews with interpreters of many languages, astrologers, astronomers, doctors, pharmacists, entertainers, diplomatic and protocol experts to coordinate official receptions with dignitaries in the more than 35 countries visited.

The intent of the voyages was to create a showcase of the splendor and strength of the Ming dynasty not trade, conquer or as a crusade to promote China's religions.


"These were friendly diplomatic activities. During the overall course of the seven voyages to the Western Ocean, Zheng He did not occupy a single piece of land, establish any fortress or seize any wealth from other countries. In the commercial and trade activities, he adopted the practice of giving more than he received, and thus he was welcomed and lauded by the people of the various countries along his routes,"

stated Xu Zu-yuan, PRC Vice Minister of Communications, on July 2004.

A goal was to bring foreign VIPs to China's imperial court. It was a Noah's ark gathering of top diplomats to introduce them to its sphere of influence. It was not hard to convince key foreign figures to accompany Zheng He in an all-expense-paid trip to China's to meet the emperor.

I'm sure the current PLAN would be happy to offer Ray and his fellow Indian flag officers a luxury trip to the nearest Chinese port.

Besides, so long as its trade routes are open, why should China take the risks of a blockade and of a nuclear war easily mounted from US Micronesia ?

1596

Of course, the PLA and the PLA Navy (the oddest thing, an army's navy) may miscalculate, etc.

And, there is that troublesome Geoff Wade again, who just refuses to see Zheng He as an "Ambassador of Peace" - Power grew out of Zheng He's gunboats (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NA26Ad01.html) (Asia Times Online, Jan 26, 2012).

BTW: The Singapore E-Press and the Asia Research Institute (Geoff Wade is POC) have assembled all of the references to Southeast Asia contained within the MSL (http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/) (the Ming Shi-lu, aka Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty) and provides them to readers in English-language translation. Each of the shi-lu comprises an account of one emperor's reign, for each of the emperors of Ming China (1368-1644). See, Wade, The Ming Shi-lu as a source for Southeast Asian History (http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/MSL.pdf) (2005).

Regards

Mike

[carl]

No, I'm not "suggesting" - seriously or otherwise - that this 1919 piece is a PRC claim to North America, or to the World for that matter. What I am seriously "asserting" is that to understand current Chinese foreign policy, one must look to the origins of that policy as asserted by its leaders.

That is a very good point.

[carl]

Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

The Vietnamese are worried about something or other. They haven't ordered six Kilo class subs for nothing.

[Surferbeetle]

China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

China's economic ties both enable and constrain it's actions, just ours do. :wry:

Hu Jintau and Xi Jinping have had their hands full preparing for a successful Communist Party Congress this year, with the Bo Xi Lai saga the most visible part of the challenges to a smooth succession. Copper prices, euro vehicle import statics, and the Chinese shadow banking system are just a few places that investors and traders watch to continually gauge the stability of the system. Business clusters such as Chongqing may be seen as barometers of the larger whole.

Meanwhile back at the ranch we have our hands full with assessing the costs/benefits and sustainability of military keynesianism, not to mention system wide economic sustainability. The Budget Control Act of 2011 and the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will help DoD (among others), willingly or not, to prioritize incentives, behavior, strategy, and desired outcomes.

I think that neither the Chinese nor the US elite are willing to risk creative destruction at this inflection point in history, as the masses which they are responsible for are already under significant amounts of stress and strain. ;)



Hu Jintao, bio by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao


Xi Jinping, bio by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping


Was die Falle Bo Xi Lai und Chen Guangcheng eint, Kolumne von Klaus Methfessel, 05.05.2012, WirtschaftsWoche, http://www.wiwo.de/politik/ausland/aus-der-weiten-welt-was-die-faelle-bo-xi-lai-und-chen-guangcheng-eint-/6594190.html


The economy of Chongqing, by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing#Economy


Military Keynesianism, by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism


Budget Control Act of 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s365enr/pdf/BILLS-112s365enr.pdf


UPDATE: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Sequester, April 26, 2012, Bipartisan Policy Center, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/08/how-sequester-works-if-joint-select-committee-fails


2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf


Creative Destruction by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

[Ray]

JMM

Those links were great finds!

[Ray]

That all countries around the periphery of China are warming up with defence preparedness indicates that they are not comfortable with the hegemonic pursuits of China.

Or else, why would they squander their wealth on such unproductive issue as defence, when the funds can be better utilised for uplifting of the people?!

Chinese sympathisers and camp followers can say anything, but the events do indicate that nations are worried about China's hegemonic and imperialist designs!

[Backwards Observer]

Chinese sympathisers and camp followers can say anything, but the events do indicate that nations are worried about China's hegemonic and imperialist designs!

Speaking of which...


The U.S. saw China's rise “as an opportunity, not a threat.” “We believe that neither of us can afford to keep looking at the world through old lenses, whether it's the legacy of imperialism, the Cold War, or balance-of-power politics. Zero sum thinking will lead to negative sum results,” Ms. Clinton said.

“And so instead, what we are trying to do is to build a resilient relationship that allows both of our nations to thrive without unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict while meeting our national, regional, and global responsibilities.”


U.S., China to hold consultations on South Asia (http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3388259.ece) - The Hindu - May 6, 2012.

[Fuchs]

Maybe it would be best to address all lingering conflicts soon, instead of waiting till the PRC is stronger and its extremists got more agitated.

There could also be a new Washington Naval Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty) which acknowledges Chinese naval power, but also limits the same.

[Backwards Observer]

Maybe it would be best to address all lingering conflicts soon, instead of waiting till the PRC is stronger and its extremists got more agitated.

It could be argued that there's more than one way to skin that cat, regardless of whether it's black or white.


I'd like to see a more aggressive attitude on the part of the United States. That doesn't mean launching an immediate preventive war. ... Native analysts may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't... That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.... China has the bomb... Sometime in the future--25, 50, 75 years hence--what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too... That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now. - General Curtis LeMay

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

[Bob's World]

US influence rises on the tide of Chinese power.

A rebalancing in the SEA region helps the US far more than it hurts us, as it makes our allies a lot more willing to lend us access for things that we see in our interest as well.

Change is happening. China is growing more powerful. Those are facts. But the immediate response should be that we evolve to more sophisticated forms of diplomacy and foreign policy, not scramble to double down on old schemes of containment. This is a new China, and they will not tolerate the containment of their economy or their influence. The fact that both of those are pushing against our old containment scheme in no way means that China believes it is in there interests to physically colonize their neighbors. Why do that when they can make more money at lower cost by not doing it?

It is a sad statement on how US foreign policy has drifted over the years, that a call by the President to "pivot" our focus from Europe to the East has largely been interpreted as a call to escalate military activities, rather than a call to redefine our diplomacy and policies to better address that region in a manner most appropriate for the world we live in today.

[Fuchs]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s). The Soviet Union was shattered economically and bled white during the late 40's. It didn't take "the bomb" to extort East Europe from Stalin, Truman could have done it easily with a delayed demob of the army (including U.S.A.A.F.) in Europe.

[Backwards Observer]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s).

The age old question: bomb or bombshell?

(images from Beneath the Planet of the Apes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Planet_of_the_Apes))

[Dayuhan]

It is rather annoying how you constantly exaggerate everyone's else's position in a feeble attempt to make your arguments appear more rational. Who on this thread, or any other thread even suggested that?

No one? Um, then why do you make such outlandish claims?

I didn't make a claim. I asked a question. The question was intended to elicit some sort of specific response to a question nobody seems willing to address: what exactly do we fear that the Chinese will do. It's not an idle question, either: you can't devise a plan to deter or respond to actions unless you've some idea what you expect to deter or respond to.


A nation doesn't have to invade another nation to be a threat to that nation's interests.

Certainly not, but a threat to interests is not the same thing as an existential threat and dpesn't warrant the same level of response. Again, the question for any given nation, including the US, is what specifically are the threat scenarios involved, and what should be done about them.


China illegally enforcing it territorial claims to secure its access to energy can be quite detrimental to the affected nations, and they have every right to be concerned.

Illegally according to whom?

That's a start, though, and I agree that there's a right to be concerned. Concern, fear, and panic are different things.

There's also the question of what anyone proposes to do about the situation. Holding joint exercises lets everybody concerned say they're doing something, but there's little reason to think it will prevent the Chinese from pushing in on fishing or (potentially) energy activities. Existing exercises haven't prevented Chinese provocation, indeed circumstantial evidence suggests that the Chinese may be deliberately initiating incidents timed to coincide with exercises.

From the Philippine perspective, it's also doubtful that buying ships or aircraft will serve as much of a deterrent. Vietnam has a quite capable military, far beyond that of the Philippines, but the Chinese still harass their energy exploration ships and their fishermen. It's not likely that buying a few more ships or planes is going to alter the equation much.

Realistically, the area will continue to be contested no matter what any of the parties do, and incidents are likely to continue. So again, what is it exactly that we fear, and what does anyone propose to do about it?


China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

Agreed.





I think that neither the Chinese nor the US elite are willing to risk creative destruction at this inflection point in history, as the masses which they are responsible for are already under significant amounts of stress and strain.

[Ken White]

Agree with his post and opinion. I also agree with Ray, those are good links...

As an aside, Bill Moore, there has been discussion in this thread about China taking the Philippines (among other places) and discussion earlier on their intentions toward Viet Nam. I think Dayuhan asked a good and fair question, you didn't really answer him but derided the question and then made implications that China has designs -- he just asked how serious some thought those designs were...:wry:

Like I said, I'm with Mike -- Not in my lifetime... :D :D :D

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan


Certainly not, but a threat to interests is not the same thing as an existential threat and dpesn't warrant the same level of response. Again, the question for any given nation, including the US, is what specifically are the threat scenarios involved, and what should be done about them.

I think we (collectively) over play the existential threat card. I assume that means we're talking about a threat that can physically destroy us and/or replace our government when we refer to this type of threat? In that case Russia and China with their nuclear weapons (assuming they can actually deliver them) are the only existential threats we face from nation-states at this time, but other existential threats would include infectious disease, and perhaps some environmental disasters. Did I capture your intent of existential correctly?

There is another level of threats that defy easy categorization, so we just label them threats to our national interests (as do other other nations). These include economic, social, political, legal, etc. I'm making an argument that China is an economic threat to the South East Asian nations, and economic interests throughout history have generally been worth going to war over, so I think the risk of conflict in the region is increasing.

The argument that some have proposed is that everyone's economic interests are so interdependent that war is highly unlikely, but this was the same argument made in 1913 before WWI broke out. I'm not dismissing the argument entirely, war does seem irrational, but states do make irrational decisions, especially when their war ships are playing an increasingly aggressive game of chicken.

I also think China's internal instability and its growing nationalism with many of its citizens demanding their state teach countries like Vietnam and the Philippines a lesson is of concern. Increasing nationalism almost always seems to lead to irrational decisions (in hindsight), whether those countries were Germany, Japan, Russia, or the U.S..


I asked a question. The question was intended to elicit some sort of specific response to a question nobody seems willing to address: what exactly do we fear that the Chinese will do. It's not an idle question, either: you can't devise a plan to deter or respond to actions unless you've some idea what you expect to deter or respond to.

When you what do we fear, I assume you mean the U.S.? In that case I think we fear losing the peace in the region, which in turn would have a significant impact on our economy. I think we also are concerned about losing influence in the region, which again could have a severe impact on our economy. In short, I think we fear losing the peace, because China is pushing a lot of nation's red lines regarding territorial claims, and that risks dragging us into a conflict or sitting out of one and influencing influence in the region, neither of which is in our interests. I don't think that is in China's interests either, but that doesn't mean their actions won't trigger an incident that leads to larger conflict. On the other hand, North Korea sank a South Korean Naval vessel last year and somehow the cease-fire was maintained, so we don't know how these things will ultimately play out, we can only point out it is getting increasingly dangerous.

Illegal according to who? Actually the right phrase is outside of international norms for territorial claims and dispute resolution.

To specifically address your question, do I think China will invade or conquer Vietnam or the Philippines? Actually those are two questions, the potential for a punative invasion exists (especially for Vietnam), on the other hand I don't think they desire to conquer either country. Last time they invaded Vietnam the Chinese took heavy casualties, but this isn't 1978/1979, a lot has changed in both nations since then.


It's not an idle question, either: you can't devise a plan to deter or respond to actions unless you've some idea what you expect to deter or respond to.

Fair point, and I would add that Secretary Clinton and other national leaders said our pivot to the Asia-Pacific is not just about the military, it is more about a strategic political and economic pivot, but in that part of the world political and economic pivots have to be underwritten by a credible defense capability. To be clear I don't think anyone is itching for a fight, but I do think the brinksmanship games being played out in the South China Sea can lead us into an undesired fight.

[Ray]

All I know is that China has spooked all its neighbours with its hegemonic pursuit based on various maps of disputable origin.

And like it or not, all are entering into the warm embrace of the US since they are aware that the US has no hegemonic pursuits and is merely ensuring her supremacy, which none bothers so long as they are not threatened by an all gobbling monster of a nation in the neighbourhood i.e. China!

China invaded and captured the territories of the 100 Yues and called them barbarians.

None wants that repeat!

Even Tibetans and Uighurs are trying their best to remain what they are and not get assimilated as Hans as the 100 Yue!

[Fuchs]

Those disputed maps are not official government stuff, we should discern sharply between private jingoism and the regime's policy.

My impression of the post-'79 "Let first a few get rich" era PRC is that the regime is primarily focused on (its own) stability and secondarily focused on the development of the nation.

They may very well crack down on irrational jingoists if they begin to restrict the regime's freedom of action or degrade its stability.

-----

India has rabid and delusional jingoists as well, and doesn't appear to transfer this into actual foreign policy either.

[Ray]

They may very well crack down on irrational jingoists if they begin to restrict the regime's freedom of action or degrade its stability.


That is the crux.

CCP über alles!

[Backwards Observer]

CCP uber alles!

Oh, the irony.



Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsfuhrer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the Final Solution, or The Holocaust, told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing - he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna

[Surferbeetle]

That is the crux.

CCP uber alles!

Tut, tut Sir!

Surely the world's largest, most well trained, and best staffed armed forces can thread the needle and find the path to harmony and world peace that has eluded all others? :eek: :D :D :D

Armied to the hilt (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/armed-forces), Jul 19th 2011, 11:19 by The Economist online


In absolute numbers, rich and populous countries such as America, China and India keep the biggest militaries. Countries that have seen war (Iran, Vietnam) or are situated in strife-torn regions such as the Middle East also feature prominently.

[Dayuhan]

I think we (collectively) over play the existential threat card. I assume that means we're talking about a threat that can physically destroy us and/or replace our government when we refer to this type of threat? In that case Russia and China with their nuclear weapons (assuming they can actually deliver them) are the only existential threats we face from nation-states at this time, but other existential threats would include infectious disease, and perhaps some environmental disasters. Did I capture your intent of existential correctly?

To an extent yes, but it's also worth asking if China is an existential threat to anyone else.

I wouldn't say there's no reason for concern over China's emergence, but pushing concern to the level of fear, panic, or howls of impending doom is not beneficial and is not going to be a basis for sound decisions. China's emergence is a fact of life, it involves risks and opportunities, and it's not something that can be prevented. As always the world changes, as always the changes have to be managed. Excessive focus on presumed threat can lead to overreactive policy and do more harm than good. A little perspective and a good deal of calm are called for.


I'm making an argument that China is an economic threat to the South East Asian nations, and economic interests throughout history have generally been worth going to war over, so I think the risk of conflict in the region is increasing.

To some extent yes, but the level and potential impact of that threat have to be realistically assessed, and the tendency toward hysteria needs to be repressed. There may be an increased risk of conflict. Certainly there's a real risk of an incident, but none of the parties involved have shown any sign of interest in escalating an incident into war.


I also think China's internal instability and its growing nationalism with many of its citizens demanding their state teach countries like Vietnam and the Philippines a lesson is of concern. Increasing nationalism almost always seems to lead to irrational decisions (in hindsight), whether those countries were Germany, Japan, Russia, or the U.S..

Certainly the Chinese government is trying to foster some nationalism... that's a course governments often take when they see domestic problems looming on the horizon.

I'm not convinced that "many of their citizens" are actually calling for anyone to be taught a lesson. Certainly there are well publicized comments to that effect, but whether it's indicative of popular demand or simply an orchestrated good cop/bad cop game is another question.

Overall, certainly there are grouinds for concern, but overreaction will do more harm than good. At any given point what's needed is not threat-centered hysteria and vast plans for containment, but a focus on what specific actions we want to deter or control and what can reasonably be done to achieve that goal. That's opinion, of course.

I also suspect that if ASEAN wants to "counter" China they should try a little economic clout. ASEAN combined would be the 9th largest economy in the world, with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of India. They do a lot of business with China, and if they acted coherently could provide substantial incentives and disincentives.


When you what do we fear, I assume you mean the U.S.? In that case I think we fear losing the peace in the region, which in turn would have a significant impact on our economy. I think we also are concerned about losing influence in the region, which again could have a severe impact on our economy.

These are very generic fears. I was thinking more in terms of what specific actions we're afraid of. What do we not want the Chinese to do, specifically, and what can we do to deter or respond to those undesired actions?

"Influence is a fairly nebulous word with a great deal of definitional variation, but if we say influence is the ability to persuade others to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, how much influence do we have in SE Asia now? The extent to which beneficial economic relations require influence is greatly debatable: many countries enjoy profitable trading relations in areas where they have nbo special influence and certainly no military capability (e.g. trade between the EU and East Asia). The idea that we have to have military supremacy n order to maintain mutually profitable economic relations needs to be reassessed.

Yes, there's tension over territorial claims in the SCS. There's a good possibility of a shooting incident, a much lower possibility of escalation. That's a concern, but really, how much of a threat is involved, to anyone in the picture? Wouldn't the possibility of US overreaction be among the potential triggers for wider conflict?

It's tense. It's been that way a while, and it will be that way for a while yet, no matter what we do. There's no easy or obvious way to change that. The question is what exactly is the nature of the threat and what reasonable steps can be taken to manage it. I don't think anyone has an easy or good answer to that question, but Sinophobic hysteria, though it may be politically advantageous in some quarters, is not likely to help.


To be clear I don't think anyone is itching for a fight, but I do think the brinksmanship games being played out in the South China Sea can lead us into an undesired fight.

Only if we let it. Our choice.


And like it or not, all are entering into the warm embrace of the US since they are aware that the US has no hegemonic pursuits and is merely ensuring her supremacy, which none bothers so long as they are not threatened by an all gobbling monster of a nation in the neighbourhood i.e. China!

The juxtaposition of hegemony and supremacy is amusing, might want to look up some definitions there.

I don't see anyone "entering into the warm embrace of the US", that's a huge exaggeration. The Vietnamese have been thawing out with the US for a while; certainly they're playing a balance but they aren't only playing with the Us, they're also involved with Russia, India, and others. They aren't taking the US side, they're taking their own side.

The Philippines has tried to work the situation in a couple of ways. They've tried to get the US to back them up in territorial disputes, but failed. They've tried to get the US to promise cut-rate military equipment, and also failed: despite all the rhetoric, the only approved deal is one that's been on the cards a long time.

Of course the nations in the region are playing the big powers off against each other, and of course the balance of that game changes according to the interests of the moment. To suggest that they are running under the skirts of the US in squealing panic is a huge exaggerstion.

[carl]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s). The Soviet Union was shattered economically and bled white during the late 40's. It didn't take "the bomb" to extort East Europe from Stalin, Truman could have done it easily with a delayed demob of the army (including U.S.A.A.F.) in Europe.

The country would not have stood for that. Truman or anybody else had no choice. Saying we have to keep everybody in uniform to threaten the Russkis after we had just spent the past 4 years saying what wonderful fellows they were would not have gone over at all.

[carl]

Vietnam has a quite capable military, far beyond that of the Philippines, but the Chinese still harass their energy exploration ships and their fishermen. It's not likely that buying a few more ships or planes is going to alter the equation much.

Six Kilo class submarines in the Vietnamese navy will alter the equation rather a lot, especially if they can make cooperative arrangements with us. That is a lot of SSKs. The Royal Navy only has 7 SSNs. A lot will depend on the quality of the crews and how much time they have to work up the boats. By the way, does anybody know who is going to be helping them with the training?

I think that purchase makes it clear that the Vietnamese are concerned about Red China's intentions and they are not inclined to fool around too much.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Bill Moore said this.
"To be clear I don't think anyone is itching for a fight, but I do think the brinksmanship games being played out in the South China Sea can lead us into an undesired fight."

You responded with this.

"Only if we let it. Our choice."

Who comprises "Our"?

[Ray]

If China is not an existential threat to anyone else then why is every other country trying to counter it?

Vietnam is indeed looking after her interest as every other country of the region - to prevent themselves from being gobbled up. And Vietnam has a history of Chinese imperialism attempting to tuck Vietnam in as a part of the Han Empire. Therefore, they know best what China and Hans are capable of.

To look after her interest she is taking US help and US is not too queasy or choosy about giving that help since that also ensures that her aims are fulfilled.

If any country is squealing, it is China. I am sure the squeals have been regularly seen in the public domain!

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,


Of course the nations in the region are playing the big powers off against each other, and of course the balance of that game changes according to the interests of the moment. To suggest that they are running under the skirts of the US in squealing panic is a huge exaggerstion.

The way you phrased it is an exaggeration, what Ray wrote (as you noted) is:

Posted by Ray


And like it or not, all are entering into the warm embrace of the US since they are aware that the US has no hegemonic pursuits and is merely ensuring her supremacy, which none bothers so long as they are not threatened by an all gobbling monster of a nation in the neighbourhood i.e. China!

Bob's World pretty much said the same when he wrote,


US influence rises on the tide of Chinese power.

I don't agree with all the historical comparisons, the China of today isn't the China of even 30 years ago, much less 300 years ago. The world has also changed, so the context that shapes their decisions (and all others) has also changed.

In many ways we're on new ground (or waters), and it is dangerously misleading to assume these incidents don't have new meaning in today's world. China's actions, more than any others that I can currently discern, have prompted a regional arms race. Maybe that is good for those who produce the arms, and maybe the arms race will result in more stability rather than less. If you need to deal with a state that has a credible military, then diplomacy usually becomes more appealing.

I don't have a crystal ball, but the future will not solely be determined by U.S. or China policy, a lot of other nations have a vote.

[Dayuhan]

Six Kilo class submarines in the Vietnamese navy will alter the equation rather a lot... By the way, does anybody know who is going to be helping them with the training?

India to help train Vietnam in submarine operations

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-15/india/30159288_1_bilateral-defence-cooperation-submarine-vietnamese-navy


Vietnam is indeed looking after her interest...
To look after her interest she is taking US help and US is not too queasy or choosy about giving that help since that also ensures that her aims are fulfilled.

What help has Vietnam asked for or received from the US?

[Bill Moore]

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/special-report/17459/vietnam-china-relations-in-the-eye-of-a-senior-diplomat.html


There are three stories in the East Sea which are all important.

The first: Paracel Islands belong to Vietnam. Vietnamese were present there for many years but the archipelago is no longer in our hands.

The second: we were also present on the Spratly Islands for a long time but in 1988, China occupied some islands in this archipelago.

The third: the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone of Vietnam are defined under the international law, especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), which were signed by both Vietnam and China. But China drafts the so-called U-shaped line in the East Sea, which encroaches the territorial waters of other countries.

Everything that is related to sovereignty is all important.

Much more at the link.

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/special-report/17743/the-difference-of-vietnam-us-relations-in-senior-diplomat-s-eyes.html


Thirdly, many powerful countries focus on this region, including the US, China, Japan, Russia and India. When big countries group up in this region, it becomes significant. That’s geopolitics.

Regards to geo-economics, this is the crossroad of international transport routes, through Malacca strait. In the current situation, materials and energy have become very important.

Now people emphasize the return of the US but actually, America has never left this region. It is not by chance that the US has conducted three wars here: the Pacific War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Much more of importance in the interview, but I couldn't pass quoting this passage :D


I’ve just talked with American Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear. When I asked him about the difference between Asian and Western people, he said that instead of difference in lifestyle and thought, there are still common things very deep inside for the two to talk about. He added that if the two sides want to understand each other and try to do that, they would surely understand. Do you agree?

Simply, the American like Gin, the British like Whisky, the French like Cognac while the Vietnamese like rice wine.

They are different but they are all alcohol and everyone likes drinking alcohol.

The common value is general but the character is different.

so true

[Ray]

What help has Vietnam asked for or received from the US?

The US Vietnam naval exercise produced caution on China.

If that is not help, what is?

A war?

India is sending a naval goodwill mission of four destroyers to visit friendly nations in SCS.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250005924

Indicates much without being said!

[Ray]

Now people emphasize the return of the US but actually, America has never left this region. It is not by chance that the US has conducted three wars here: the Pacific War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

That says a lot, does it?

And it is no longer the slogan - Dollar Imperialism.

That also says a lot! ;)

[Ray]

Quote:
I’ve just talked with American Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear. When I asked him about the difference between Asian and Western people, he said that instead of difference in lifestyle and thought, there are still common things very deep inside for the two to talk about. He added that if the two sides want to understand each other and try to do that, they would surely understand. Do you agree?

Simply, the American like Gin, the British like Whisky, the French like Cognac while the Vietnamese like rice wine.

They are different but they are all alcohol and everyone likes drinking alcohol.

The common value is general but the character is different.

Absolutely on the ball!

Freedom and Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty is the same for all!

Bullies and expansionists have to be kept at bay!

In storm weather - Ukku ukku - any port will do! Nothing wrong in siding with the US. They are not lepers in geopolitics of today, or are they? Let the Chinese fans answer that.

The Chinese fans, supporters, agents and converts can spew any pious platitudes and homilies what they want in the true Chinese style of piety, but survival has a different language that can see through the pious chicanery and hegemonic desires!

The situation can be summed up with what Patrick Henry had said - "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

And what the Sikhs would cry -Wah Guru de Khalsa, Wah Guru de Fateh!

[Backwards Observer]

Speaking of the Merlion City, from a couple months ago:


Singapore's Foreign Minister K Shanmugam has warned the United States against anti-China rhetoric:

[...]

There is also a tendency, he added, in the media, to portray politics in ''win-lose sporting terms'' and the US engagement in Asia ''as a means to contain China''.

''Such rhetoric is a mistake on many levels,'' he said. ''The world and Asia are big enough to accommodate a rising China and a reinvigorated US.''

Singapore warns US against anti-China election rhetoric (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16958611) - BBC - Feb 9, 2012.

Not sure what he's worried about here, as the dialogue is generously populated with China sympathisers, camp followers and those who paint China as pure as the driven snow. More to the point, it's probably a given that no commenter on SWC, in attempting to put forth an argument, would wittingly stoop to a continuous loop of goalpost-shifting nincompoopery and specious exaggeration, periodically laced with vapid expressions of soft bigotry and overly-biased ignorance.

[Backwards Observer]

The Chinese fans, supporters, agents and converts can spew any pious platitudes and homilies what they want in the true Chinese style of piety, but survival has a different language that can see through the pious chicanery and hegemonic desires!

The situation can be summed up with what Patrick Henry had said - "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

And what the Sikhs would cry -Wah Guru de Khalsa, Wah Guru de Fateh!

I stand corrected.

[Ray]

Interesting that Shanmugan and his Chinese head allows two US naval warship to berth permanently in Singapore!

[Ray]

Speaking of the Merlion City, from a couple months ago:



Singapore warns US against anti-China election rhetoric (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16958611) - BBC - Feb 9, 2012.

Not sure what he's worried about here, as the dialogue is generously populated with China sympathisers, camp followers and those who paint China as pure as the driven snow. More to the point, it's probably a given that no commenter on SWC, in attempting to put forth an argument, would wittingly stoop to a continuous loop of goalpost-shifting nincompoopery and specious exaggeration, periodically laced with vapid expressions of soft bigotry and overly-biased ignorance.

Nice adjectives, adverbs and whole lot of English grammar thrown in to say a simple point!

Good to see you angry and not with smart innuendos for a change.

Thank Heavens you are now talking turkey!

Learn to take the thick with the thin.

No goal post have been shifted. The goalpost are where they are. Hallucination or effect of depressants may make one feel so!

Han cultural supremacy has been seen through.

Manchus may have succumbed but not all are Manchus, what ho?

Ignorance?

Speaking to yourself?

The facts are on the table.

No peripheral state will accept Chinese hegemony on fake maps or show of muscle!

Is that too hard to understand?

[Backwards Observer]

Interesting that Shanmugan and his Chinese head allows two US naval warship to berth permanently in Singapore!

Is this of the same level of interest indicated by China's status as India's largest trading partner or of a different sort, given that Singapore is predominantly, well...you know...Chinese?

India and China set $100bn trade target by 2015. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12006092) - BBC - December 16, 2010.

[Ray]

Remember how China covers selling weapons to rogue regime as Mugabwe and Sudan?

China 'NEVER interferes with the internal politics of a country'.

Indeed, even if they kill their own with Chinese weapons and aircraft!!

Ever so pious!

[Ray]

Is this of the same level of interest indicated by China's status as India's largest trading partner or of a different sort, given that Singapore is predominantly, well...you know...Chinese?

India and China set $100bn trade target by 2015. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12006092) - BBC - December 16, 2010.

Trade will continue.

But thwarting hegemony is another issue!

Have you not read how China is furious that India is arming itself to include adding two division on the border, apart from US 155mm Light Howitzers?

[Backwards Observer]

Nice adjectives to say a simple point!

Learn to take the thick with the thin.

No goal post have been shifted. The goalpost are where they are. Hallucination or effect of depressants may make one feel so!

Han cultural supremacy has been seen through.

Manchus may have succumbed but not all are Manchus, what ho?

Ignorance?

Speaking to yourself?

The facts are on the table.

No peripheral state will accept Chinese hegemony on fake maps or show of muscle!

Is that too hard to understand?

Well said, Ray. Your swelling rhetorical priapism can only be admired by those less well-endowed.

[Ray]

Well said, Ray. Your swelling rhetorical priapism can only be admired by those less well-endowed.

Thank you.

You are ever so magnanimous in your pious offerings!

Left handed compliments in English and speaking from both sides of the mouth in American!

Nonetheless, thanks!

[Backwards Observer]

Thank you.

You are ever so magnanimous in your pious offerings!

Left handed compliments in English and speaking from both sides of the mouth in American!

Nonetheless, thanks!

You're welcome. A toast to your continuing efforts to plumb the depths of integrity whilst scaling the heights of incoherence.

[carl]

India to help train Vietnam in submarine operations

Now that is interesting. It raises the question of how good the Indian Navy submarine service is. Ray, do you know?



What help has Vietnam asked for or received from the US?

I read something last year of Special Forces doing some training but I couldn't find the reference. There is the continuing series of USN port visits. Other than that, I don't know.

[Ray]

The Indian submarine Arm is pretty good and we have experience on western and Russian subs including nuclear subs.

[Ray]

U.S., Vietnam Hold Talks Amid China Concerns

HANOI: Former foes Vietnam and the United States on Aug. 17 stepped up cooperation by holding their first high-level defense dialogue, amid concerns over China's military build-up.

Robert Scher, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, met Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh, Vietnam's deputy minister of defense, for talks in Hanoi on ways to enhance cooperation by the two sides, they said.

The talks - 15 years after normalization of diplomatic relations - represented "the next significant historic step in our increasingly robust defense relationship which is based on mutual trust, understanding and respect for independence and sovereignty," Scher told reporters.

Previous security talks, which started in 2008, were held at the foreign ministry and State Department level.

"I did share at the meeting our impressions of Chinese military modernization," Scher told reporters at a joint news conference with Vinh.

On Aug. 16, the U.S. Defense Department, in an annual report to Congress, said China was ramping up investment in an array of areas including nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, submarines, aircraft carriers and cyber warfare.

The report predicted China may step up patrols in the South China Sea, an area where Vietnam and China have conflicting territorial claims.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month said resolution of those territorial disputes - which also involve other nations - was "pivotal" to regional stability.

A U.S. Navy destroyer last week became the latest U.S. warship to dock in Vietnam since the war ended in 1975.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20674

[Surferbeetle]

In Rise and Fall of China’s Bo Xilai, an Arc of Ruthlessness (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/world/asia/in-rise-and-fall-of-chinas-bo-xilai-a-ruthless-arc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig), By MICHAEL WINES
Published: May 6, 2012, NYT


As recently as January, Mr. Bo was aiming for the pinnacle of Chinese political power, a seat on the nine-member Politburo’s Standing Committee, when the Communist Party’s leadership begins a generational turnover this autumn. He was a fixation for the news media and foreign leaders, the handsome convention-flouter who was breaking the calcified mold of China’s leadership caste.


Today, Mr. Bo’s fall has transfixed the world. He is suspended from the Politburo, under investigation for “serious violations” of Communist Party rules and being held incommunicado at an unknown location. His wife, Gu Kailai, long known for her own zealous ambition, stands accused by party investigators of murdering a British family friend, Neil Heywood, in a dispute over money. Neither Mr. Bo nor Ms. Gu have been given an opportunity to defend themselves publicly.

For all his success, the seeds of Mr. Bo’s destruction were evident long ago to many of those who knew him. He was a man of prodigious charisma and deep intelligence, someone who not only possessed the family pedigree and network of allies that are crucial in Chinese politics, but who had also mastered the image-massaging and strategic use of public cash that fuel every Western politician’s rise.

But Mr. Bo’s undisputed talents were counterbalanced by what friends and critics alike say was an insatiable ambition and studied indifference to the wrecked lives that littered his path to power. Little is known about career maneuvers in China’s cloistered leadership elite, but those who study the topic say that Mr. Bo’s ruthlessness stood out, even in a system where the absence of formal rules ensures that only the strongest advance.

“Nobody really trusts him: a lot of people are scared of him, including several princelings who are supposed to be his power base,” said Cheng Li, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The so-called princelings — like Mr. Bo, offspring of China’s first revolutionary leaders — remain a powerful, though fragmented, force in China’s internal politics.

[Dayuhan]

Bob's World pretty much said the same when he wrote,


US influence rises on the tide of Chinese power.


I'm not actually sure that US influence is rising in the area. Certainly many of the players are trying to influence the US, with varying and generally limited degrees of success, but where has US influence gained... at least if we define "influence" as the ability to get people to do things that you want them to do that they would not have done on their own? Over whom has our influence grown?


In many ways we're on new ground (or waters), and it is dangerously misleading to assume these incidents don't have new meaning in today's world. China's actions, more than any others that I can currently discern, have prompted a regional arms race. Maybe that is good for those who produce the arms, and maybe the arms race will result in more stability rather than less. If you need to deal with a state that has a credible military, then diplomacy usually becomes more appealing.

Is there a "regional arms race"? Who's racing? The Vietnamese have been spending steadily for a long time, but they aren't really in an "arms race" with China. The Philippines is one of the lowest military spenders on the planet (as % of GDP), even with two significant insurgencies to deal with. Elsewhere in SE Asia I don't see anything resembling an arms race. Most of the countries in the region have been modernizing their militaries to some extent, but not to a greater extent than similarly emerging nations do anywhere else in the world.

The only SE Asian country that seems to be gearing up for potential conflict with China is Vietnam, understandable given the history. Even there, it looks like they aim not to be able to go head to head with China, but to convince the Chinese that conflict would be more costly than it's worth. The subs are the most visible item, but the Vietnamese have also invested heavily in land-based missile systems that could be a real threat to Chinese shipping in the event of conflict.


I don't have a crystal ball, but the future will not solely be determined by U.S. or China policy, a lot of other nations have a vote.

Very much true; this is not about the US facing off with China and others taking sides.


The US Vietnam naval exercise produced caution on China.

If that is not help, what is?

Did anything produce caution on the part of China? Who said the Chinese were being cautious? I thought they were being reckless and engaging in brinksmanship? Can't be both...

I doubt that the Chinese are much concerned over US/Vietnamese joint exercises, any more than they are concerned with US/Philippine exercises. They know the US isn't going to take sides on SCS territorial claims; the US has said so many times.


Nothing wrong in siding with the US.

As I said above, I don't see anyone "siding with the US". The US is a rather peripheral player in this picture; it's not like there's a "US side" and a "China side" and nations have to line up with one or the other. A few countries are trying to maneuver the US into taking their side, but the US doesn't seem keen on doing that, understandably.


Now that is interesting. It raises the question of how good the Indian Navy submarine service is. Ray, do you know?

If even a fraction of what we read about the state of the Russian Navy is true, the Vietnamese are likely better off learning from the Indians.

Even as all this goes on, we see one possible approach to energy exploration issues...

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=804803&publicationSubCategoryId=63


Philex eyes Chinese partner in Recto Bank

MANILA, Philippines - The group of businessman Manuel Pangilinan is negotiating with one of China’s biggest firms for possible oil and gas exploration in Recto Bank, which is near the disputed Spratly Islands.

Highly placed sources said Pangilinan flew to Beijing a few days ago to meet with officials of the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp. for a possible joint venture in Recto Bank in Western Palawan. CNOOC is China’s biggest offshore oil and gas producer.

The Pangilinan-led Philex Petroleum is also in talks with other foreign oil industry giants for the development of the resource-rich Recto Bank. Sources also said prospects for a China project are high for Philex-controlled Forum Energy Plc....

[carl]

Here is a Bill Gertz article describing dueling viewpoints concerning Red China's rise in power. The duel is between the accommodate Red China at all costs people because they are basically reasonable people and those who view Red China's motivations and intentions a bit more skeptically.

http://freebeacon.com/panda-war/

The article Surferbeetle cited is one reason I don't trust those guys. Their internal politics are cutthroat, literally. They kill each other. I don't see how they can act one way at home and not act the same way when dealing with foreigners when things get a little tight.

[tequila]

They kill each other. I don't see how they can act one way at home and not act the same way when dealing with foreigners when things get a little tight.

Note that the U.S. does not act the same way overseas as we do at home with our domestic politics. We often do not hesitate to attack or kill foreigners who disagree with us, especially post WWII, but we behave differently at home.

China, OTOH, behaves very circumspectly in the foreign arena. Also note that Chinese politics has become far less bloody nowadays than in the days from 1948-1978, when bloody purges and imprisonment were commonplace. The reason why the Bo Xilai case has blown up in the international media is because it looks a bit like a throwback to those days, despite the fact that the actual body count is tiny, even if you assume that all of corruption targets in Bo's tribunals were innocent.

[Ray]

I'm not actually sure that US influence is rising in the area. Certainly many of the players are trying to influence the US, with varying and generally limited degrees of success, but where has US influence gained... at least if we define "influence" as the ability to get people to do things that you want them to do that they would not have done on their own? Over whom has our influence grown?

I would say that the US has made a great impression and has totally influenced India. The US influence is palpable. Hardly anyone talks of socialism or are enamoured by the legatees of the USSR i.e. Russia!

The Indian Communist parties which were the second largest at one time, has been reduced to such a state that they might lose the status of being a recognised national party! If that is not US influence, I wonder what is!

India, BTW, does have some influence in the region and that matters to the US.

The fact that Vietnam is making friendly overtures to the US is no small indication of the US influence spreading.

Influence is not only the ability of getting people to do things you want, it also means getting people not to oppose what you wish to achieve. That is the subtle difference.






Is there a "regional arms race"? Who's racing? The Vietnamese have been spending steadily for a long time, but they aren't really in an "arms race" with China. The Philippines is one of the lowest military spenders on the planet (as % of GDP), even with two significant insurgencies to deal with. Elsewhere in SE Asia I don't see anything resembling an arms race. Most of the countries in the region have been modernizing their militaries to some extent, but not to a greater extent than similarly emerging nations do anywhere else in the world.

The Chinese interest spilling into the Indian Ocean to ensure that her trade routes are sanitised automatically hyphenates the Pacific region with the Indian Ocean rim.

In the Pacific Indian Ocean region, there definitely is an arms race. Modernising militaries automatically leads to an arms race. Modernising militaries in volatile regions can never be taken as routine or altruistic!

There is nothing like low spending or high spending for defence. It depends on the Threat and the money available in the Exchequer.


Did anything produce caution on the part of China? Who said the Chinese were being cautious? I thought they were being reckless and engaging in brinksmanship? Can't be both...

I doubt that the Chinese are much concerned over US/Vietnamese joint exercises, any more than they are concerned with US/Philippine exercises. They know the US isn't going to take sides on SCS territorial claims; the US has said so many times.

The fact that high level of hostilities including cutting cables and ramming shipping is no longer taking place is indicative that caution has been enforced. Ramming shipping and cutting cables that they were doing surely is not only reckless, but downright haughty and stamping its hegemonic pursuits in the area.

I will not keep reproducing links, but if you had seen them, you would have seen that China not only undertook shrill indignation and protests, but also gave lessons on piety and morality to the US on exercises being undertaken by the US in the area.

If the US was not taking sides, why have exercises with the two Nations who were in confrontation with China on SCS? If that type of display of military might and solidarity is not taking sides, then what is? Of course, you will say it was all routine. Are the areas where these routine exercises took place the same? That should also be routine so that it does not send a wrong message. And, why did the US exercise with Vietnam? Was that also routine?

I daresay US is ever going to say that they are taking sides. Though it is axiomatic that US had to take sides with the Philippines because they have a Treaty. The very Treaty is indicative of 'taking sides'.

Why move a token force to North Australia? Why not in the deep South in Tasmania if it were an innocent move?






As I said above, I don't see anyone "siding with the US". The US is a rather peripheral player in this picture; it's not like there's a "US side" and a "China side" and nations have to line up with one or the other. A few countries are trying to maneuver the US into taking their side, but the US doesn't seem keen on doing that, understandably.

I wonder if you read President Obama speech on US strategic interests moving to the Pacific Asia rim.

Countries are not trying to manoeuvre anyone, to include the US. It is just that their national interest are converging.

[davidbfpo]

Just a thought concerning recent incidents in SCS, which involved Chinese non-military vessels IIRC; using the label maritime safety / fishery protection etc. Is it possible that the actions are not politically directed, nor ordered via the military command structure?

Having read a couple of blog-sites comments sections there is clearly a vocal nationalist streak, which could enable non-naval captains to take individual action aware that criticism, let alone disciplinary action is unlikely.

[carl]

Note that the U.S. does not act the same way overseas as we do at home with our domestic politics. We often do not hesitate to attack or kill foreigners who disagree with us, especially post WWII, but we behave differently at home.

China, OTOH, behaves very circumspectly in the foreign arena. Also note that Chinese politics has become far less bloody nowadays than in the days from 1948-1978, when bloody purges and imprisonment were commonplace. The reason why the Bo Xilai case has blown up in the international media is because it looks a bit like a throwback to those days, despite the fact that the actual body count is tiny, even if you assume that all of corruption targets in Bo's tribunals were innocent.

If you mean by "disagree", those who attack us or our allies (the invasion of Iraq being an outlier [I figure I should use a with it buzz word once in a while] case) I would agree with your first paragraph. But they normally, normally mind you, have to attack us first.

The Red Chinese have behaved circumspectly in the foreign area, if you don't count all the shoving and pushing at sea, the buildup of military might-at a high rate-in the absence of any threat and all the tough talk. What circumspection they have shown is in my view, a result of simple lack of power. Now that they have power, I don't think they will be so circumspect.

That ChiCom politics has become less bloody is not reassuring. It is still bloody and nobody knows exactly how it works. And Red Chinese politics aren't confined to internal party struggles for power. You have to include the treatment of people, millions, who incur the displeasure of those in authority, local, regional and national. Not kindly treated they are.

The problem is you have a brutal police state with a power and the power is growing. Looking back on the history of brutal police states with power, I don't see any good reason for optimism.

[tequila]

If you mean by "disagree", those who attack us or our allies (the invasion of Iraq being an outlier [I figure I should use a with it buzz word once in a while] case) I would agree with your first paragraph. But they normally, normally mind you, have to attack us first.


Not always the case. See Guatemala, Iran, Chile, etc.


The Red Chinese have behaved circumspectly in the foreign area, if you don't count all the shoving and pushing at sea, the buildup of military might-at a high rate-in the absence of any threat and all the tough talk. What circumspection they have shown is in my view, a result of simple lack of power. Now that they have power, I don't think they will be so circumspect.

One could ask what the existential threat exists for the United States to maintain the world's largest military establishment by a factor of five, I suppose. The U.S. also supplies plenty of "tough talk" to go with actions like the invasion of Iraq and aerial campaigns against Libya, Serbia, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

This is not to say that the Chinese are wonderful peaceniks and the U.S. is an aggressive warmonger. Simply noting that the idea that the state of domestic political debate within a country is not always a good marker of violent aggression in foreign policy.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,


Is there a "regional arms race"? Who's racing?

Many disagree with you.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/embassy-row-arms-race-in-asia/


Asia is in the “early phases of an arms race,” with many nations increasing their military forces as dangerous disputes on land and sea pose potential flashpoints, Australian Ambassador Kim Beazley warns.



Mr. Beazley noted the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea, where Beijing is claiming vast expanses of ocean as its territorial waters and challenging claims by other nations.

“Every single country in Southeast Asia has a maritime dispute with its neighbor,” he said.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/southeast-asia-s-widening-arms-race


Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has perhaps been the most assertive. In addition to becoming more active in world diplomacy, Yudhoyono will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this month to discuss buying Russia’s newest fighter jets. Indonesia is seeking to form an air-defense squadron of 12 jets, with eight Russian fighters to complement the two Russian Su-27SK’s and Su-30MKM’s that it has already bought.

Elsewhere in the region, Singapore has apparently opted to purchase 12 new F-15SG fighter aircraft from the United States. Thailand’s Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, met Putin late last year and tentatively agreed to purchase 12 Su-30MKM’s. Malaysia has agreed to buy 18 Su-30MKM’s over the next two years, while Vietnam has purchased 36 SU-27SK’s, 12 of which are already in service.

[Fuchs]

A couple countries in the region have come to new prosperity, that's likely a major driver of whatever "arms race" happens in East Asia.

For some irrational reason, the supposed need for military expenditures does not correspond so much with actual threats (that's mostly lip service), but with fiscal strength.

Just look at Greece - suddenly 25% less need for national defence expenditures.

[Firn]

Note that the U.S. does not act the same way overseas as we do at home with our domestic politics. We often do not hesitate to attack or kill foreigners who disagree with us, especially post WWII, but we behave differently at home.

China, OTOH, behaves very circumspectly in the foreign arena. Also note that Chinese politics has become far less bloody nowadays than in the days from 1948-1978, when bloody purges and imprisonment were commonplace. The reason why the Bo Xilai case has blown up in the international media is because it looks a bit like a throwback to those days, despite the fact that the actual body count is tiny, even if you assume that all of corruption targets in Bo's tribunals were innocent.

We humans and our institutions are pretty handy at compartmentalizing. All in all I do agree with you, it is very important to keep the proportions in mind. For Chinese standards this is a big fish but a quite lonely one.

[jmm99]

for pointing to the Bill Gertz article, which is based on Michael Pillsbury (not previously mentioned in any SWC post before this one). Pillsbury is certainly qualified to speak to Sino-American issues - Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pillsbury) and His Story (http://www.michaelpillsbury.net/pillsburybiography.php) - snip from the latter (emphasis added):


Born in California in 1945, Pillsbury was educated at Stanford University (B.A. in History with Honors in Social Thought) and Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). Major academic advisers to Pillsbury at Columbia were Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michel Oksenberg, who later played key roles in the Jimmy Carter administration on policy toward both China and Afghanistan. Pillsbury studied the art and practice of bureaucratic politics with Roger Hilsman, President John Kennedy's intelligence director at the State Department and the author of Politics Of Policy Making In Defense and Foreign Affairs. At Stanford, Pillsbury's academic mentor was Mark Mancall, author of two books on the influence of ancient traditions on Chinese foreign policy.

His website (in Publications (http://www.michaelpillsbury.net/pillsburypublications.php)) has a number of items for free downloading - two books and the RUSI report are:

China Debates the Future Security Environment (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/pills2/) (2000).

Chinese Views of Future Warfare (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/chinview/chinacont.html) (1998).

China and Taiwan - The American Debate (http://www.michaelpillsbury.net/articles/RUSI%20Journal_200904_Michael_Pillsbury.pdf) (2009).

Pillsbury is not without his detractors: e.g., Soyoung Ho (Washington Monthly assistant editor), Panda Slugger - The dubious scholarship of Michael Pillsbury, the China hawk with Rumsfeld's ear (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.ho1.html) (2006).

I report; you decide.

Ray makes a good point in this:


Influence is not only the ability of getting people to do things you want, it also means getting people not to oppose what you wish to achieve. That is the subtle difference.

That approach is far removed from the "You're either with us, or against us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us)" approach, which (dispite its biblical, historical and literary precedents) struck me as being a dumb and unrealistic foreign policy when Pres. Bush II said: ""Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (LINK (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)). To be fair, Ms Clinton said much the same a week before, ""Every nation has to either be with us, or against us." (LINK (http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html)).

Of course, respect for neutral nations is subject to the laws of neutrality; an exception to neutral status arises where the neutral state is unable or unwilling to deal with armed forces located within and hostile to a third party.

Briefly, back to China and going to one of Mike Pillsbury's books, China Debates the Future Security Environment - Prologue (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/pills2/part03.htm) (2000)


PROLOGUE: Ancient Lessons

To reduce the potential for misunderstanding or mirror imaging discussed in the preface, this prologue draws together examples from nine authors in five key research institutes who draw upon concepts from ancient statecraft. Their comments about the future security environment would be difficult to understand without extensive knowledge of the metaphors of Chinese ancient statecraft. The Chinese language is rich in idioms from ancient statecraft. Moreover, Chinese writing about the future security environment describes the future in terms of the Warring States era in Chinese history. (41) The age in which the classics of Chinese statecraft were produced was a time when a multistate competition to become "hegemon" featured stratagems, small wars, interstate conferences, treaties, and what Western scholars of international relations would label "anarchy." One set of "lessons" (among many) was how to become a hegemon; another was how to survive destruction at the hands of a predatory hegemon.

One specific Chinese premise from the ancient statecraft of the Warring States era seems to influence Chinese authors who write about the United States today--the concept of how to diagnose and deal with a powerful "hegemon" (ba) that seeks to dominate several other less powerful states. The way hegemons conducted themselves during the Warring States period of ancient China forms one of the sources of the classic lessons of Chinese statecraft. Unfortunately, lessons from Chinese statecraft about dealing with a predatory hegemon are little known in the West, and there is no guide for Westerners to the famous stories in Chinese traditional statecraft so well known to all our authors. (42) According to interviews with Chinese military officers, these stories are embedded in Chinese culture just as the West has its own history, its own literature, and its own Bible stories. This prologue selects only one subject among many from the lessons of the Warring States--how China in the future should assess and deal with a powerful hegemon.

41. The Warring States era (475-221 BC) was "the flowering age for the Chinese fable and exerted a definite influence on works of later centuries," according to K. L. Kiu, 100 Ancient Chinese Fables (Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press, 1993), 8.

42. A forthcoming study for OSD Net Assessment discusses Chinese military writings published since 1993 on the contemporary relevance of ancient Chinese statecraft, including the following books: Sanshiliu ji gujin tan (Ancient and modern discussions on the 36 stratagems), Zhisheng taolue--Sun Zi zhanzheng zhixing guanlun (Strategies of superiority--Sun Zi's views on knowledge and action in war), Bu zhan er qu ren zhi bing--Zhongguo gudai xinlizhan sixiang ji qi yunyong (Conquest without combat--ancient Chinese psychological warfare thought and usage), Zhongguo lidai zhanzheng gailan (An outline of warfare in past Chinese dynasties), Quanmou shu--Shujia yu yingjia de jiaoliang (Power stratagems--a contest of losers and winners), Sun Zi bingfa yu sanshiliu ji (Sun Zi's the art of war and the thirty-six stratagems), Zhongguo gudai bingfa jingcui (The essence of the ancient Chinese Art of war), Sun Zi bingfa de diannao yanjiu (Computer studies on Sun Zi's the art of war), and Ershiwu li junshi moulue gushi jingxuan (A selection of 25 stories on ancient military strategy).

The pop quiz question is what major period followed the Warring States period. Answer: "The Glory of the Hans" 1919 Mao, etc.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Not always the case. See Guatemala, Iran, Chile, etc.

Well no. If you are talking about Guatemala, there was an insurgency that was perceived to be contrary to our interests in that it would have replaced a gov that existed with one that had been less nice for us to have around. Chile, I figure the Chileans would have done what they did on their own. We were happy to see it though. In neither case did the Marines land.

But arguing over that is pointless because it detracts from the main point.


This is not to say that the Chinese are wonderful peaceniks and the U.S. is an aggressive warmonger. Simply noting that the idea that the state of domestic political debate within a country is not always a good marker of violent aggression in foreign policy.

That is getting closer to the main point. I will grant you that the state of domestic political debate within a country is not always a good marker of violent aggression in foreign policy. However in Red China, we are not talking about political debate, we are talking about a violently repressive police state, where you have a very real chance of getting killed if you cross the authorities. And as Ray noted we are not exclusively talking about violent aggression. A lot of things can be done with the threat of violent aggression. If you play your cards right, all you need is the threat.

The main point is this. Red China is a murderously repressive violent police state. Their gov is directly responsible for more human suffering and death than any other since the end of the Second World War, almost all of those being Chinese, their own people. Those deaths were not accidental. They were the result of conscious and deliberate actions. The entity that made those decisions and carried out the actions that resulted in those deaths is the Communist Party. They are still running the country and will be running the country. That is the history.

I don't trust them to be reasonable people in their dealing with foreigners, not with that history. The history of the 20th century gives some justification for that distrust. Not perfect justification, but enough that I would play my bets that way. Add to this a rising military power not related to any demonstrated threat to their commerce. Add also their claims to a significant part of the world's ocean. Add also the shoving they do.

So that is the problem. You have a police state building up a lot of military power, pushing people around and making great huge claims on part of the high seas. I don't see this as portending a peaceful future for the world. The problem seems an obvious one to me.

[carl]

Just a thought concerning recent incidents in SCS, which involved Chinese non-military vessels IIRC; using the label maritime safety / fishery protection etc. Is it possible that the actions are not politically directed, nor ordered via the military command structure?

Having read a couple of blog-sites comments sections there is clearly a vocal nationalist streak, which could enable non-naval captains to take individual action aware that criticism, let alone disciplinary action is unlikely.

Doesn't that result in a de-facto national policy? If that were true, I am skeptical, the end is the same.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuchs


A couple countries in the region have come to new prosperity, that's likely a major driver of whatever "arms race" happens in East Asia.

For some irrational reason, the supposed need for military expenditures does not correspond so much with actual threats (that's mostly lip service), but with fiscal strength.

Just look at Greece - suddenly 25% less need for national defence expenditures.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f5f1d7be-9540-11e1-ad38-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uKrb7GDV


In a report released on Friday, the committee says: “Despite being Europe’s economic powerhouse, and having a large defence budget in absolute terms, Germany does not pull its weight in military operations.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0aab435c-6846-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1uKrb7GDV


The IISS noted that Asia was in the throes of a classic arms race between China and other states, reflecting rapid economic growth and the strategic uncertainty that dominates the region.

Most of the Asian nations mentioned have been expanding economically for years, and didn't increase their defense spending until relatively recently. While a lag time between economic expansion and defense spending is reasonable, many Asian nation, like many European nations, have been reluctant to increase defense spending fearing it could impact their economic growth. They, like many European nations, relied on the U.S. and other powers to underwrite security in the region. What changed? Why the surge in defense spending?

East Asian nations apparently don't think they have a partner that will underwrite their security, and/or as the AMB of Australia said every nation in the region has a disputed territorial claim in the South China Sea, so once again this isn't just about China.

It is far from irrational to correlate defense spending with defense concerns. Agreed it is hard to spend more on defense when you're broke, but Germany managed to do so prior to WWII, so I think it is a combination of economic ability and strategic concerns.

[tequila]

Well no. If you are talking about Guatemala, there was an insurgency that was perceived to be contrary to our interests in that it would have replaced a gov that existed with one that had been less nice for us to have around. Chile, I figure the Chileans would have done what they did on their own. We were happy to see it though. In neither case did the Marines land.

In the case of Guatemala, I was referring to Arbenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz). Though since you feel free to discard the case of Chile, I suppose this is not a valid case study of American use of force either. Ah well.



The main point is this. Red China is a murderously repressive violent police state. Their gov is directly responsible for more human suffering and death than any other since the end of the Second World War, almost all of those being Chinese, their own people. Those deaths were not accidental. They were the result of conscious and deliberate actions. The entity that made those decisions and carried out the actions that resulted in those deaths is the Communist Party. They are still running the country and will be running the country. That is the history.

You could also make the argument that the Communist Party in China has engineered the most successful poverty reduction program in history in the past thirty years, with a correspondingly massive increase in living standards and life expectancy. That is also the history.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+life+expectancy

I'll go back to my main point being that one cannot prejudge foreign policy goals and methods of a government based solely on how morally backward you believe that regime to be. The proper judgment is based on the cross section of national interest, political/strategic goals, and economic and military capability.

[carl]

You could also make the argument that the Communist Party in China has engineered the most successful poverty reduction program in history in the past thirty years, with a correspondingly massive increase in living standards and life expectancy. That is also the history.

True I guess. But if you go back a few more years you trip over a few million bodies. The people who run the place are a product of the Party, which produced those few million bodies. They managed to change their economic outlook a little bit. They are still unrepentant killers though.

The fact that Red China is richer than before doesn't make them any less a repressive police state and all that means for other countries that have to deal with them.


I'll go back to my main point being that one cannot prejudge foreign policy goals and methods of a government based solely on how morally backward you believe that regime to be. The proper judgment is based on the cross section of national interest, political/strategic goals, and economic and military capability.

No, you can't make perfect predictions about how they will act based upon how morally backward (I prefer to say a bunch of killers but morally backward is good enough I guess) the regime is. But you if you look at what regimes composed of ruthless killers did in the 20th century, and then you look at what the Red Chinese are doing now and then you look at what the Red Chinese say they think is in their national interest and then you look and their economy and then you look at how they are building up their military and then you look at how they are shoving people around, if you look at all that I'd say a proper judgment is that peaceful doings in the South China Sea over the next decade is not portended.

[Dayuhan]

I would say that the US has made a great impression and has totally influenced India. The US influence is palpable. Hardly anyone talks of socialism or are enamoured by the legatees of the USSR i.e. Russia!

The Indian Communist parties which were the second largest at one time, has been reduced to such a state that they might lose the status of being a recognised national party! If that is not US influence, I wonder what is!

Are people turning away from communism because of "US influence" or because communism is a failed ideology that clearly has nothing to offer. Certainly capitalism prevailed over communism in the global ideas race (communism couldn't even finish the race) but I don't see that as "US influence", just as the collapse of an idea that basically sucked from the start.


The fact that Vietnam is making friendly overtures to the US is no small indication of the US influence spreading.

Again, that's less a question of US influence than of Vietnam emerging from its postwar shell and engaging more with other nations across the board, not just with the US. The US and Vietnam may both see it as in their mutual interest to cooperate to some extent on some issues, but that's less the US influencing Vietnam than a simple convergence of perceived interest.


Influence is not only the ability of getting people to do things you want, it also means getting people not to oppose what you wish to achieve. That is the subtle difference.


True enough, but again, I don't see any evidence that the US is causing anyone in SEA to alter policy in any way. Just because someone doesn't oppose something you want doesn't mean you caused them to take that position, it may simply mean that they see a convergence of interests. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don't think it's valid to assume that such a convergence is orchestrated by the US or is a consequence of US influence.


In the Pacific Indian Ocean region, there definitely is an arms race. Modernising militaries automatically leads to an arms race. Modernising militaries in volatile regions can never be taken as routine or altruistic!

Who's racing? If modernization "automatically leads to an arms race", then the entire world is in an arms race.


There is nothing like low spending or high spending for defence. It depends on the Threat and the money available in the Exchequer.

It's also a question of political priorities. Vietnam and the Philippines have similarly sized economies, but Vietnam spends close to 3% of GDP on its military, the Philippines, despite having two serious active insurgencies, spends less than 1% of GDP on its military. Different priorities.


The fact that high level of hostilities including cutting cables and ramming shipping is no longer taking place is indicative that caution has been enforced.

Maybe the Vietnamese have also cut back on exploration in contested areas. These incidents come and go, and there's little evidence to suggest that any caution has been enforced... you can bet your last peso that another incident will come along soon enough, exercises or no exercises. Certainly US/Philippine exercises haven't enforced any caution at all.


I will not keep reproducing links, but if you had seen them, you would have seen that China not only undertook shrill indignation and protests, but also gave lessons on piety and morality to the US on exercises being undertaken by the US in the area.

Yes, they've always done that. The US has been known to give lectures on piety and morality as well. One of those things big nations do.


If the US was not taking sides, why have exercises with the two Nations who were in confrontation with China on SCS? If that type of display of military might and solidarity is not taking sides, then what is? Of course, you will say it was all routine. Are the areas where these routine exercises took place the same? That should also be routine so that it does not send a wrong message. And, why did the US exercise with Vietnam? Was that also routine?

The exercises are routine, yes. The US and the Philippines have been holding joint exercises for decades, and yes, they often take place in the SCS. I remember watching large numbers of ships and aircraft in exercises off the Zambales coast (near Scarborough Shoal) back in the 80s.

Worth noting, of course, that Vietnam and the Philippines have conflicting claims over the Spratlys and Paracels.

The US has quite explicitly stated that it's not going to side with anyone on the SCS territorial disputes. If there's an incident, the US response, exercises or no, is likely to be limited to urging everyone to resolve issues peacefully.


I daresay US is ever going to say that they are taking sides. Though it is axiomatic that US had to take sides with the Philippines because they have a Treaty. The very Treaty is indicative of 'taking sides'.

The treaty is old, and the wording is very ambiguous. The US has already stated that they would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines, and even if, say, a Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process.


I wonder if you read President Obama speech on US strategic interests moving to the Pacific Asia rim.

I rarely pay attention to speeches. Actions speak louder.


Countries are not trying to manoeuvre anyone, to include the US. It is just that their national interest are converging.

The Philippines has tried to maneuver the US into making an expanded commitment of support and into providing a wider range of hardware at a lower price. They haven't succeeded with either effort. When you look beyond the rhetoric it looks like the US is maintaining some distance and is more interested in looking involved than in getting involved... fair bit of posturing and flag-showing, but a scrupulous effort to avoid commitment.


Most of the Asian nations mentioned have been expanding for years, but they have not increased their spending on defense previously.

Previously to what? Vietnam's submarine order was placed in 2009, negotiations began a year before that. The Gepard class frigates were ordered in 2006. The most capable surface combatants in SEA belong to Singapore; bidding on that contract began in the mid 90s, the order was made in 2000, the ships were delivered from 2004-2008. None of this is really new, and if you look at spending over time you see that spending increases as economies grow. Many countries have been methodically replacing 70s-vintage hardware as they can, but there's little evidence of a sudden surge in the last few years. I'd have to agree with Fuchs on this one, unless someone can show actual spending patterns as evidence to the contrary.


Much like many European countries, they were relying on others to take care of their defense needs so they could put more money into what you previously called productive activities.

Are European countries relying on tohers to handle their defense needs, or do they not perceive any pressing or imminent threat?

I don't think the Vietnamese have ever relied on others to take care of their defense needs. Overall (not just in SE Asia) there was a post cold war period in which perceptions of threat were very low, not an environment that encourages military spending, although many emerging nations continued spending (though not at exaggerated rates) anyway... pride is involved in these decisions.

Any suggestion that an "arms race" (in the sense of direct competition between or among nations) really needs to be accompanied by some kind of specific evidence.

[Dayuhan]

The fact that Red China is richer than before doesn't make them any less a repressive police state and all that means for other countries that have to deal with them.

What specifically do you see as the threat, and what would you want to see done about it?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,


Are European countries relying on tohers to handle their defense needs, or do they not perceive any pressing or imminent threat?

I don't think the Vietnamese have ever relied on others to take care of their defense needs. Overall (not just in SE Asia) there was a post cold war period in which perceptions of threat were very low, not an environment that encourages military spending, although many emerging nations continued spending (though not at exaggerated rates) anyway... pride is involved in these decisions.

I edited by response to Fuches and added additional commentary on why we're at the nascent stage of an arms race, but as the saying goes, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

Please Dayuhan, you know better, Vietnam received substantial support from the USSR for its military. Those jets and tanks weren't produced in Hanoi.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/vietnam/hist-2nd-indochina-ussr.htm


Beginning in November 1964, relations with the Soviet Union took a new turn, evidently because of Moscow's avowed intention to render active support to the Hanoi regime in its political and military confrontation with the United States. On 17 November 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to send increased support to North Vietnam. This aid included aircraft, radar, artillery, air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, food and medical supplies. They also sent Soviet military personnel to North Vietnam-the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). Some 15,000 Soviet personnelserved in Indo-China as advisers and occasionally as combatants. The largest part of the Soviet adviser personnel were air defense officers.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx


The most immediate need was for anti-aircraft artillery, units to counter the overwhelming American air power over North Vietnam. Ho would request Chinese AAA units during a meeting with Mao in May of 1965 and PLA forces would begin flowing into North Vietnam in July of 1965 to help defend the capital of Hanoi and the transportation network to include railroad lines and bridges.[50] This movement of troops from China was not lost on the U.S. as reported in a Top Secret CIA Special Report which identified seven major PLA units in North Vietnam to include the 67th AAA Division, and an estimated 25,000 to 45,000 Chinese combat troops total. [51] Recent Chinese sources indicate that this PLA AAA Division did indeed operate in the western area of North Vietnam. [52] In addition to AAA forces the PLA also provided missiles, artillery and logistics, railroad, engineer and mine sweeping forces. These forces would not only man AAA sites but would also build and repair Vietnamese infrastructure damaged or destroyed by U.S. airstrikes. [53] Such units would have quite a bit of repair work to do given that there would be more than a million tons of bombs dropped by U.S. aircraft upon North Vietnam from 1965 to 1972. [54] The Second Vietnam War would drag on for years as a sort of operational stalemate existed in the skies over North Vietnam. The U.S. could and did bomb the North at will, but the sheer numbers of Chinese forces, to include a total of 16 AAA divisions serving with a peak strength of 170,000 troops attained in 1967, would ensure that a high price would be paid by U.S. pilots with targets often rapidly rebuilt after destruction. [55] Chinese engineering and logistics units would perform impressive feats of construction throughout their stay in North Vietnam effectively keeping the transportation network functioning.


“Why have the Americans not made a fuss about the fact that more than 100,000 Chinese troops help you building the railways, roads and airports although they knew about it?” [67]
- - Chairman Mao to Vietnamese Premier Dong, 1970

In conclusion, as we can see from the considerable historical material outlined above, the military support provided by the People’s Republic of China, to include advisors, equipment and combat troops, was the decisive factor for the Communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam prevailing during 1949-1975 in both the First and Second Vietnam Wars. The small arms, mortars, ammunition, uniforms, tanks, artillery, radars, anti-aircraft guns, jet aircraft, trucks, and naval vessels were critical in the North Vietnamese struggle. However, what was even more critical and normally not acknowledged in the laundry list of war material is the psychological and strategic advantage provided by Communist China’s pledge to intervene in the advent of a United States invasion of North Vietnam, and communicating that pledge to the U.S. This strategic advantage in effect cannot be overstated.

The myths of the Vietnam War are perpetuated by the likes of Nagel and his book "Eating Soup with a Knife". The fact was that it was a hybrid war, the insurgents played an important role, but were not decisive. The Vietnamese couldn't sustain their conventional fight without outside assistance and they received ample support from the USSR and the PRC.

[carl]

Many countries have been methodically replacing 70s-vintage hardware as they can, but there's little evidence of a sudden surge in the last few years. I'd have to agree with Fuchs on this one, unless someone can show actual spending patterns as evidence to the contrary.

...

Any suggestion that an "arms race" (in the sense of direct competition between or among nations) really needs to be accompanied by some kind of specific evidence.

The Vietnamese Navy going from basically no submarines to buying 6 very capable SSKs all at once indicates to me, just me alone in the world maybe, that they are in a mighty big hurry to put a serious naval force into service.

[Ray]

Dayuhan,



Are people turning away from communism because of "US influence" or because communism is a failed ideology that clearly has nothing to offer. Certainly capitalism prevailed over communism in the global ideas race (communism couldn't even finish the race) but I don't see that as "US influence", just as the collapse of an idea that basically sucked from the start.

In India, Communism is not a failed ideology. It is not thought to ‘suck from the start’ or else, though under decline, it is still alive and kicking.

Where there is inequality in income and opportunities, it becomes the breeding ground for Communism.

Of course, Communism being a banned political force in Philippines, does leave you ill equipped to comment. Understandable.

My State was ruled by the Communists from 1977 without a break till last year. Would you call Communism a failed ideology in my State? It is just that globalisation, liberalisation and the converging of idea with the US that has changed the mindset.

It was only two days ago, Hillary Clinton visited my city, the bastion of Communism. She was the toast of the town and the State Govt (now not Communist, but fervently socialist). A year ago, Ms Clinton would not have ventured here because the Communist Govt would not have played host and she would have faced black flags and slogans like ‘Down with Dollar Imperialism’ and the like!

It is your guess as to whose influence plays a role. I am quite clear on that and have already mentioned as to whose influence it is.



Again, that's less a question of US influence than of Vietnam emerging from its postwar shell and engaging more with other nations across the board, not just with the US. The US and Vietnam may both see it as in their mutual interest to cooperate to some extent on some issues, but that's less the US influencing Vietnam than a simple convergence of perceived interest.

To expect a nation that was engaged in a prolonged and exhausting war with the US and totally inimical to the US and the US’ system of governance to show gushing bonhomie towards an erstwhile enemy will be a pipedream.

Normally, nations who are not allies, take baby steps to build up relationship. They venture on issues that improve the economy and build infrastructure. They do not jump into military equations or undertake naval exercises. Therefore, it is axiomatic that Vietnam and the US have convergent interests. It also indicates that Vietnam has faith in the US, an erstwhile enemy. To feel that US has no influence on Vietnam and is merely undertaken naval exercises for altruistic reasons would be naïve.

US, on her part, does not wish to be seen as ‘overdoing’ it since that would give signals that the US is ‘ganging up’ against China. Instead, US is played her diplomatic card of undertaking the naval manoeuvres only in the interest of keeping international shipping lanes open!

It is also interesting to note that the US has no comments on Vietnam increasing her naval might by adding six submarines (from a zero submarine fleet) or to the fact that India will be training the Vietnamese submariners! In this context, it would be worth noting that the US is objecting to India drawing oil from Iran – a dire necessity for India!!


True enough, but again, I don't see any evidence that the US is causing anyone in SEA to alter policy in any way. Just because someone doesn't oppose something you want doesn't mean you caused them to take that position, it may simply mean that they see a convergence of interests. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don't think it's valid to assume that such a convergence is orchestrated by the US or is a consequence of US influence.

US Sphere of influence does not mean a mandatory requirement for Nations to alter their policies and follow the US as vassal states. One does not have convergence of interest without reasons. Just an example - Do you think that Pakistan allows Drone strikes on its territory merely because of US financial and military aid? It is because it serves Pakistan to blame some other nation for doing what she wants to do, but cannot do, owing to public pressure. Convergence of interests. The fact that inspite of growing anti US sentiments in Pakistan it is still being done indicates the influence US has on the Pakistan administration and it’s military.



Who's racing? If modernization "automatically leads to an arms race", then the entire world is in an arms race.

No the entire world is not in an arms race. Britain has cut down defence expenditure as so has Greece to name a few.

The Asian countries have increased it. Now, why have they done so? They are obsessed with their childhood fantasies of playing toy soldiers or are they obsessed with showing that they have modernised their armed forces, even if their people wallow negatively in social succour.

They modernise to keep pace with the international and regional geopolitical pressures and the pressure are mutual amongst the neighbourhood. If one arms, then the other has to arm to maintain the balance – thus, the arms race.

[Ray]

cont from above.



It's also a question of political priorities. Vietnam and the Philippines have similarly sized economies, but Vietnam spends close to 3% of GDP on its military, the Philippines, despite having two serious active insurgencies, spends less than 1% of GDP on its military. Different priorities.

Political priorities grow out of what are the national interests, aims, threats and economy. China’s political priority is to have a strong nation that is a leader of the world. It emanates from their sincere belief that their culture is superior to all and they have much to give to his world with regards to culture and approach to the world. That is why even when they protest, they couch such statements with pious platitudes and sagacious homilies.

To be strong in all facets, they believe that the political atmosphere has to be tranquil and stable within. Hence they are averse and even brutal against dissensions.

Their Theory of Legalism prompts shape their policies and there is some spill over in their policy towards the neighbours who they treat as nothing better than vassal states that have sometime during history were, as per them, China’s ‘lost lands’ and the need for China to get back to their ‘old border’!!


It is common knowledge that in 1959 Mao Zedong said: “Our goal is the whole wide world . .. where we will create a mighty state" and that in 1965 he presented China with the task of “absolutely getting hold of Southeast Asia" in the near future. And today, far from disavowing these and similar statements, Peking uses them as a guide. Politics, propaganda and armed force combine to further Maoist foreign policy doctrines, in a range of ploys which extends from historical fabrications and the publication of maps showing the “lost Chinese lands" to armed provocation and outright aggression against neighbouring states......

A maiden work of this order was Su Yen-tsung’s The General Tendency of the Modification of China’s Borders, [249•22 which was published shortly after the Hsinhai revolution. Coming after it, Hua Chi-yun’s China’s Borders [249•23 gained wide currency. Indeed, its author, possibly the Kuomintang’s leading authority in the field, completed his treatise in the spring of 1930, shortly after the Kuomintang provocations on the Chinese Eastern Railway, the raids on Soviet territory, and the rupture of SovietChinese relations. Hua Chi-yun’s conceptions, which reflected the official moods.

Hua Chi-yun advocated the thesis of the need to “return” to China the lands it had “lost”. He claimed that “China’s old borders" had embraced vast territories extending from Kamchatka to Singapore and from Lake Balkhash to the Philippines. Korea, Burma, Vietnam, and Bhutan were seen as “conceded tributaries”, which had been within the “old borders”. Considerable tracts of Soviet Far Eastern territory along with the Island of Sakhalin, part of Kazakhstan and the Soviet Central Asian republics, sections of Afghan and Indian territory, and the Ryukyu Archipelago were also included among China’s “losses”. The Mongolian People’s Republic was generally ignored as a sovereign state and was designated as within China’s contemporary borders. Maritime boundaries stretched hundreds and thousands of miles away from the mainland, taking in the islands of the East China and South China Seas. The special map appended to the chapter, “Revision of Frontiers and Lost 250 Territories”, illustrated this projected programme of territorial aggrandisement.
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/PRO.pdf



Maybe the Vietnamese have also cut back on exploration in contested areas. These incidents come and go, and there's little evidence to suggest that any caution has been enforced... you can bet your last peso that another incident will come along soon enough, exercises or no exercises. Certainly US/Philippine exercises haven't enforced any caution at all.

Does Vietnam have an option not to cut back on the hostilities?

If another incident happens it will be from China and not from Philippines or Vietnam.

What makes you feel that the US presence has not put caution on China? Any facts?




The US has quite explicitly stated that it's not going to side with anyone on the SCS territorial disputes. If there's an incident, the US response, exercises or no, is likely to be limited to urging everyone to resolve issues peacefully.

If US is not taking sides and if the US has no influence on Vietnam, as per you, why did US carry out a naval exercise with Vietnam, their erstwhile enemy? Vietnam has influence over the US?


The treaty is old, and the wording is very ambiguous. The US has already stated that they would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines, and even if, say, a Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process.

Conveniently the words become ‘ambiguous’?

Could you give the link where the US has said the US would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines or Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process?

What is this ‘constitutional process’?



I rarely pay attention to speeches. Actions speak louder.

Convenient isn’t it that you find President Obama’s speech that the US strategic focus has moved to the Asia Pacific Rim and yet you find innocuous statements of underlings that US will not take sides something earthshaking!

So, I take it that the US President is not responsible for US Foreign policy and instead a merely US govt underling somewhere someplace!!!!

Very convenient!


The Philippines has tried to maneuver the US into making an expanded commitment of support and into providing a wider range of hardware at a lower price. They haven't succeeded with either effort. When you look beyond the rhetoric it looks like the US is maintaining some distance and is more interested in looking involved than in getting involved... fair bit of posturing and flag-showing, but a scrupulous effort to avoid commitment.

How droll.

You take that as the Gospel and you consider the President of the USA’s statement on changed strategic priorities as garbage that you don't read!

[Dayuhan]

Please Dayuhan, you know better, Vietnam received substantial support from the USSR for its military. Those jets and tanks weren't produced in Hanoi.


Ok, we're talking about two different things... I didn't consider receiving material support as "relying on others to take care of their defense needs". Of course you could say the South Vietnamese relied on the US to take care of their defense needs, as the US actually did defend South Vietnam. I don't think modern Vietnam (post unification) has been relying on others to defend it.

Most of Vietnam's post-unification arms purchases have come from Russia (though there's some diversification going on) but buying doesn't really constitute reliance.


Conveniently the words become ‘ambiguous’?

Could you give the link where the US has said the US would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines or Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process?

What is this ‘constitutional process’?


The words are ambiguous as written:


ARTICLE IV.

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional process. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

ARTICLE V.

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is
deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Note that this does not require either party to commit military force to the defense of the other, it only requires that they "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional process". Effectively that means either government can do whatever its government decides to do.

This Philippine Senator's opinion is a fairly representative sample:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/03/12/joker-says-mutual-defense-treaty-useless


Joker says Mutual Defense Treaty useless

he recent meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario had just rendered the 61-year-old Mutual Defense Treaty useless in the event that China attacks the country over the disputes in the West Philippine Sea, Sen. Joker Arroyo said yesterday.

“As matters stand, China now confirms what it had thought all along, that the 61-year Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) cannot be invoked in the Panatag standoff,” Arroyo said. “Whereas before there was at least some doubt where the US stands in the crisis, now it has been clarified.”

Arroyo made the assessment after the United States declared that it would not take sides in the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China...


The Vietnamese Navy going from basically no submarines to buying 6 very capable SSKs all at once indicates to me, just me alone in the world maybe, that they are in a mighty big hurry to put a serious naval force into service.

Fine, as long as we realize that the "mighty big hurry" goes back to 2005-2008... a period when the Vietnamese economy was growing rapidly, and well before the current round of incidents.

"Rising military spending" is only relevant if spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP. Of course if a country consistently spends 2.5 to 3% of GDP on the military and its economy grows an average of 5% a year for a decade, military spending will rise. That's not evidence of an arms race. If they bumped military spending up to 3.5% of GDP, that would be a different story.

[Ray]

http://mobile.shanghaiist.com/2012/05/08/watch_cctv_anchor_declares_the_phil.php

Chinese newsreader: The Philippines an inherent part of China's sovereign territory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KiudNjxTdg4

Oops of the Day: CCTV anchor He Jia mistakenly declares (at 1'35"): "As we all know, the Philippines is Chinese territory. China has unquestionable sovereignty over the Philippines." The video went viral shortly after it first appeared on Sina Weibo, and was quickly scrubbed off the CCTV website.

**************


That puts paid to China being a peaceful nation and carrying out legitimate activities.

And to the vehement protestations that China is no threat to Philippines!!!!!!

I wonder what new 'twist' the Chinese supporters will give.

Truth cannot be hidden too long! ;)

[Ray]

JMM is right that what Mao said is what they are doing!

[Backwards Observer]

That puts paid to China being a peaceful nation and carrying out legitimate activities.

And to the vehement protestations that China is no threat to Philippines!!!!!!

I wonder what new 'twist' the Chinese supporters will give.

Truth cannot be hidden too long! ;)

Ray, as far as 'China supporters' go, how would you describe a nation like India which plans to do in excess of $100 billion worth of trade with China in the next few years? Phoney opportunists? If JMM is correct, and you believe he is, open conflict with China is likely inevitable. Since this television broadcast puts paid to China being a peaceful nation, if, or rather when, war breaks out between the US and China, what do you think the nature of India's participation will be? Which way do you think Russia will go, given India's long-standing ties with the former Soviet Union?


Dec 17, 2010: PM Manmohan Singh on Thursday said that India and China will march together as friends and not rivals in the years to come and stressed while addressing the gathering that partnership between the two countries will be a key milestone in defining 21st century.

India and China will march together as friends: Indian PM (http://www.indiachinachamber.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=131)

[carl]

Fine, as long as we realize that the "mighty big hurry" goes back to 2005-2008... a period when the Vietnamese economy was growing rapidly, and well before the current round of incidents.

"Rising military spending" is only relevant if spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP. Of course if a country consistently spends 2.5 to 3% of GDP on the military and its economy grows an average of 5% a year for a decade, military spending will rise. That's not evidence of an arms race. If they bumped military spending up to 3.5% of GDP, that would be a different story.

Dayuhan, you must be a very fine dancer. You buy six subs at once, you are in a mighty big hurry to get serious naval power. Period. Given the constraints of lead time for construction, building bases, training and working up crews and all the other things that go with it, 2009 was yesterday. That yesterday was before the current round of incidents, but after the incidents before that.

Besides, racing to buy all those subs starting just a very few years ago might be viewed as prescient.

[Ray]

Trade does not indicate that a country does not have to worry about its security concerns.

If the Chinese subconscious suggests that Philippines is a part of China, one wonders if parts of India are also not being taken to be a part of China.

It is also no axiom that doing trade it is indicative of being 'supporters'.

It is just a question of a profit - loss equation and what is beneficial.

I wonder if you have been reading the Indian news, but India is equipping itself to not worry as to who will 'side with' India.

Russia is no longer in the strategic loop and it is for them to decide since China is no friend of theirs either.

There will be no reason for US and China to break out in a war. If that happens, surely India will not be on China's side.

Manmohan Singh may say anything, but the reality is known.

[Backwards Observer]

Trade does not indicate that a country does not have to worry about its security concerns.

It is also no axiom that it is indicative of being 'supporters'.

It is just a question of a profit - loss equation.

I wonder if you have been reading the Indian news, but India is equipping itself to not worry as to who will 'side with' India.

Russia is no longer in the strategic loop and it is for them to decide since China is no friend of theirs either.

There will be no reason for US and China to break out in a war. If that happens, surely India will not be on China's side.

If billions in trade does not qualify as support, what do you mean when you use a phrase such as "China supporters"? People who are doing trillions in trade? Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. If trade does not equate with support why would the the US gently request that India back off on trade with Iran under the current circumstances?

As far as there being no reason for the US and China to break out in war, if you're saying China considers the Philippines an integral part of Chinese territory, then war is more rather than less likely. Especially if, as you mentioned in an earlier comment, the Chinese also consider themselves to have an ancient claim on America. What level of participation do you anticipate from India's side should war break out between China and the US?

Concerning Russia and China; every time the US holds joint exercises with another nation in the area you present it as certain proof of a policy of containment viz China. A television broadcast is solid proof of hostile Chinese intentions towards the Philippines. Yet joint Russian-Chinese exercises are somehow meaningless? Well, if you say so...



China and Russia are making military history this weekend with the first bilateral naval exercises the two governments have ever conducted together.

China is sending a group of 16 ships, including destroyers, frigates, and a hospital ship. Russia is sending 4 ships, including the cruiser Varyag and three air defense destroyers now moving south from Vladivostok to join the Chinese after navigating through the Sea of Japan.

US worried as China and Russia prepare to hold historic joint exercises (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/331319/20120420/chinese-russian-naval-exercises.htm?cid=2) - International Business Times - April 20, 2012.

[davidbfpo]

Backwards Observer asked just:
If billions in trade does not qualify as support....

IIRC this was a riposte to Ray citing expected growth in Sino-Indian trade.

Without researching for facts & figures currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage and a Australia has a large surplus on it's trade with PRC. Is that, Backwards Observer, support...?

Mindful of history, taught many years ago, there were expanding trade relations between nations in Europe in August 1914 and that did not stop going to war. (It also had some odd aspects for the UK as it was dependent on Germany for key finished industrial products). Post-1945 and especially within the EU there is a common argument that expanding trade reduces the chances of conflict,which to date has worked well between France and Germany, the two principal nations of concern.

[Backwards Observer]

Without researching for facts & figures currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage and a Australia has a large surplus on it's trade with PRC. Is that, Backwards Observer, support...?

Mindful of history, taught many years ago, there were expanding trade relations between nations in Europe in August 1914 and that did not stop going to war. (It also had some odd aspects for the UK as it was dependent on Germany for key finished industrial products). Post-1945 and especially within the EU there is a common argument that expanding trade reduces the chances of conflict,which to date has worked well between France and Germany, the two principal nations of concern.

As you have indicated, under some circumstances extensive trade appears to do little to prevent war, and may to some extent provide fuel for the fire, as it were. Does trade in itself reduce the chances for war, or does it work in conjunction with a host of other factors that contribute to a lessening of tensions? I don't know.

The argument Ray seems to be putting forth is that China is an unrepentantly hostile and expansionist power with hegemonic designs not just in the Asian region but upon the whole world. Is trade facilitating this policy? This question would apply to any country trading with China that simultaneously denounces it in the harshest of terms as a clear and present threat.

[Fuchs]

...currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage...

It depends. Would you consider yourself lucky if you worked for 80% of your wage and your employer says he'll pay you the other 20% sometime, maybe?
Are those 20% working to YOUR advantage?


I'd say their surplus is less dysfunctional than the U.S.'s deficit, but at least in the short and medium term the U.S. is advantaged - and it can rip off the PRC in order to become advantaged by the imbalance even in the long term.

[Entropy]

I guess I am still trying to figure out what the big deal is, at least for the US. The SCS situation hasn't changed much since the early 1990's as far as I can tell, which was when it was also kind of a hot topic. As a young intel analyst I spent a lot of time briefing developments and the discussions about Chinese intentions were similar those today.

Other than protecting the free flow of trade, what's our interest here? As long at the claimants don't start a big, destabilizing war, why should we care?

[Ray]

If billions in trade does not qualify as support, what do you mean when you use a phrase such as "China supporters"? People who are doing trillions in trade? Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. If trade does not equate with support why would the the US gently request that India back off on trade with Iran under the current circumstances?

You will not understand that money is not all in life.

To a Chinese money is everything and the index to supreme happiness.

Not so to people who still have religion and religious beliefs.

That is why you find it problematic in Tibet where you are shovelling in money.

It is difficult to explain to you Chinese.

Check any forum.

The Chinese are surprised why the Tibetans are rebelling when their materialistic lives have improved manifolds!

No, to many around the world, religion and religious solace and religious ethics matter.

Money, wealth and power is not all.

Values are also important!

India has not backed off from Iran, in case you did not know. Check Indian news!

Yet, we are still with the US on the major issues!

[Ray]

I guess I am still trying to figure out what the big deal is, at least for the US. The SCS situation hasn't changed much since the early 1990's as far as I can tell, which was when it was also kind of a hot topic. As a young intel analyst I spent a lot of time briefing developments and the discussions about Chinese intentions were similar those today.

Other than protecting the free flow of trade, what's our interest here? As long at the claimants don't start a big, destabilizing war, why should we care?

As an intel analyst, were you briefed about the geostrategic and geopolitical issues?

If so, you would understand.

The talk of Free flow of trade is all eye wash and is a smokescreen!

Free flow of trade in the SCS does not in any way affect the US.

[Backwards Observer]

You will not understand that money is not all in life.

The question is not whether I understand money or what life is all about. The question is whether the policy of a nation deemed to be openly hostile with an unquenchable lust for expansionist hegemonism is being facilitated by international trade.


To a Chinese money is everything and the index to supreme happiness.

Do you think that this might be a generalisation or an exaggeration?


Not so to people who still have religion and religious beliefs.

That is why you find it problematic in Tibet where you are shovelling in money.

It is difficult to explain to you Chinese.

Check any forum.


You seem to be saying that having religion and religious beliefs are two separate things. Aside from that, are you implying that no Chinese have religion or religious beliefs? Is this an accurate depiction, in your opinion? Do you mean that I am personally shovelling in money to Tibet? If money is my supreme happiness, why would I give any to the Tibetans? Let them find their own money. I can barely shovel enough money into my own bank account. Furthermore, I'm personally in favour of independence for both Tibet and Taiwan. Is this realistic? I don't know. Given the current state of the world, somehow I doubt it. When you say any forum, do you literally mean that? If I go to a forum discussing bad seventies movies, will I encounter these things of which you speak that are so difficult to explain to a Chinese?


The Chinese are surprised why the Tibetans are rebelling when their materialistic lives have improved manifolds!

No, to many around the world, religion and religious solace and religious ethics matter.

Money, wealth and power is not all.

The Chinese are probably surprised at a great many things. Perhaps not least of all at the countries trading with them to whom money, wealth and power are not all.


Values are also important!

Would you describe the values that are important to you? Are these values consonant with the manner in which you address people who disagree with you on this forum?


India has not backed off from Iran, in case you did not know. Check Indian news!

Bully for you.


Yet, we are still with the US on the major issues!

Such as the containment of China. Correct?

[Entropy]

As an intel analyst, were you briefed about the geostrategic and geopolitical issues?

If so, you would understand.

The talk of Free flow of trade is all eye wash and is a smokescreen!

Free flow of trade in the SCS does not in any way affect the US.

It's been a few years, but from what I remember tensions in the area were moderately high. Various parties were setting up flags on little bits of rock and then someone would come along, rip down one flag and put up another. Our purpose, as intel folks, was simply to monitor the situation, look for signs of potential escalation and provide warning so the diplos could jaw jaw should it prove necessary. Basically it was indications and warning 101.

Do we have a major interest there? It seems to me the SCS is a tertiary concern for the US.