View Full Version : China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)
Dayuhan
05-09-2012, 11:59 PM
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 didn't realize that news readers made policy in China. Muist be a strange place.
I wonder what new 'twist' the Chinese supporters will give.
I wouldn't know, find one and ask.
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.
You don't actually know that they were racing, or in a big hurry. They could easily have been discussing that purchase for a decade, and delaying it until it seemed affordable: e.g. until a period of consistent high economic growth. You're making assumptions based on your own picture of the situation.
Look here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dio/documents/DET_10.pdf
Scroll to page 8, and you'll see that Vietnamese military spending actually decreased during the period in question: in absolute terms, as a % of GDP, and as a % of government spending.
Overall, the data in the charts on that page doesn't present much of an argument for a SE Asian arms race.
Do we have a major interest there? It seems to me the SCS is a tertiary concern for the US.
It would be a primary concern for anyone who wants to argue that the US needs to raise military spending, and certainly there are people with a strong vested interest in making that argument.
There's also a strong emotional component here that has nothing to do with any definable interest. It's difficult for some Americans to accept that the US could have a peer competitor in any part of the world, or that the US may not have absolute military superiority at all places at all times. However, given the economic realities, I'd say that's something we just need to learn to deal with: we've survived peer competition before, no reason we can't do it again. Insisting that the US must remain as the world's sole superpower regardless of economic capacity strikes me as an unrealistic and self-destructive policy goal.
jmm99
05-10-2012, 01:31 AM
From DoD, Annual Report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2011_cmpr_final.pdf) (2011):
The First and Second Island Chains. PRC military theorists refer to two “island “chains” along China‟s maritime perimeter. The First Island Chain includes Taiwan and the Ryuku Islands, the Second Island Chain extends from Japan to Guam.
1603
The US flag flies over Guam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam) (since the S-A War, a Territory) and over the Northern Marianas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands) (which is a Commonwealth - same as Puerto Rico). The other Micronesian sovereign states: Palau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau); Federated States of Micronesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia) (from the Yap, Truk and Ponape districts of the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands - TTPI) and Marshall Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands):
1602
are bound to the US and each other for purposes of defense by the Compact of Free Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association). For example, in 2008, the Federated States of Micronesia had a higher per-capita enlistment rate than any U.S. state, and had more than five times the national per-capita average of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (LINK (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0505/Uncle-Sam-wants-Micronesians-for-US-military) and LINK (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1950621,00.html)).
The Philippines and the Philippine Sea are the only buffer zone between the territorial claims of China (out to the First Island Chain) and the front yard of the United States. PRC force projection into that buffer zone would not be desirable. In fact, PRC force projection in enforcement of its present territorial claims (out to the First Island Chain) would not be desirable.
Without either of those force projections, Guam, the Marianas and the western areas of the Federation and Palau are within PRC missile range. Gons, Access Challenges and Implications for Airpower in the Western Pacific (2010, RAND; 266 pages), lays out his case in depth for how the PRC could neutralize (if not defeat) the conventional US forces in the Second Island Chain.
I don't buy JMA's theory that the US will be a paper tiger, turning tail and leaving the Pacific (to include Alaska and Hawaii) to the Chinese and the Russians. But, US Micronesia will be the canary in the coal mine as to whether JMA's theory has any validity.
Bottom line: The SCS, the Philippines and the Philippine Sea cannot be a tertiary area for the US - if an "Asian pivot" is to have any credibility.
No one has an exact crystal ball here - and we haven't even started talking about nuclear strategies.
BTW: To also make it crystal, I don't believe in US "hegemony" (including Manifest Destiny and the kind of "American Exceptionalism" that goes with that). If I am anything, it is a multipolarist. However, neither my crystal ball nor calculator allows me to predict the pecking order of comprehensive national power amongst China, Russia, India, Europe, Japan, USA and Brazil.
Regards
Mike
PS: Gons' dissertation was reviewed briefly by Bob Haddick, This Week at War: Preparing for the Next Korean War (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-preparing-for-the-next-korean-war) (SWJ Blog Post; December 26, 2011). His BLUF:
Gons's study shows how difficult it is to project air and naval power against a capable opponent operating from continental bases. It also shows that the Air Force's short-range fighters, conceived during the 1980s for the confined European theater during the Cold War, will struggle to be useful in the Pacific's vast spaces. The Obama administration has pivoted to the Asia-Pacific. The Air Force and Navy need to adapt if they are to effectively support the new strategy.
HT to David for posting this link a "few pages back" in this thread.
Bill Moore
05-10-2012, 07:24 AM
Posted by Dayuhan,
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.
I provided that information in my response to Fuchs. Also as someone already commented, 5-7 years is the normal procurement cycle for most militaries. China's behavior in the SCS has been becoming increasingly aggressive over the past few years, and China has been investing in its military transformation for some time, so yes there is an arm's race taking place due to geopolitical reasons, not due to a larger economy. In fact, SE Asian nations have been very concerned with the global economic down turn, so the fact that they're continuing to spend instead of cancelling orders is telling. There are many nations that have experienced substantial economic growth that didn't substantially invest more in their military, and as stated previously a country that doesn't have any subs and all the sudden orders six, is an indictation that not all is well in the region.
Singapore has a modern (albeit small) military, and due to their small size and the perceived potential to be threatened by larger neighbors has always strived to have a power mouse military to discourage potential aggressors. I don't know if Singapore is concerned with China or not, I suspect they're more concerned with over all regional stability.
Dayuhan
05-10-2012, 07:57 AM
The Philippines and the Philippine Sea are the only buffer zone between the territorial claims of China (out to the First Island Chain) and the front yard of the United States. PRC force projection into that buffer zone would not be desirable. In fact, PRC force projection in enforcement of its present territorial claims (out to the First Island Chain) would not be desirable.
If we're concerned about oiur front yard, we have to expect the Chinese to be equally concerned with theirs... whether we think they should be or not, they are.
This really isn't about what we think is desirable or not, it's about what is. Like it or not, the Chinese do have the capacity to project power within the first island chain, and to a lesser extent beyond. That's a reality that we can't change. Our task is to learn to manage the reality of a peer competitor within that small slice of the world's oceans. That doesn't seem impossible to me. I really don't see why we should treat a competitor as an enemy, or why confrontation, containment, and spending more than we can afford on armaments is a necessary or even desirable approach to managing that situation. Does accepting the reality of a peer competitor in the SCS compromise the security of the US Pacific territories?
yes there is an arm's race taking place due to geopolitical reasons, not due to a larger economy.
Look at the actual spending pattern:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dio/documents/DET_10.pdf
Charts on page 8.
What there suggests an arms race?
Singapore has been the big spender in the region for a long time; in per capita terms they are one of the highest military spenders in the world. That goes back to an acrimonious split with Malaysia and concerns about being stuck between two much largwer predominantly Malay/Muslim states, with whom relations haven't always been smooth. That spending level is in many ways anachronistic (in my utterly irrelevant opinion), but it's their call and that's been their way of doing things, essentially since they came into existence as a State. They can afford it and it's what they want to do.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u225/adux21/SEasia_large.png
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.
In a world that is reeling with recession and is barely keeping itself afloat, it becomes essential to meet the demands from the cheapest source.
Further, to ensure that companies stay afloat, it become essential to invest in areas where there is cheap labour so that the profits are high.
Yes it will assist the nation that has cheap labour and the trade will bolster its economy, but then that risk has to be balanced.
Do you think that this might be a generalisation or an exaggeration?
Don’t take my word for it.
Labeled by researchers as "emphasis on material values" or "egoistic materialism", making money has become a major concern for most of the Chinese. This new pivotal function is expressed by a quasi-obsessional desire for buying apartments, cars, goods, domestic equipment, and fashionable clothes. Along with individuation, showing external signs of wealth has become a social basic requirement. It can be analyzed as a search for status, for social recognition, an ambivalent desire of identification to the new trend and a quest for differentiating oneself socially, which comes up with a new identity issue in changing China.
In the sixties, a farmer could find a wife if he had a bicycle, a watch and a radio. Today, no woman would do with just such a patrimony and the same farmer would remain a bachelor all his life. The focal value of wealth is expressed in the attitude surveys carried out among workers showing that workers put monetary rewards high on their preference list. What can be observed is a deep shift invalues from the Confucian disdain for commerce and financial success followed by the Maoist suspicion for money as a basic capitalist weapon. Deng's formula "getting rich is glorious" comes perfectly in line with the concern for self-pride. This new worship for money is expressed in a number of ways. For instance, names of newly opened hotels reflect it: "Celestial Money", "Palace of the Eternal Wealth". In the streets, ads for consumer products have replaced political slogans….
Seeking quick and easy money leads to widespread corruption. Civil servants use their position to extort bribes and the Party as well as the government can heavily punish corrupted members when discovered. It also leads to gambling, smuggling, cheating and counterfeiting, another serious problem that still has to be solved in spite of recent efforts made by the central government.
http://www.ceibs.edu/ase/Documents/EuroChinaForum/faure.htm
有錢能使鬼推磨
If you have money you can make the devil push your grind stone.
That Chinese proverb is being literally followed.
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?
Have I said religion and religious beliefs are different?
Chinese in Mainland China practice religion but it is State controlled. When the State decides how a religion is to be preached and conducted, it is hardly religion. It is only a ritual without real religious values.
The Vatican cannot decide who is to be the Bishop and how Buddhism is being conducted and snuffed is well known and how Islam in Xinjaing is suppressed and controlled requires no elaboration.
It is fine to act very magnanimous in a forum to state that you believe that Taiwan and Tibet should be independent, but that is not what the opinion amongst the Chinese is. Forget about Tibet and Taiwan, the newsreader of CCTV was audacious enough to mention that Philippines is an integral part of China. Does indicate the subconscious. Further, no Govt functionary can express independent views publicly in China and that fact is no secret. I will answer this in greater detail in Dayyhan’s post.
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.
If they are surprised, then they do not understand international trade. But I take it that they are not that naïve as you make them out to be.
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?
Check my answer to Chinese being sold to money making alone as above.
I am direct in the manner in addressing issues and am not dexterous or devious or adept in cloaking feelings with fancy jugglery of syntax that are neither here nor there and yet, the interpretation is loaded. Check your posts and you will find what I am trying to convey.
Such as the containment of China. Correct?
That is the feeling China has, but it is not so.
It is merely being on guard.
Dayuhan
I didn't realize that news readers made policy in China. Muist be a strange place.
Very droll!
It is surprising that you did not know that not only the newsreaders, but none but the highest seat of power in China can make policies.
Even a powerful person like Bo came a cropper trying to take on the CCP, notwithstanding his legacy of being a revolutionary’s son who was close to Mao!
Therefore, if a newsreader in a Chinese Govt TV channel can state that Philippines is a part of China, it sure means it was a wink wink to test the waters and also tell the world that China is serious in her intent!
If it were not so, she would have been in a re-education camp i.e. jail. Greater people have been stuffed in jail for lesser ‘crimes’.
I wouldn't know, find one and ask.
Indeed!
Backwards.
I am no economist, but maybe this could answer you post on economy
The Great Fall of China
Qi hu nan xia, goes a Chinese proverb: When one rides a tiger, it is difficult to dismount. For the leaders of China’s 1.3 billion people, the import is clear. Stay on the tiger’s back, issue commands, and hope like hell the beast doesn’t turn on you. Over the last quarter-century that approach has served the mandarins of the Communist Party well. China became an economic marvel and staked a claim as the world’s next superpower. Civil liberties, social development, environmental husbandry, and political transparency were subordinate to the imperatives of growth. Increasing complaints about the avarice and gangsterism of government officials could be dismissed as local problems as long as an enlightened elite was thought to be guiding the state with a steady hand. Even when under pressure to reform, China’s leaders could reassure themselves that their grip on power remained secure.
Not anymore. The Communist Party faces the most serious threat to its authority since the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989. The case of Bo Xilai alarms China’s leadership precisely because it weakens the impression of strength and competence they have labored so hard to maintain. A tough-on-crime princeling about to be welcomed into the ruling elite is suddenly accused of being corrupt; his wife is implicated in the murder of a British business associate; the family’s fortune, totaling over a hundred million dollars, exposes the wealth high-ranking bureaucrats have amassed at the public’s expense.
These episodes have revealed to the world—and to a sizable portion of the Chinese people—a culture of greed, violence, and deceit at the highest levels of government. The Communists’ power is not in imminent danger, but their legitimacy is.
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-05-03/openingremarks19__01inline__405b.jpg
All of which is to say that it’s a mistake to stop doing business with China. Just as it’s a mistake to think this is business as usual.
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-05-03/openingremarks19__02inline__405b.jpg.............. ........
Investors are starting to act on their words. In March, foreign direct investment into China fell about 6 percent from a year earlier, the fifth straight month of decline. That was the longest streak of monthly declines since 2009, when the financial crisis caused multinationals to slow overseas investment. China doesn’t depend on money from abroad, but it does require the technology and know-how that foreign multinationals bring.
China and its investors need each other. Ford Motor (F) Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally has built Chongqing into Ford’s biggest manufacturing center outside of southeastern Michigan. Ford’s latest foray was announced after Bo Xilai was ousted as Chongqing’s Party secretary. In a visit to Bloomberg Businessweek on May 1, Mulally said, “I really enjoyed working with him.” But he made clear that Ford did not rely only on Bo. “We maintain productive relationships with the present leaders and future leaders,” he said. “China is very supportive of the auto industry and of our partnerships.”
Bo, son of a Mao-era revolutionary hero, had cast himself as a neo-Maoist in opposition to officials pressing a capitalist agenda. In Chongqing—a heartland city of 30 million styling itself as the Chicago of China—he favored a strong government hand and redistribution to the poor. Seen in that light, his downfall should be good for foreign investors.
But Bo was also that rare character in China who was willing to challenge the status quo by trying new things, a valuable quality in a country suffering from leadership sclerosis. In Chongqing, Bo was reforming the hukou, or household registration system, which controls rural-to-urban migration. He was also experimenting with a property tax, a rarity in China, as a way to raise more revenue from the rich and suppress real estate speculation. His fall could stall those initiatives.
On a more elemental level, Bo’s fall may have sent a message to other would-be disrupters: Lie low. “The biggest victim of what is happening now is any notion of systematic reform,” says Northwestern University political scientist Victor Shih. “This has sent a very strong signal to all in government that any attempt to carry out systematic changes that harm the interests of other interest groups and factions will result in serious political trouble for the instigator of those changes.”
The optimists’ case is that the scandal could catalyze change. “The reformers have the upper hand now,” says Alaistair Chan, an economist who covers China with Moody’s Analytics (MCO) in Sydney. “The reformers hope this whole Bo incident shows the downside of having the government too much in the economy.”
With the downfall of Bo, Wang Yang, now Party secretary of Guangdong, is seen as having a better chance to win one of the top spots in Beijing. His record in China’s southern export powerhouse is encouraging to many. Wang has opted to rely mainly on private businesses, encouraging their growth with tax breaks and by squeezing out lower-margin industries with tighter labor and environmental regulations—what Wang has dubbed “emptying the cage and changing the bird.”
This isn’t the first time China’s leaders have seemed vulnerable. The government survived the turmoil of the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, and then made it through the big restructurings of state enterprises in the 1990s without serious problems. “Remember, this is a society that between 1994 and 2001 laid off 60 million workers,” says David Zweig, a professor in the social science division of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “They laid off the population of France. And they managed it.” Huge numbers of Chinese are happy members of the ownership society, with cars and title to their homes.
Still, China’s leaders are making a mistake if they conclude that purges, repression, and state capitalism will work again. When the People’s Liberation Army retook control of Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989, the protester who blocked a column of tanks was captured by a single Associated Press photographer named Jeff Widener. He had to smuggle the film out of a Beijing hotel in his underwear. China is far less isolated today. Despite Hu’s attempts at “harmonization,” repression cannot hide.
Democracy and openness are values Western governments and business leaders need to press for, however tactfully. Lacking democratic legitimacy, China’s leaders retain support only by delivering a steadily rising standard of living. Jason Mann, head of China healthcare equity research at Barclays (BCS) in Hong Kong, updates the tiger-riding proverb to surfboard-riding. “As long as you stay in front of the wave,” he says, “it’s fine.” The flip side is that you are in constant danger of being swallowed up. That’s no way to live, or to run a country.
Read the article at:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-02/the-great-fall-of-china
jmm99
05-10-2012, 05:42 PM
:)
The Global Times special coverage of the SCS Conflict (http://www.globaltimes.cn/SPECIALCOVERAGE/SouthChinaSeaConflict.aspx).
"Aggression", as traditionally defined by both the USSR and PRC, includes military attacks, but also economic and political attacks. Something to keep in mind.
Regards
Mike
You don't actually know that they were racing, or in a big hurry. They could easily have been discussing that purchase for a decade, and delaying it until it seemed affordable: e.g. until a period of consistent high economic growth. You're making assumptions based on your own picture of the situation.
Look here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dio/documents/DET_10.pdf
Scroll to page 8, and you'll see that Vietnamese military spending actually decreased during the period in question: in absolute terms, as a % of GDP, and as a % of government spending.
Overall, the data in the charts on that page doesn't present much of an argument for a SE Asian arms race.
I don't care about the data on the charts. And you're right I don't know, in an absolute referred to God for confirmation sense, that the Vietnamese didn't delay their all at once purchase of six SSKs until the finances looked good. Neither do you. What I do know is I read that they devoted the equivalent of their entire, entire 2009 military budget to buying six SSKs all at once. Like I said, they are in big hurry to put some serious sea power into the water.
There's also a strong emotional component here that has nothing to do with any definable interest. It's difficult for some Americans to accept that the US could have a peer competitor in any part of the world, or that the US may not have absolute military superiority at all places at all times. However, given the economic realities, I'd say that's something we just need to learn to deal with: we've survived peer competition before, no reason we can't do it again. Insisting that the US must remain as the world's sole superpower regardless of economic capacity strikes me as an unrealistic and self-destructive policy goal.
You miss one of the concerns here. Nobody much cares that the Indian Navy just obtained an Akula class sub, nor would I care if they bought 12 Akula class subs. Nor would the Americans care what the Brazilian Navy or the Japanese Navy buys. I read we are offering to sell the Australians SSNs. What concerns me is that a brutally repressive police state that talks tough, claims a big part of the high sea as territorial water and makes a habit of shoving people around is getting a lot of serious military power they didn't have before and that they didn't need to make the country richer and don't need to make it richer still. A peer competitor is one thing, a peer competitor that acts like Red China is another.
Backwards Observer
05-10-2012, 08:56 PM
A fair set of responses overall. As far as your generalised assumptions about the Chinese, I'm no expert but I'm under the impression that there are Chinese people in communities all over the world, not just in China. You often draw no distinction between any of these communities. You seem unable to even consider that Chinese people exist as individuals, perhaps even in China, and may differ from one another in their beliefs and outlooks. On the one hand you state that expats may not even understand countries that they have resided in for a number of years. How is it that you claim such an intimate knowledge of the outlook of over a billion people which you manage to lump into a single category? From news articles and economic reports? Would it be fair or accurate to describe your thinking as a result of four thousand years of the caste system?
It is fine to act very magnanimous in a forum to state that you believe that Taiwan and Tibet should be independent, but that is not what the opinion amongst the Chinese is. Forget about Tibet and Taiwan, the newsreader of CCTV was audacious enough to mention that Philippines is an integral part of China. Does indicate the subconscious. Further, no Govt functionary can express independent views publicly in China and that fact is no secret. I will answer this in greater detail in Dayyhan’s post.
What does the direct expression of my opinion have to do with either magnanimity or the opinions held in China? You complain that my answers are too often neither here nor there. When I answer directly you choose to subtly disparage. Why bring up Tibet in your previous comment if your follow-up to the response is "forget about Tibet"? What does that say about the subconscious?
I am direct in the manner in addressing issues and am not dexterous or devious or adept in cloaking feelings with fancy jugglery of syntax that are neither here nor there and yet, the interpretation is loaded. Check your posts and you will find what I am trying to convey.
Which is interesting given that you somehow manage to evade actually answering the question. You wrote that values are important. So what are the values that you consider important? Are these values consonant with the manner in which you address people who disagree with you on this forum? Since directness is your strong point, do you feel that any of the views you hold of the Chinese are based on either bigotry or ignorance?
That is the feeling China has, but it is not so.
It is merely being on guard.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Many of your posts directly argue for the containment of China and present evidence that you consider this to be exactly what is happening. Now you seem to be saying that containment is only the feeling of China?
Fuchs
05-10-2012, 09:47 PM
A peer competitor is one thing, a peer competitor that acts like Red China is another.
Relax. There's the biggest ocean around between your country and theirs. Keep gun laws relaxed on the West Coast and they won't even wargame an invasion anyway.
You know, even though the U.S. is allied more or less formally with countries in East Asia, every alliance can be cancelled. Alliances are meant to serve a purpose, not to lead into endurance and pain tolerance tests with no way out.
davidbfpo
05-10-2012, 10:17 PM
The Vietnamese have only had to date some North Korean made midget submarines, for SOF missions and are decommissioning them:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugo_class_submarine
It is from this amateur's viewpoint a quantum jump in national naval capability. The new submarine is designed for ASW and anti-surface-ship warfare, and also for general reconnaissance and patrol missions. The vessel has a displacement of 2,300 tons, a maximum depth of 350 meters (1,200 feet), a range of 6,000 miles, and a crew of 57. It is equipped with six 533-mm torpedo tubes and cruise missiles:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/vietnam/navy.htm
I noted that even if they buy one a year they are very different vessels and so Vietnam will have immense problems IMHO to get the Kilo subs into operational service. Even with the planning and preparation following the order being placed in 2009, with anticipated delivery starting in 2014. From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine
In ten years time these Vietnamese subs will have an impact and as the Chinese have far more of them they will know how long it took to get them into operational service.
AdamG
05-10-2012, 10:34 PM
Territorial rivalry has escalated throughout the seas around China as regional and international navies seek to establish rights of passage against an expanding Chinese presence.
Chinese and Philippine vessels have been locked in a high seas stand-off since the PLA Navy prevented a Philippine warship from arresting crews of Chinese fishing boats near the Scarborough Shoal on April 8.
Both countries claim the fish rich shoal as their own and protests by Philippine fishermen over their loss of livelihood have drawn mass support in the south-east Asian country.
China International Travel Service, the state-owned tourism operator, yesterday suspended ties with the Philippines after organisers announced plans to demonstrate outside Chinese embassy buildings and property today.
Beijing also issued a travel advisory warning its citizens to keep a low profile. "Avoid going out at all if possible, and if not, to avoid going out alone," it said. "If you come across any demonstrations, leave the area, do not stay to watch."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/9258225/Chinese-media-warns-of-war-with-Philippines.html
Fuchs
05-10-2012, 10:51 PM
In ten years time these Vietnamese subs will have an impact and as the Chinese have far more of them they will know how long it took to get them into operational service.
Not sure about the relevance of that "impact".
Modern SSKs appear to be first and foremost troublemakers that force the opponent to be very careful (and invest in expensive ASW stuff).
It's rather unlikely that few of them would do much harm if used against a prepared enemy.
A squadron of highly skilled naval strike fighters could be much more troublesome and much more easy to use (not the least because of subs' radio silence, which really hampers all forms of cooperation and coordination. Another problem is that SSKs with passive sonar mode only may hide well, but they cannot estimate range to target reliably and well.).
Relax. There's the biggest ocean around between your country and theirs. Keep gun laws relaxed on the West Coast and they won't even wargame an invasion anyway.
Too late. California already has very restrictive gun laws and that is most of the west coast.
Now if they were to try and land anywhere on the Gulf Coast they would have a problem.
Modern SSKs appear to be first and foremost troublemakers that force the opponent to be very careful (and invest in expensive ASW stuff). It's rather unlikely that few of them would do much harm if used against a prepared enemy.
You wouldn't invest in the expensive ASW stuff if there wasn't a real possibility that they could hurt you. The British were lucky in the Falklands because the Argentines got the fusing wrong and the sub skipper wasn't all that daring. If Sandy Woodard was the capt of the Argie sub, God knows what would have happened.
A squadron of highly skilled naval strike fighters could be much more troublesome and much more easy to use (not the least because of subs' radio silence, which really hampers all forms of cooperation and coordination. Another problem is that SSKs with passive sonar mode only may hide well, but they cannot estimate range to target reliably and well.).
Speak of the devil, the Vietnamese are also buying Sukhoi strike fighters.
Another reason the Red Chinese aren't your average would be peer power.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0510/Exclusive-potential-China-link-to-cyberattacks-on-gas-pipeline-companies?cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%20Custom%202%20%2805 102012%29&cmpid=ema:nws:NzQ4MDUzMDkzMwS2
Dayuhan
05-11-2012, 12:39 AM
Of course, Communism being a banned political force in Philippines, does leave you ill equipped to comment. Understandable.
That's actually kind of funny. Communism thrives best when banned. You presumably know that we have the world's longest-running communist insurgency in place. You wouldn't, of course, know that I live in a place widely known as a hotbed of sympathy for that insurgency, but that is the case... not to mention that the performance of communist regimes on a global level is a matter of public record. I don't feel terribly ill-equipped to comment.
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.
Communist sub-states can survive and even thrive, though Communist states generally haven't, unless (as China) they abandon much of the communist economic system. They sometimes thrive for unexpected reasons. When I was spending a lot of time in Dubai I often noted the odd symbiosis between arch-capitalist Dubai and communist Kerala. Kerala had the education system to provide the mid-level managers Dubai needed, but Kerala had no jobs for them. So Kerala survived by exporting its educated populace (no only to Dubai of course, but there was a huge concentration there), and Dubai got the workers it wasn't willing to produce on its own (though given its population that wasn't purely a matter of policy.
The long-term viability of an economy built around export of educated labor is of course open to question, but the symbiosis was a fascinating thing.
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 nave.
Of course there's no altruism on either side, but that doesn't mean the US is influenceing Vietnam. I don't see one party influencing the other in that relationship, I see two parties cooperating to advance what they see as mutual interests. Vietnam has similar relationships with India and Russia; again I don't really see influence in either direction in those relationships.
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.
Again, if you look at the data there's little evidence of consistent increases in military spending, beyond what you's expect as leaders loosen the purse-strings after a global crisis. The Philippines is increasing, but from a base so low that even after the increase they'll still be the lowest spenders in the region.
I don't care about the data
'Nuff said.
What concerns me is that a brutally repressive police state that talks tough, claims a big part of the high sea as territorial water and makes a habit of shoving people around is getting a lot of serious military power they didn't have before and that they didn't need to make the country richer and don't need to make it richer still. A peer competitor is one thing, a peer competitor that acts like Red China is another.
Ok, fine, be concerned. The fact remains, though, that China exists and has a certain amount of power. We're not going to change that. What's needed is a reasonable, affordable strategy to manage that situation, and fear is a poor basis for building a reasonable, affordable strategy.
What would you have us - or anyone - do?
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 12:54 AM
Don’t take my word for it.
有錢能使鬼推磨
If you have money you can make the devil push your grind stone.
That Chinese proverb is being literally followed.
Your original comment was that for the Chinese money is the supreme happiness. Do you feel that a blanket statement about over a billion people is going to be a generalisation? If not, say so directly.
An attack in Sydney reinforces a Chinese student's perceptions.
A gang of six teenagers were reported last month to have harassed passengers on a train in Sydney. When they confronted a female passenger, she pointed desperately at two Chinese men sitting opposite her and said "Rob them. They are Asian. They are rich.''
[...]
There are Asian students who come from wealthy families. But I also know many Asian students who work here in crappy jobs such as kitchen hands and supermarket shelf-stackers to support their study. Some of my friends don't return home for holidays until graduation to save money, even though most of us Chinese students are precious only children.
I am from a lower-middle-class family. My parents work in a hospital and spent half their life savings to educate me here. They don't take annual leave and mostly work six days a week to support me. While we are better off than previous generations of our family who came from villages in the countryside, we don't consider ourselves rich.
We came here to learn, but we live in fear. (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/we-came-here-to-learn-but-we-live-in-fear-20120510-1yfhq.html) - SMH - May 11, 2011.
What's needed is a reasonable, affordable strategy to manage that situation, and fear is a poor basis for building a reasonable, affordable strategy.
What would you have us - or anyone - do?
Why on earth would you want to manage the situation unless you feared it would get out of hand? Fear is reason you pay attention in the first place.
First thing I would have us do is recognize that the ChiComs are right bastards and when right bastards get hold of a lot of weapons, talk about taking part of the ocean over, shove people around on a regular basis and run the biggest espionage operation in the history of the world, there is a real possibility that they will cause trouble in the future. According to the article I referred to a few posts back, the fight over that is going on right now inside the beltway.
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 02:30 AM
South Asian countries cashing in on India, China competition
BEIJING: Competition between India and China in the region has helped Nepal and other South Asian countries to balance their ties with the two big powers and benefit from both, a write up in a state-run Chinese daily here said.
"The triangular relationship among Nepal, China and India is a subtle one. Both China and India are indispensable to Nepal's economy," a commentary in the Global Times said today.
"Nepal is restrained by these two big economies, but it can also help bridge the two Asian giants' communications. Nepal can spur China and India to compete with each other and expand their clout in neighbouring countries," it said.
South Asian countries cashing in on India, China competition (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/south-asian-countries-cashing-in-on-india-china-competition/articleshow/13080380.cms) - Indiatimes - May 10, 2012
...
NEW DELHI: As the Philippines braces for anti-China protests on Friday, India has stepped into the hottest South China Sea dispute to counsel restraint.
In an unusual statement that signals India's growing interests in South China Sea, the MEA on Thursday weighed in on the growing dispute between China and the Philippines. Admitting Indian concern about the events, the MEA spokesperson said, "Maintenance of peace and security in the region is of vital interest to the international community. India urges both countries to exercise restraint and resolve the issue diplomatically according to principles of international law."
India steps into Philippines spat over South China Sea (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-steps-into-Philippines-China-spat-over-South-China-Sea/articleshow/13089219.cms) - Indiatimes - May 11, 2012.
...
India is likely to withdraw from an oil block in the South China Sea after hydrocarbons did now show up in an exploratory well, said government sources. Officials here have conveyed to Vietnam plans to terminate operations on commercial considerations, said the sources who knew about the talks.
The block has been at the centre of much diplomatic bad blood among China, Vietnam and India that included demarches, summons and affirmations of sovereignty over the same patch of sea.
The sources said the move to shut operations, that should relieve Beijing which was locked in another maritime dispute in the same sea with the Philippines, had been conveyed to South Block and the Petroleum Ministry but a decision would be considered final only when the state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Commission Videsh Limited (OVL) approached PetroVietnam for permission to stop operations. That stage had not been reached, they said, while Indian officials said they were not sure whether OVL had written to the Indian mission in Hanoi and asked it to formally convey the request to Vietnam.
India finds oil drilling off Vietnam a losing proposition (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3405680.ece) - The Hindu - May 11, 2012.
...
Given China's military cooperation with Pakistan to ‘contain’ India, New Delhi must work to strengthen its own security ties with friendly Asean capitals.
There are multiple layers in China’s approach to relations with India. At one level, there is a Chinese recognition of India emerging as a power that cannot be ignored and that Chinese interests are served by being seen to have a cooperative relations with India, in forums like BRICS and the G 20. These links are chosen to sometimes describe India as having an “independent” foreign policy, even as concern is periodically voiced, over growing US-Indian strategic ties. This ostensibly positive approach is balanced by heaping ridicule on India, or making threatening noises, whenever India enhances its space and missile capabilities, or seeks to bolster its defences along its borders with the Middle Kingdom. But, above all, there is a dominant theme of ‘containment’, in China’s policies towards India.
Look East for friends (http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51591-look-east-for-friends.html) - The Pioneer - May 10, 2012.
Backward
A fair set of responses overall. As far as your generalised assumptions about the Chinese, I'm no expert but I'm under the impression that there are Chinese people in communities all over the world, not just in China. You often draw no distinction between any of these communities. You seem unable to even consider that Chinese people exist as individuals, perhaps even in China, and may differ from one another in their beliefs and outlooks. On the one hand you state that expats may not even understand countries that they have resided in for a number of years. How is it that you claim such an intimate knowledge of the outlook of over a billion people which you manage to lump into a single category?
In this thread, when one alludes to the Chinese, I take it that it means the ‘Mainland Chinese’ or ‘Red China” Chinese or the ‘Communist China’ Chinese and not Chinese all over the world.
Indeed the expats could have different viewpoints and can be individuals, but it is not this forum alone that I visit which gives the impression that though they are expats, they are fiercely ‘nationalistic’ when the issue of Red China comes into play, no matter which flag they fly.
Take the Olympic Flame issue. Chinese all over the world, contrary to the popular international protests, closed ranks to ensure that there their (Han) support for Red China, including in Australia where I presume you reside.
Here are some example of how expat Chinese don’t indentify or understand the local sentiments of the countries they reside in and instead put their Han identity above all!
Australian police have been given powers to search relay spectators, following a call by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association for Chinese Australian students to "go defend our sacred torch" against "ethnic degenerate scum and anti-China separatists".
Tony Goh, chairman of the Australian Council of Chinese Organisations, has said the ACCO would be taking "thousands" of pro-Beijing demonstrators to Canberra by bus, to support the torch relay.[150] Zhang Rongan, a Chinese Australian student organising pro-Beijing demonstrations, told the press that Chinese diplomats were assisting with the organization of buses, meals and accommodation for pro-Beijing demonstrators, and helping them organise a "peaceful show of strength"
("Chinese rally in Australia to guard Olympic flame", Rob Taylor, The Guardian, April 16, 2008)
("Olympic torch sizzles in Australia", Sid Astbury, The Independent (South Africa), April 17, 2008)
( "Chinese in Australia vow to defend Olympic torch from pro-Tibet 'scum'", Nick Squires, The Daily Telegraph, April 16, 2008)
Now, it does show how expat Chinese understand the Nations they residing in!
Also, if you have visited Singapore, you would realise that the Singapore Chinese gush over Red China rather than gush over multitracial Singapore.
It is not just news reports but also interaction beyond the boundaries of India!
What does the direct expression of my opinion have to do with either magnanimity or the opinions held in China?
I would not know.
You mentioned that personally you would support the Independence of Tibet and Taiwan.
I merely stated that in the cyberspace one can ride any high horse to look good!
You complain that my answers are too often neither here nor there. When I answer directly you choose to subtly disparage. Why bring up Tibet in your previous comment if your follow-up to the response is "forget about Tibet"? What does that say about the subconscious?
You brought up the issue of Tibet and trotted out your magnanimous thought that would find solace to His Holiness The Dalai Lama.
If I said forget about Tibet, I meant it is a side issue and a mere digression from the real issue.
I am not going to trawl the posts, but quote it direct, and I will clarify, if indeed there is the necessity!
Which is interesting given that you somehow manage to evade actually answering the question. You wrote that values are important. So what are the values that you consider important? Are these values consonant with the manner in which you address people who disagree with you on this forum? Since directness is your strong point, do you feel that any of the views you hold of the Chinese are based on either bigotry or ignorance?
I don’t evade or undertake linguist gymnastic callisthenics that you do.
Values?
Does one have to trot out values that are known from childhood, and are ingrained in not only Oriental societies by also western?
My view of the Chinese attitude and their action, since you ask, is that whatever they do is copybook to their attitude towards Han cultural values and attitudes being superior to all. That what the Chinese do is practically bequeathing to the world the beauty of ethereal values that the others are ignorant of.
Don’t take my word for it.
Check the links provide my JMM and others. You will find a deep streak of cultural arrogance even when ‘inventing’ history.
Even the attitude of the expat Chinese in Australia (check the links given by me) indicate a cultural arrogance of the Hans that overrides the national feeling of the locals and genuine natives of the countries.
Take the attitude in Tibet (see, it comes back!) and in Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, the Muslims who undertake Ramzan are told that they will lose their jobs if they follow their religious rituals! Does smack of cultural Han arrogance if nothing else!
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Many of your posts directly argue for the containment of China and present evidence that you consider this to be exactly what is happening. Now you seem to be saying that containment is only the feeling of China?
Being on guard is not ‘containment’.
Or is it?
If so, how?
Dayuhan
That's actually kind of funny. Communism thrives best when banned. You presumably know that we have the world's longest-running communist insurgency in place. You wouldn't, of course, know that I live in a place widely known as a hotbed of sympathy for that insurgency, but that is the case... not to mention that the performance of communist regimes on a global level is a matter of public record. I don't feel terribly ill-equipped to comment.
Another popular myth that Communism thrives best when banned.
In India, in the beginning, Communism was banned. It did not thrive.
When the ban was lifted, it was a surprise that India had the first democratic elected govt in Kerela!
Underground movements seek sensation ‘victories’ that are reported in the media. They hardly can do much to implement what they wish to achieve.
Al Qaeda excites the media because it is mystical and lethal at times. But that is about all. If they were that popular and had the potential, they would be ruling the Moslem world!
Sympathy for a cause does not equate to public support to change a system.
We all sympathise for the poor people reeling because of poverty, but that does not mean we stop living our lives and donate everything to the poor and in the bargain join their ranks!
Communist sub-states can survive and even thrive, though Communist states generally haven't, unless (as China) they abandon much of the communist economic system. They sometimes thrive for unexpected reasons. When I was spending a lot of time in Dubai I often noted the odd symbiosis between arch-capitalist Dubai and communist Kerala. Kerala had the education system to provide the mid-level managers Dubai needed, but Kerala had no jobs for them. So Kerala survived by exporting its educated populace (no only to Dubai of course, but there was a huge concentration there), and Dubai got the workers it wasn't willing to produce on its own (though given its population that wasn't purely a matter of policy.
Your comment is in a timewrap about Kerela and Dubai.
The Communists lost power in Kerela long back.
What Kerela export is labour to Dubai.
The educationist that you find in Dubai is not just Kerela, but India. John Mason, of my school is a legend in Dubai’s education. He is an Anglo Indian. My daughter also taught there and the teachers were from all over India!
And the Kerelaites (Malayali to be precise) and the Sikhs are all over India and abroad. The joke goes that when Neil Armstrong (the first astronaut to land on the moon) landed on the Moon, he was greeted by a Malayali and a Sikh. The Malayali took him to his teashop driven by the Sikh taxi driver!
Of course there's no altruism on either side, but that doesn't mean the US is influenceing Vietnam. I don't see one party influencing the other in that relationship, I see two parties cooperating to advance what they see as mutual interests. Vietnam has similar relationships with India and Russia; again I don't really see influence in either direction in those relationships.
As the Americans say – There is nothing called a Free Lunch!
Cooperation and mutual interest are polite words for influence peddling and making it stick!
I take it that the world leaders don’t jet every now and then to various foreign land only to pick up ‘Frequent Flyer Miles’!
Again, if you look at the data there's little evidence of consistent increases in military spending, beyond what you's expect as leaders loosen the purse-strings after a global crisis. The Philippines is increasing, but from a base so low that even after the increase they'll still be the lowest spenders in the region.
I thought you were debating about Asia and defence spending.
You now seem to have narrowed it down to Philippines.
It is not that the global leaders who are loosen purse strings. It is just that the Asian countries regretfully are loosening as much as they can to gear up to defend their territorial sovereignty and balance their mere budgets rather than being wiped out and learn Mandarin to survive thereafter!
South Asian countries cashing in on India, China competition (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/south-asian-countries-cashing-in-on-india-china-competition/articleshow/13080380.cms) - Indiatimes - May 10, 2012
...
India steps into Philippines spat over South China Sea (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-steps-into-Philippines-China-spat-over-South-China-Sea/articleshow/13089219.cms) - Indiatimes - May 11, 2012.
...
India finds oil drilling off Vietnam a losing proposition (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3405680.ece) - The Hindu - May 11, 2012.
...
Look East for friends (http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51591-look-east-for-friends.html) - The Pioneer - May 10, 2012.
What exactly is the message you wish to convey?
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 07:30 AM
Backward
In this thread, when one alludes to the Chinese, I take it that it means the ‘Mainland Chinese’ or ‘Red China” Chinese or the ‘Communist China’ Chinese and not Chinese all over the world.
Indeed the expats could have different viewpoints and can be individuals, but it is not this forum alone that I visit which gives the impression that though they are expats, they are fiercely ‘nationalistic’ when the issue of Red China comes into play, no matter which flag they fly.
Take the Olympic Flame issue. Chinese all over the world, contrary to the popular international protests, closed ranks to ensure that there their (Han) support for Red China, including in Australia where I presume you reside.
Here are some example of how expat Chinese don’t indentify or understand the local sentiments of the countries they reside in and instead put their Han identity above all!
Australian police have been given powers to search relay spectators, following a call by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association for Chinese Australian students to "go defend our sacred torch" against "ethnic degenerate scum and anti-China separatists".
Tony Goh, chairman of the Australian Council of Chinese Organisations, has said the ACCO would be taking "thousands" of pro-Beijing demonstrators to Canberra by bus, to support the torch relay.[150] Zhang Rongan, a Chinese Australian student organising pro-Beijing demonstrations, told the press that Chinese diplomats were assisting with the organization of buses, meals and accommodation for pro-Beijing demonstrators, and helping them organise a "peaceful show of strength"
("Chinese rally in Australia to guard Olympic flame", Rob Taylor, The Guardian, April 16, 2008)
("Olympic torch sizzles in Australia", Sid Astbury, The Independent (South Africa), April 17, 2008)
( "Chinese in Australia vow to defend Olympic torch from pro-Tibet 'scum'", Nick Squires, The Daily Telegraph, April 16, 2008)
Now, it does show how expat Chinese understand the Nations they residing in!
Also, if you have visited Singapore, you would realise that the Singapore Chinese gush over Red China rather than gush over multitracial Singapore.
It is not just news reports but also interaction beyond the boundaries of India!
The original question is in regard to your comment that for Chinese money is the supreme happiness. Do you feel that this statement is a generalisation when applied to over a billion people? If you feel that a single statement about the thought processes of a billion people is not a generalisation, say so directly.
I would not know.
You mentioned that personally you would support the Independence of Tibet and Taiwan.
I merely stated that in the cyberspace one can ride any high horse to look good!
You brought up the issue of Tibet and trotted out your magnanimous thought that would find solace to His Holiness The Dalai Lama.
If I said forget about Tibet, I meant it is a side issue and a mere digression from the real issue.
I am not going to trawl the posts, but quote it direct, and I will clarify, if indeed there is the necessity!
This is the entirety of your post #380:
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!
Your post above was, I presume, a response to my question about whether international trade facilitated an aggressive policy of hegemony on the part of China. The post seems to have little to do with the question. If Tibet is a side issue why have you raised it here? What does the posting of an article about the Dalai Lama's views on the communist party have to do with magnanimity? When you say, "you are shovelling money, or "you Chinese" here, have you made any distinction between the mainland or other Chinese communities?
I don’t evade or undertake linguist gymnastic callisthenics that you do.
Values?
Does one have to trot out values that are known from childhood, and are ingrained in not only Oriental societies by also western?
You stated that values are important. If you feel that mentioning that "values are important" is sufficient without describing what they are that's up to you.
As you point out, anyone can ride their high horse on the internet.
My view of the Chinese attitude and their action, since you ask, is that whatever they do is copybook to their attitude towards Han cultural values and attitudes being superior to all. That what the Chinese do is practically bequeathing to the world the beauty of ethereal values that the others are ignorant of.
Don’t take my word for it.
Check the links provide my JMM and others. You will find a deep streak of cultural arrogance even when ‘inventing’ history.
Even the attitude of the expat Chinese in Australia (check the links given by me) indicate a cultural arrogance of the Hans that overrides the national feeling of the locals and genuine natives of the countries.
Take the attitude in Tibet (see, it comes back!) and in Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, the Muslims who undertake Ramzan are told that they will lose their jobs if they follow their religious rituals! Does smack of cultural Han arrogance if nothing else!
My question was if you felt that any of your views on the Chinese are a result of bigotry or ignorance. If not, say so directly.
Being on guard is not ‘containment’.
Or is it?
If so, how?
You don't recall posting that you thought China needed to be contained or was being contained?
Indian navy warships to sail through South China Sea
New Delhi: India's warships will be on a two-month-long deployment in South East Asia, visiting ports in the region and passing through the South China Sea -- which China claims as its backyard threatening in the past warships of other nations from entering the area.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250005924
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 07:34 AM
What exactly is the message you wish to convey?
You wrote, "Check Indian news!". I posted some articles from Indian news that seemed relevant to the China situation. If you are looking for a 'message' in every article posted, I'm not sure what to tell you.
You wrote, "Check Indian news!". I posted some articles from Indian news that seemed relevant to the China situation. If you are looking for a 'message' in every article posted, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I did not ask you to post Indian news as if you were a Secretary.
Surely comments would have been in context!
What are those links relevant about?
What has there being no oil where India is drilling relevant?
If there is no oil, there is no oil. Full stop!
How is it connected to the issue of the thread?
Maybe if you commented one would know what you exactly want to mean.
This is what I say - Neither here, nor there!
Mere jiggering the show and standing by like an innocent babe ever so nice!
Just like what Red China does - act cute!
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 07:48 AM
I did not ask you to post Indian news as if you were a Secretary.
Surly comments would have been in context!
What are those links relevant about?
What has there being no oil where India is drilling relevant?
If there is no oil, there is no oil. Full stop!
How is it connected to the issue of the thread?
Maybe if you commented one would know what you exactly want to mean.
This is what I say - Neither here, nor there!
Mere jiggering the show and standing by like an innocent babe ever so nice!
Do you add a comment to every news article you post? Where is your comment regarding the article you posted just above in #510?
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 07:49 AM
China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.
That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.
Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!
War is not the answer. Containment is!
You meant "Being on guard!". I understand that now.
The original question is in regard to your comment that for Chinese money is the supreme happiness. Do you feel that this statement is a generalisation when applied to over a billion people? If you feel that a single statement about the thought processes of a billion people is not a generalisation, say so directly.
Your quote is like a punch drunk boxer swaying.
On Red Chinese or Chicoms praying at the new God – Money – I have given you enough examples that you wish to avoid and instead sway to another issue connecting somehow to the issue you want so as to obfuscate and wipe it out like a bad dream so that others don’t realise your sleight of hand!
What you have quoted is query about all Chinese, more so the expats, not being the same and that they do understand the nation’s psychology and aspirations (where they reside) and are not on the same page.
I PROVED that Han Cultural arrogance supersedes local sentiments where the Han reside as expats or naturalised citizens. You, claiming to be from Australia, I gave a series of links to prove so.
And the result?
You weave meander and deflect since the truth is hard to defend.
Your post above was, I presume, a response to my question about whether international trade facilitated an aggressive policy of hegemony on the part of China. The post seems to have little to do with the question. If Tibet is a side issue why have you raised it here? What does the posting of an article about the Dalai Lama's views on the communist party have to do with magnanimity? When you say, "you are shovelling money, or "you Chinese" here, have you made any distinction between the mainland or other Chinese communities?
I raised Tibet to show how inspite of shovelling money, the Chinese are thunderstruck that money and material gains are not enamouring or ‘buying’ them off unlike the Chinese who have been bought up by the CCP with starry lights and money.
An example of peoples (Han and non Han) of the same country who have different perspective of life and materialism of the same country!
Could there be a better example that gives examples from the same country?
I don’t use the term ‘you Chinese’. Or have I?
Chinese are not one, notwithstanding CCP’s claim that 92% are Hans. That is skulduggery. The Southern Chinese are ‘barbarians’ who were made to succumb to Han culturalism. 100 Yues is just one example! And the Han abortive attempt to convert the people of Northern part of Vietnam!
You stated that values are important. If you feel that mentioning that "values are important" is sufficient without describing what they are that's up to you.
As you point out, anyone can ride their high horse on the internet.
As an oriental if you have no idea about values, then what can one say?
Start by reading a westerner – Pearl S Buck and her book The Good Earth. Try another one, which may upset you being a votary of China – The Wild Swans by Jung Chang. Both are excellent books. Jung Chang is an eyeopener since she travels down history of three generations encompassing China changing over the years!
My question was if you felt that any of your views on the Chinese are a result of bigotry or ignorance. If not, say so directly.
You appear to be intelligent.
What does what I have given in the post you have appended say?
I keep writing on Han cultural superiority and Han arrogance and that is not adequate? What do you want – me call a Press Conference?
You don't recall posting that you thought China needed to be contained or was being contained?
Given the manner in which the Chinese is claiming the world, sure it does deserve to be contained so that she and the world are contended!
Backwards Observer
05-11-2012, 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by Ray
Backward
In this thread, when one alludes to the Chinese, I take it that it means the ‘Mainland Chinese’ or ‘Red China” Chinese or the ‘Communist China’ Chinese and not Chinese all over the world.
Indeed the expats could have different viewpoints and can be individuals, but it is not this forum alone that I visit which gives the impression that though they are expats, they are fiercely ‘nationalistic’ when the issue of Red China comes into play, no matter which flag they fly.
Take the Olympic Flame issue. Chinese all over the world, contrary to the popular international protests, closed ranks to ensure that there their (Han) support for Red China, including in Australia where I presume you reside.
Here are some example of how expat Chinese don’t indentify or understand the local sentiments of the countries they reside in and instead put their Han identity above all!
Australian police have been given powers to search relay spectators, following a call by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association for Chinese Australian students to "go defend our sacred torch" against "ethnic degenerate scum and anti-China separatists".
Tony Goh, chairman of the Australian Council of Chinese Organisations, has said the ACCO would be taking "thousands" of pro-Beijing demonstrators to Canberra by bus, to support the torch relay.[150] Zhang Rongan, a Chinese Australian student organising pro-Beijing demonstrations, told the press that Chinese diplomats were assisting with the organization of buses, meals and accommodation for pro-Beijing demonstrators, and helping them organise a "peaceful show of strength"
("Chinese rally in Australia to guard Olympic flame", Rob Taylor, The Guardian, April 16, 2008)
("Olympic torch sizzles in Australia", Sid Astbury, The Independent (South Africa), April 17, 2008)
( "Chinese in Australia vow to defend Olympic torch from pro-Tibet 'scum'", Nick Squires, The Daily Telegraph, April 16, 2008)
Now, it does show how expat Chinese understand the Nations they residing in!
Also, if you have visited Singapore, you would realise that the Singapore Chinese gush over Red China rather than gush over multitracial Singapore.
It is not just news reports but also interaction beyond the boundaries of India!
Your quote is like a punch drunk boxer swaying.
On Red Chinese or Chicoms praying at the new God – Money – I have given you enough examples that you wish to avoid and instead sway to another issue contecting somehow to the issue you want so as to obfuscate and wipe it out like a bad dream so that others don’t realise your sleight of hand!
What you have quoted is query about all Chinese, more so the expats, not being the same and that they do understand the nation’s psychology and aspirations and are not isolated from the same.
I PROVED that Han Cultural arrogance supersedes local sentiments where the Han reside as expats or naturalised citizens. You, claiming to be from Australia, I gave a series of links to prove so.
And the result?
You weave meander and deflect since the truth is hard to defend!
This is the entirety of your post #380:
Quote:
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!
I raised Tibet to show how inspite of shovelling money, the Chinese are thunderstruck that money and material gains are not enamouring or ‘buying’ them off unlike the Chinese who have been bought up by the CCP with starry lights and money.
An example of peoples (Han and non Han) of the same country who have different perspective of life and materialism of the same country!
Could there be a better example that gives examples from the same country?
I don’t use the term ‘you Chinese’. Or have I?
Chinese are not one, notwithstanding CCP’s claim that 92% are Hans. That is skulduggery. The Southern Chinese are ‘barbarians’ who were made to succumb to Han culturalism. 100 Yues is just one example! And the Han abortive attempt to convert the people of Northern part of Vietnam!
As an oriental if you have no idea about values, then what can one say?
Start by reading a westerner – Pearl S Buck and her book The Good Earth. Try another one, which may upset you being a votary of China – The Wild Swans by Jung Chang. Both are excellent books. Jung Chang is an eyeopener since she travels down history of three generations encompassing China changing over the years!
You appear to be intelligent.
What does what I have given in the post you have appended say?
I keep writing on Han cultural superiority and Han arrogance and that is not adequate? What do you want – me call a Press Conference?
Given the manner in which the Chinese is claiming the world, sure it does deserve to be contained so that she and the world are contended!
You seem to be getting irritable. We'll leave it there for now. I'll take a look at your proof. Thanks.
Do you add a comment to every news article you post? Where is your comment regarding the article you posted just above in #510?
Post 510 is information as to what India is doing.
But your series of 'Indian news' is in context to my asking you that you should check Indian news.
Of course, if it was to prove you are taking my advice, I am flattered.
Good show, old bean!
You seem to be getting irritable. We'll leave it there for now. I'll take a look at your proof. Thanks.
Not at all.
You are such a pleasant distraction this sultry Friday.
Why should I find you irritable?
They say if one keeps an active mind, one can avoid Alzheimer's !
You are doing social service and I thank you for your concern about the world health!
Bill Moore
05-12-2012, 05:44 AM
The situation has taken a serious turn for the worse, the Filippinos have threatend to use Kung Fu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=62xL_7t5aAI
I knew this would happen, the Chinese allowed these deadly techniques to proliferate globally and now they'll be employed against them.
It's Friday, time for a cold one. :D
How should one view this?
Peaceful solution with no grand designs?
“China should be prepared to engage in a small-scale war at sea with the Philippines.”
One of China’s most popular newspapers has warned of a potential “small-scale war” between Beijing and Manila as a result of their standoff at Panatag Shoal, or Scarborough Shoal as the area is known internationally....
“Once the war erupts, China must take resolute action to deliver a clear message to the outside world that it does not want a war, but definitely has no fear of it,” the tabloid said.....
In Camp Aquino in Tarlac City, the head of the military’s Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom) accused China of lying when it claimed it had withdrawn most of its vessels at Panatag Shoal.
“We are telling them they’re not telling the truth,” Nolcom commander Lt. Gen. Anthony Alcantara told visiting defense reporters.
In a press briefing, Alcantara said at least seven Chinese vessels remained in the vicinity of Panatag, including two small fishing boats anchored on the lagoon and three other fishing vessels off a sandbar.....
Chinese embassy spokesperson Zhang Hua said only one Chinese surveillance ship remained at Panatag for “law enforcement missions.”
“The withdrawal of the two ships proves once again China is not escalating the situation as some people said, but de-escalating the situation,” Zhang said.
On the Philippine side, a Coast Guard ship, the BRP Pampanga, and a Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ship, the MCS 3006, are in the Panatag waters to stand guard, Alcantara said.
Last night, the DFA said that “contrary to the Chinese embassy’s claim, two of their vessels—the maritime surveillance ships CMS 71 and FLEC 310—are still in the area, along with five Chinese fishing vessels.” The information came from the Coast Guard, it said.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34627/china-daily-warns-of-small-scale-war-with-philippines
Dayuhan
05-12-2012, 07:25 AM
The situation has taken a serious turn for the worse, the Filippinos have threatend to use Kung Fu
Worse than that, there are hints that Manny Pacquiao might be deployed...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/9259582/The-China-Philippines-dispute-explained-in-cartoon.html
What's amusing about the kung fu video is that the Chinese had issued dire warnings to their nationals, asking them to stay inside and avoid the protests.
It's Friday, time for a cold one. :D
Saturday here, but about the same time.
In any event the current standoff at Scarborough Shoal will probably last until the SW monsoon kicks in (typically mid May to mid June, already getting a bit of it) and will certainly end when the first typhoon comes over the horizon.
Protest in Philippines over South China Sea stand-off
11 May 2012
Activists chant and hold placards outside the Chinese embassy in Manila on 11 May 2012 Organisers said protests were planned in Manila and at other Chinese diplomatic missions
Several hundred protesters waved flags and placards at the Chinese embassy in Manila, calling for China to withdraw its ships from a South China Sea shoal......
"Our protest is directed at the overbearing actions and stance of the government in Beijing, which behaves like an arrogant overlord, even in the homes of its neighbours," rally organiser Loida Nicholas Lewis was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.
More at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18030805
This indicates that Filipinos consider China a threat. Or else why have a protest rally?
Let us see how it pans out.
Too early in the day.
Dayuhan
05-12-2012, 08:47 AM
Several hundred protesters waved flags and placards at the Chinese embassy in Manila, calling for China to withdraw its ships from a South China Sea shoal.....
This indicates that Filipinos consider China a threat. Or else why have a protest rally?
Several hundred indicates that the perception of threat isn't very high. You can find several hundred protestors waving flags and placards outside the US embassy on a regular basis, often demanding termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement and military exercises.
Brave chaps these fellows.
That means they are thumbing their nose at the Chinese about wanting to have a 'small war' against Philippines (as given in a post earlier) and they find that the PRC is but paper tigers and full of hollow war cries.
In short, China is a joke?
Maybe they are right!
Several hundred indicates that the perception of threat isn't very high. You can find several hundred protestors waving flags and placards outside the US embassy on a regular basis, often demanding termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement and military exercises.
Any links?
At least to the Filipino newspapers?
It seems that the Govt is taking the protests seriously that it will sour relations or else why mention about it if it was routine?
“We hope our Chinese friends will not take this as a provocative action on the part of the Philippine government. This [protest] is a private initiative by private citizens,” she said on government-run dzRB radio.
She added the Philippine side had been taking steps to de-escalate the tension and continue to pursue diplomatic solution to the situation.
On the other hand, she said she cannot understand why the Chinese side finds it “weird” to take the matter to international arbitration.
She said the Chinese side has not been receptive to efforts to bring the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/257951/news/nation/palace-shakes-off-claims-anti-china-rally-to-escalate-territorial-row
US muscling up in Asia-Pacific, sends new warship to Singapore, Philippines
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The first in a new class of US Navy combat ships will be sent to Singapore next year for a 10-month deployment, an official said Thursday, as the US moves to expand its Asia-Pacific presence.
"The USS Freedom will deploy to Singapore for 10 months in spring 2013," Navy Lieutenant Katie Cerezo said in an email to AFP.
The ship belongs to a new class of "littoral combat ships" -- smaller, surface vessels intended for operations close to shore and able to deploy quickly to crises that are part of a US strategy focusing on the Asia-Pacific.
The Navy said its force would eventually be equipped with 55 warships of this type, four of which could be deployed in Singapore.
The ships are meant to be deployed on a rotational basis and not based in Singapore, where the US military already operates a small post that assists in logistics and exercises for forces in Southeast Asia.
China's defense ministry has been scornful over increased American military activity in the region, saying it is proof of a "Cold War mentality" from Washington.
The United States is also expected to step up deployments to the Philippines and Thailand as part of its Asia-Pacific strategy.
http://www.philippinenews.com/latest-news/6791-us-muscling-up-in-asia-pacific-sends-new-warship-to-singapore-philippines.html
We can’t turn tail and run
By: Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:49 pm | Friday, May 11th, 2012
And to the Chinese government, we live in fantasy land, because we are mistaking its “forbearance” for “timidity.” At the same time, its story of being harassed, robbed, and pressed into a corner, played tricks on, detained, is an objective, factual account.
China calls it Huangyan Island. We call it Bajo de Masinloc. We say that the area has been delineated as Philippine territory in Spanish maps dating to the 17th century. China says that this same area has been delineated as its territory in its maps dated several centuries ago.
But what about the fact that Bajo de Masinloc/Huangyan is only something like 230 kilometers away from Zambales while it is 1,200 km from the nearest major Chinese land mass? Only think of how long it would have taken Chinese boats several hundred years ago to go to and from the area. Tiny boats. No refrigeration. What would be the point of using the place as fishing grounds? No one has given a satisfactory reason.
But isn’t Huangyan, at a distance of 1,200 km from China, outside of its exclusive economic zone (200 miles or 320 km), while it is well within that of the Philippines, as we claim?
Not to China, which thinks that our territorial claim is “untenable” because, quoting from the director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs under State Oceanic Administration, “there is no such principle in international law that determines territorial ownership by geographic distance, and this theory based on geographic distance … has no basis in international law and judicial practice.” And if the Philippines’ theory was upheld, he says, the world map would be totally redrawn.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/28553/we-cant-turn-tail-and-run
Loida Lewis to China: ‘You’re shameless’
NEW YORK—Edwin Josue may be Filipino-Chinese, but during Friday’s protest rally against China, he was “first and foremost” a Filipino...
Anti-China rallies were held simultaneously in the Philippines, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities around the world where Filipinos have a major presence. The rallies called on China to leave the Philippine waters and stop “bullying” the country....
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/36639/loida-lewis-to-china-%E2%80%98you%E2%80%99re-shameless%E2%80%99
Some news from Philippines.
Does not appear to be that the protest is something routine by rabble rouser.
It appears that Filipinos world wide are inflamed!
Some may feel otherwise.
raissa robles
inside Philippine politics and beyond
Is China after the Philippines' oil & gas fields?
May 1, 2012 · 239 Comments
Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
http://raissarobles.com/wp-content/uploads/SCS-Malampaya.jpg
http://raissarobles.com/wp-content/uploads/SCS-Malampaya-pipeline-to.jpg
http://raissarobles.com/wp-content/uploads/SCS-Reed-Bank-Fourm-Ene.jpg
http://raissarobles.com/2012/05/01/is-china-after-the-philippines-oil-gas-fields/
http://raissarobles.com/2012/05/01/is-china-after-the-philippines-oil-gas-fields/
**************
How about that?
The cobwebs over the eyes seem to be falling apart.
Surprising that those who live there are not aware.
If this is true, then China is a real slippery fox couching their horrid hegemonic intentions with false piety!
Dayuhan
05-12-2012, 10:42 AM
I'm sure Google would give you links to coverage of protests accompanying the start of the recent Balikatan exercise... the protests are as much an annual ritual as the exercise. In general a protest at the US Embassy is hardly newsworthy. Embassy staff used to joke about whether or not the protestors would outnumber the visa applicants on any given day.
Whether or not they were organized by rabble rousers, a turnout of only a few hundred shows tepid support at best and lack of commitment by organized political groups. Of course journalist, academics, and politicians are waxing eloquent, but the populace at large doesn't seem all that reactive, judging from the turnout.
The LCS deployment to Sin is old news, been planned for a long time.
Of course everyone's aware of Malampaya and the surrounding potential gas blocks. Not long back I posted a piece about a Philippine company negotiating for an exploration joint venture with Chinese companies.
I'm sure Google would give you links to coverage of protests accompanying the start of the recent Balikatan exercise... the protests are as much an annual ritual as the exercise. In general a protest at the US Embassy is hardly newsworthy. Embassy staff used to joke about whether or not the protestors would outnumber the visa applicants on any given day.
Whether or not they were organized by rabble rousers, a turnout of only a few hundred shows tepid support at best and lack of commitment by organized political groups. Of course journalist, academics, and politicians are waxing eloquent, but the populace at large doesn't seem all that reactive, judging from the turnout.
In the interests of knowing what is normal and what isn't, which you would know and I don't; have there been protests like this against Red China before and how often?
Those links were from Op Eds and from Filipino newspapers.
In general a protest at the US Embassy is hardly newsworthy. Embassy staff used to joke about whether or not the protestors would outnumber the visa applicants on any given day.
Have not understood.
The protests are not against the US.
The protests are against the Chinese.
I presume the individuals who wrote about the protest against the Chinese are adequately aware of what is happening in their country. And the Editors in Philippines should be fairly responsible people. It is obvious that the protest has indeed caused concern, or else why an op ed if it were mere routine?
Would they not know what they are writing about or the Editors not know what is published in their papers and if that is relevant or not?
Now, if the newspapers published such articles, surely they are taking these protest seriously, even though you opine that they are but routine and immaterial.
AdamG
05-13-2012, 04:44 PM
China has denied it is increasing combat readiness in response to a territorial row with the Philippines over a disputed shoal in the South China Sea.
China's defence ministry denied military units were getting ready for war, despite warnings in state media that China is prepared to fight to end the stand-off.
"Reports that the Guangzhou military region, the South China Sea fleet and other units have entered a state of war preparedness are untrue," the ministry said in a brief statement on its website Friday.
The Guangzhou military region in southern China has responsibility for the area.
It gave no source for the reports, but rumours on the Internet say China has ordered some military units up to level two of its four-level scale of war preparedness, one notch from the top which indicates full readiness.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-denies-preparing-war-over-south-china-sea-034126024.html;_ylt=AsrjL6NyuQIuULGWcyNWks1g24cA;_ ylu=X3oDMTRvbWtmbXVsBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwM4OGRjMmIw Ni02YmI5LTMyMTktODQ2OS1iNmM4NGZiYmU0MzIEcG9zAzgEc2 VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDZDQ5NmIxYzAtOWJlNC0xMWUx LWJmYmQtZjg1OGU0M2NlZjE0;_ylg=X3oDMTMwNDFsbWhvBGlu dGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNzgyODM4MDAtNjg2MC 0zMjNhLTgxNjMtZDZmNTI4YTA2MTAxBHBzdGNhdANlbGVjdGlv bnMyMDEyBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3
China is a peaceful nation - Peaceful Rise.
The weaponry is but for their own defence.
Forays with hegemonic intent into SCS is but only a peaceful act.
Others are merely misunderstanding the peaceful intent.
The above is what one will hear always from Red China.
While Red China controls everything that happens in China, would it be too much to believe that they have a free press where the media publishes belligerent news without official sanction or their military leaders propound aggressive thoughts that have no official Nelson's Eye?
If so, I am mistaken!
And China has no hegemonic intent at all. All for the sake of Peace!
And it is the US that is misrepresenting the Peaceful intent of China and being belligerent!
Fuchs
05-13-2012, 06:28 PM
Well, to be fair - the U.S. is among the last countries in the world with the moral high ground in regard to bellicosity accusations. :rolleyes:
Dayuhan
05-13-2012, 09:58 PM
Have not understood.
The protests are not against the US.
The protests are against the Chinese.
The point is that if you're going to spin a few hundred demonstrators at a Chinese embassy into a statement that Filipinos generically are up in arms against China, you'd also have to conclude that Filipinos generically are irate at the US, since demonstrations of similar size routinely occur outside the US embassy.
I'd say both conclusions would be wrong. Drawing only a few hundred people to a protest in a city the size of Manila is an indication that the cause has little real traction with the populace, and I don't think the Filipinos generically are all that fired up about either issue. Given the social media buzz I'd have expected the turnout to be higher, but I guess complaining on Facebook is easier than going out in the street on a hot day.
Listening to the domestic discourse, there's certainly a sense of irritation at the intrusions, and certainly a sense of frustration at being so obviously unable to do anything about them. You don't get any sense of fear, though: there's nothing to indicate that people are afraid of being "gobbled up" by China, as some here have suggested.
As far as the peaceful rise goes, I'd guess the Chinese are neither as benevolent as they claim to be nor as malevolent as their detractors claim them to be. The same might be said of others.
AdamG
05-14-2012, 03:22 AM
Well, to be fair - the U.S. is among the last countries in the world with the moral high ground in regard to bellicosity accusations. :rolleyes:
...that, coming from the German. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't know about Philippines, but in India and in the countries I have been to, op eds and editorials are not based on the humdrum.
But if you say that the op eds and editorial from Philippines I have appended on those demonstrations are highlighting the mundane and there is no news of import to comment on in the Philippines, so be it!
Fuchs
05-14-2012, 04:29 AM
...that, coming from the German. :rolleyes:
Well, our last war of aggression lies 13 years in the past, the U.S.'s last one only 9 years.
Besides; don't confuse an individual and his/her nationality. Two different things.
I'm the "No wars of choice!" guy here.
Dayuhan
05-14-2012, 09:23 AM
I wouldn't know about Philippines, but in India and in the countries I have been to, op eds and editorials are not based on the humdrum.
But if you say that the op eds and editorial from Philippines I have appended on those demonstrations are highlighting the mundane and there is no news of import to comment on in the Philippines, so be it!
Op-eds and editorials are based on whatever is in the news at the time. They are not an indicator of public opinion, nor do they necessarily involve matters of great import. How many of us remember what the op-ed and editorial writers were ranting about a year ago at this time?
I wouldn't say there's nothing of any importance in all this, but I think you're seriously exaggerating both the importance and the degree of public concern.
AdamG
05-19-2012, 02:07 PM
WASHINGTON — China is pressing a long-range modernization of its military, part of a strategy aimed at maximizing its leverage over Taiwan, extending its influence farther abroad, but avoiding conflict around its borders or with the United States, the Pentagon said on Friday in an annual report to Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/world/asia/pentagon-study-says-china-military-getting-stronger.html?_r=2&hp
Bob's World
05-20-2012, 12:03 PM
While doing research on rising powers, spheres of influence and national interests (something I wish the policy and think-tank types in DC would spend a little more time thinkng about...), I ran across this gem of an article.
IMO, a great deal of wisdom here:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-china-bluff-6561?page=show
A couple of exerpts:
"We are determined to try to sustain the global supremacy handed to us by Russia’s involuntary default on its Cold War contest with us. In the Asia-Pacific region, this means "full-spectrum dominance" up to China’s twelve-mile limit. In effect, having assumed the mission of defending the global commons against all comers, we have decided to treat the globe beyond the borders of Russia and China as an American sphere of influence in which we hold sway and all others defer to our views of what is and is not permissible."
and
"Worse, the logic of the sort of universal sphere of influence we aspire to administer requires us to treat the growth of others' capabilities relative to our own as direct threats to our hegemony. This means we must match any and all improvements in foreign military power with additions to our own. It is why our military-related expenditures have grown to exceed those of the rest of the world combined. There is simply no way that such a militaristic approach to national security is affordable in the long term, no matter how much it may delight defense contractors."
This needs to be nailed to front door at PACOM. (Yes, I know that door is made of glass, but "in case of emergency, break glass.")
America's Permanent War Agenda
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman010310.htm
I wonder how far will Americans agree with this?
Just wanted to know the opinions on something I am researching.
Reading it, I wondered if it were from George Orwell's '1984', especially the claim in the book - War is Peace.
During Bush' time when the war rhetoric was high, none felt that going to war was immoral and yet today, there appears to be a sizable group that are strong votaries of Peace.
How is it that in such a short time, the US is jettisoning the belief that they so fervently held during the Bush period, where it was so intense that to not wear a US lapel pin was taken as anti USA!
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 01:53 AM
America's Permanent War Agenda
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman010310.htm
I wonder how far will Americans agree with this?
That piece comes from the left fringe, which is just as loony as the right fringe.
When assessing opinions I tend to adopt the Olympic Diving method: assume the low and high scores are compromised, and discard them. Similarly, the far fringes of the ideological spectrum are something one perhaps needs to be aware of, but which have little value except as a curiosity.
During Bush' time when the war rhetoric was high, none felt that going to war was immoral and yet today, there appears to be a sizable group that are strong votaries of Peace.
Even in the Bush years there was substantial opposition to the wars, particularly the one in Iraq. Those who supported the wars pulled the malleable center with them, largely as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. As people realized that much of the fighting had no connection to 9/11 and that the missions were creeping far beyond what they expected, support for the wars dwindled and opposition grew. I don't think there was anything irrational about that. People supported the idea of stomping the living $#!t out of the people who attacked us... a natural response. When that morphed into an unending and appallingly costly attempt at "nation-building", support dwindled. Again, I see nothing irrational or unexpected about that.
I would consider myself a votary of peace. I hope that everybody is. Not that war isn't occasionally necessary, but it is always to be avoided if possible and is something one uses as a last resort. I do not believe that advocating war is in any sense more inherently patriotic than advocating peace.
The Cuyahoga Kid
06-04-2012, 03:25 AM
I've been reading papers on Taiwan and Operation Change of Direction this weekend and, while I might be chasing phantoms, I started to see a lot of connections between the attributes Hezbollah exhibited in '06 and the traits that the ROC would need to embody in order to survive a hypothetical war in the straits.
Does anyone think that the ROC and other regional powers could effectively respond to conventional over-match by the PRC and a changing regional geopolitical calculus by adopting force structures and doctrines typified by Hezbollah and related hybrid actors?
Even in the Bush years there was substantial opposition to the wars, particularly the one in Iraq.
However, this from the US proves that maybe the actuals did not trickle down to where you are.
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.
Milbank, Dana; VandeHei, Jim (2003-05-17). "Washington Post May 1, 2003 Gallup poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1155-2003May16
On Lapel Pins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpwZFvPZbkg
In so far, as the countercurrent article is concerned, I found it disconcerting but then one was left wondering if would find a chord with those who are batting for China, a country which feels that the US is meddling in the South China Seas and muddying the waters leading to a belligerent condition.
Anti US article no doubt, but it has some facts to offer (which can be challenged and maybe disproved) unlike mere postulations of a High Priest as is seen.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 04:28 AM
However, this from the US proves that maybe the actuals did not trickle down to where you are.
Those who opposed the Iraq war were certainly a minority, but they made plenty of noise and were fairly visible, though they were duly ignored. They came mainly from the left - the same crowd that produced the article you cited - and to a lesser extent the libertarian/isolationist fringe of the right. A few even came from the center... I personally thought the Iraq war was a bad idea from the start, and I don't identify with left or right. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Overall I think you could fairly say that opposition to the war was more substantial among those who actively follow foreign policy issues than it was in the general population, though of course those who actively follow foreign policy issues constitute only a minimal minority of the general population.
Of course the broad support for the war evaporated quite quickly, as discussed above, which suggests that it was largely based on emotion and questionable information.
In so far, as the countercurrent article is concerned, I found it disconcerting but then one was left wondering if would find a chord with those who are batting for China, a country which feels that the US is meddling in the South China Seas and muddying the waters leading to a belligerent condition.
I don't know... you'd have to find someone who is "batting for China" and ask them. Haven't seen anyone doing that here.
Dayuhan could you reconcile these two statements of yours?
Even in the Bush years there was substantial opposition to the wars, particularly the one in Iraq.
and
Those who opposed the Iraq war were certainly a minority , but they made plenty of noise and were fairly visible, though they were duly ignored.
Now do you realise why I am bewildered by your statements?
How the Dickens can it be -
Bush years there was substantial opposition to the wars, particularly the one in Iraq
as also
Those who opposed the Iraq war were certainly a minority?
Substantial opposition in one post and in another, opposition was but a minority?
Does appear that you state for the sake of stating to win brownies and know not what you write except that it should suit the flavour of the moment even though it contradicts another 'wise' saying just a few posts earlier that you made.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 07:15 AM
"Substantial" doesn't mean a majority, it just means enough to have substance. Substance can come from numbers, but it can also come from commitment or position. As many leaders have discovered to their chagrin, violent dissent from a quite small percentage of the populace can be very substantial indeed. In this case the dissent wasn't violent, but it was vocal, visible, and had a base among those familiar with foreign policy.
In the early days of opposition to the Vietnam war, the opposition came from a minority. It was still substantial, not least because it had traction: it rapidly gained adherents and came to represent a majority. Much the same could be said of the early opposition to the Iraq war.
In this case the substance came as much from who as from how many. For example, Colin Powell was initially not at all enamored of the idea of war in Iraq, though he eventually submitted to the will of the administration. When the Secretary of State opposes something, that has substance, and is thus substantial. There was also, as I said, substantial debate among the foreign policy elite (look back at old issues of Foreign Affairs, and you'll see it). Again, this doesn't mean that a majority opposed the war, just that there was an opposition of some substance.
If I'd referred to "overwhelming opposition" or "majority opposition" that would indeed be contradictory.
Mountains of molehills, once more...
"Substantial" doesn't mean a majority, it just means enough to have substance. Substance can come from numbers, but it can also come from commitment or position. As many leaders have discovered to their chagrin, violent dissent from a quite small percentage of the populace can be very substantial indeed. In this case the dissent wasn't violent, but it was vocal, visible, and had a base among those familiar with foreign policy.
In the early days of opposition to the Vietnam war, the opposition came from a minority. It was still substantial, not least because it had traction: it rapidly gained adherents and came to represent a majority. Much the same could be said of the early opposition to the Iraq war.
In this case the substance came as much from who as from how many. For example, Colin Powell was initially not at all enamored of the idea of war in Iraq, though he eventually submitted to the will of the administration. When the Secretary of State opposes something, that has substance, and is thus substantial. There was also, as I said, substantial debate among the foreign policy elite (look back at old issues of Foreign Affairs, and you'll see it). Again, this doesn't mean that a majority opposed the war, just that there was an opposition of some substance.
If I'd referred to "overwhelming opposition" or "majority opposition" that would indeed be contradictory.
Mountains of molehills, once more...
You stand exposed for what you are.
No use of acting like a video game - flitting from side to side.
You are not consistent with your claims. You are vague and you love to pull wool over the eyes!
We also understand English, if one is to believe you all about US education, then maybe even better than you!
Pray don't teach me English, the Cambridge University has passed me fit.
Cambridge here mean the real one and not any clones that you might find in the US.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 08:36 AM
I see nothing in the definition of "substantial" that requires a majority, and I think you're picking nits to avoid addressing the point... which in any event has strayed well away from the emergence of China as a superpower.
I have addressed the points, but it is you who is deflecting the issue since your standard flip flop attitude has come to the fore being totally noticeable.
I've been reading papers on Taiwan and Operation Change of Direction this weekend and, while I might be chasing phantoms, I started to see a lot of connections between the attributes Hezbollah exhibited in '06 and the traits that the ROC would need to embody in order to survive a hypothetical war in the straits.
Does anyone think that the ROC and other regional powers could effectively respond to conventional over-match by the PRC and a changing regional geopolitical calculus by adopting force structures and doctrines typified by Hezbollah and related hybrid actors?
The Red Chinese would perhaps be better served by just blockading the island and starving them into submission. That of course would entail defeating the USN but if they could pull that off nothing could stop them. The ChiComs wouldn't shrink from the ruthlessness needed to do that and if would save a lot of trouble.
The Cuyahoga Kid
06-04-2012, 08:04 PM
The Red Chinese would perhaps be better served by just blockading the island and starving them into submission. That of course would entail defeating the USN but if they could pull that off nothing could stop them. The ChiComs wouldn't shrink from the ruthlessness needed to do that and if would save a lot of trouble.
Right, but if the ROC's AShM capability is structured in a way that mitigates the impact PLAAF/2nd Artillery Corp stand-off fires have on their operational effectiveness, then how can the PLAN maintain sea superiority?
More importantly, if stand-off fires couldn't meaningfully effect Taiwanese AShMs, then wouldn't the PLAN ultimately be faced with a fait accompli?
All the PLAN would have to do is keep the merchant ships from coming or going. They could do that with submarines, or just with an announcement. The subs wouldn't have to sink anything. Long range aviation wouldn't have to sink anything. The merchantmen wouldn't try it.
I don't know if Taiwan is self sufficient in food but I don't think they are self sufficient in oil. It would only be a matter of time and they would have to surrender. Also, no merchantmen going out means no money coming in.
All of the above predicated on the USN being out of the picture.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 09:23 PM
I don't know if Taiwan is self sufficient in food but I don't think they are self sufficient in oil. It would only be a matter of time and they would have to surrender. Also, no merchantmen going out means no money coming in.
All of the above predicated on the USN being out of the picture.
The Chinese are vulnerable to exactly the same strategy, which the USN could implement without going anywhere near Taiwan or the mainland.
Dayuhan:
True. But you will note that in both my posts I said what I said depended upon the USN being out of the picture.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 09:43 PM
Dayuhan:
True. But you will note that in both my posts I said what I said depended upon the USN being out of the picture.
The point I'm trying to make is that the USN can operate effectively against China without being physically close to China. Why would we fight them where they are strong when we can fight them where they are weak? That being the case, why must we assume that we need the capacity to fight close to the Chinese mainland?
Point granted. However that was not the point under consideration, since I said, twice, what I was said depended upon the USN being out of the picture. Now I've said that 3 times.
Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 10:22 PM
Instead of repeating it, why not tell us why you think it matters. I can't see that it does.
PS to clarify the above: I'm not sure what you mean by "in the picture" here. The USN does not need to be physically anywhere near Taiwan to be "in the picture" in such a case, if we define "in the picture" as "capable of inflicting unacceptable consequences". Too much of the discourse on US capabilities vs Chinese capabilities seems to assume a need to operate within the range of land-based aircraft and missiles. It seems to me legitimate to question whether this need actually exists, especially since maintaining such a capacity would be an extremely expensive venture.
davidbfpo
06-04-2012, 10:22 PM
I know we have discussed the defence of the RoC / Taiwan before, which Carl has raised again, posing his question.
My first reaction to offensive action by PRC was how would the one million RoC citizens who have been reported to reside in PRC react? Even if outnumbered and there mainly pursuing business and with a good number of students.
On reflection I cannot recall any mention of Taiwan's non-military capabilities, notably financial to possibly disrupt the PRC.
Then's the evolving, if ephemeral feeling that "small is beautiful, leave them alone". It is not as if the larger states have an impeccable record, say in comparison to Switzerland. Imagine if buying Chinese products was frowned upon by a movement akin to Anti-Apartheid - Boycott the Bully. Yes I know many cite a US bank's decision on South African loans was the catalyst for change. The Chinese have historically paid great attention to 'face'.
Apologies for this non-American interlude.
Sorry Dayuhan. The short exchange between me and the Cuyahoga Kid was pretty clear and plain. Nothing else I can do to clarify it.
David:
If a bunch of Americans are deciding the fate of Asia I don't see why an Englishman can't join in.
My guess is any RoC people caught on the mainland in the event of trouble would lay very low and quiet. The secret police would not look upon obstreperous behavior with favor.
The anti-Apartheid stuff worked because it didn't cost much money. The feel good/financial pain balance was way over on the left. If people tried in on Red China it would shift way over to the right and it wouldn't be done.
The financial question is a good one and I have no clue.
...China that completely ignores their own sphere of influence and clearly stated Red Lines.
At the risk of David moving this, I ask the following questions.:D Copied here by David
What is Red China's sphere of influence?
What does is encompass exactly, on land and at sea?
Does it have hard bounderies (sic) or does it exist in various zones of increasing or decreasing influence?
Who determines what their sphere of influence is?
Is the sphere of influence fixed forever or does it change?
If it changes, who determines what changes it?
Should changes be recognized?
What powers does Red China have within its sphere of influence?
Who determines what those powers are?
Do any people living within that sphere of influence have any say in that?
Do Red Chinese powers within the sphere change depending on what part of the sphere is in question or are they fixed everywhere?
Would any and all power Red China claimed within its sphere of influence be legitimate or would there be certain things that would be beyond the pale?
These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. More will follow. And then on to the red lines.
Dayuhan
06-05-2012, 09:28 AM
Sorry Dayuhan. The short exchange between me and the Cuyahoga Kid was pretty clear and plain. Nothing else I can do to clarify it.
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Possibly I'm just dense. Why would the Chinese blockade Taiwan unless they were actually prepared for a full-scale war with the US, a war with enormous risk and not much potential gain for them? Why would they go into a war in which they know their antagonist can inflict enormous damage on them without ever coming within range of most of their weapons? A war that could potentially go nuclear? To gain what?
Do you assume the Chinese to be irrational, or unskilled at weighing profit and risk?
To enter into a blockade, the Chinese would have to be either absolutely 100% sure that there would be no response, or absolutely 100% sure that they could win a war. That kind of certainty is a tough thing to come by in this world, and Chinese behavior has not typically tended toward that kind of brinksmanship. The status quo is not going all that badly for them, and when that's the case you don't rock the boat unless you are very sure it will rock your way.
If you are not seeing it, it is because you choose not to.
Read what was written, all of it.
This is how China invents it Spheres of Influence
China's Invented History
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577446202239267134.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
Dayuhan
06-06-2012, 01:11 AM
If you are not seeing it, it is because you choose not to.
Read what was written, all of it.
I read it several times, and it still seems too hypothetical to be relevant to any practical question. Why would the Chinese want to blockade Taiwan?
Spheres of influence are ephemeral and overlapping; the whole construct is not specific enough to be of much use. Accepting that China has some influence and some capacity to act withing certain areas does not mean nobody else has influence or the capacity for action within those areas, nor does it mean consigning those areas to a solely Chinese sphere of influence. It's simply accepting reality, always a good start for practical policy questions.
Ok. You wore me down. It was a hypothetical. It was a hypothetical. Often hypotheticals are not terribly relevant to much of anything at all. That is why they are called hypotheticals.
I realize you go into a hysterical panic anytime anybody anywhere anyhow mentions that somebody somewhere somehow might have to fight the Red Chinese, but rest easy if you can-it was a hypothetical. I also realize that you are desperate to head things off by bringing up spheres of influence and matters of high policy but that has nothing at all to do with what I commented upon to the Cuyahoga Kid because it was all hypothetical.
Dayuhan
06-06-2012, 09:06 AM
No hysteria or panic in it, just confusion... I can't see the point of assuming that there has to be a war and developing hypothetical scenarios for it, especially since the conclusion of the hypotheses always seems to be that the Red Horde will surely overrun the world if we don't confront, contain, man the ramparts and (most important) spend a few more trillions of dollars gearing up for war.
Personally, I think the most likely medium/long term scenario for China at war involves Russia, simply because the two countries' spheres of influence and activity overlap in an area bordering both that also has real (not hypothetical) resource wealth.
My comments above on spheres of influence were a response to a post above regarding spheres of influence. It's not something I brought up.
U.S. reopening World War II bases in Pacific
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/05/us_reopening_world_war_ii_bases_in_pacific
Dayuhan
06-07-2012, 01:25 AM
Setting up facilities in uninhabited or barely inhabited islands makes some sense, given the political baggage that has accompanied US bases in places like Okinawa and the Philippines.
jmm99
06-07-2012, 04:03 AM
Chuuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuuk),
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Chuuk.png/797px-Chuuk.png
and Chuuk Lagoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truk_Lagoon),
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Map_Chuuk_Islands1.png/759px-Map_Chuuk_Islands1.png
home of the Japanese Ghost Fleet,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Truk_Lagoon.png/632px-Truk_Lagoon.png
and part of the larger Federated States of Micronesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Map_of_the_Federated_States_of_Micronesia_CIA.jpg/740px-Map_of_the_Federated_States_of_Micronesia_CIA.jpg
Regards
Mike
davidbfpo
06-07-2012, 06:03 PM
Keeping to the island theme and hat tip to FP Blog story on the evolution of UN peacekeeping contributors for this surprise, with my emphasis:
Today, China has 1,911 peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Sudan, and now Syria. The U.N. force commander in Cyprus is Chinese as well.
Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/06/where_have_all_the_blue_helmets_gone#17
davidbfpo
06-08-2012, 09:36 PM
A different point if view by Raffaello Pantucci, highlighting:
It is, however, increasingly clear that there is a high level of concern in China about Pakistan. In Xinjiang in particular they seem to have lost patience at Pakistani capacity to contain Uighur extremists travelling to train in Pakistan and then coming back.
It which ends with:
Beijing may be Pakistan’s best friend, but even best friends can eventually lose their patience with each other.
Link:http://raffaellopantucci.com/2012/06/08/break-up-time-for-pakistan-china/
Given the current state of Pakistan's relations with the USA primarily even a cooling of Sino-Pakistani relations could unsettle strategic thinking, after all as a nation Pakistan needs steady friends and money.
Fuchs
06-08-2012, 09:46 PM
Related (East Asia)':
Korea as Number One
Posted By Clyde Prestowitz
http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/07/korea_as_number_one
Dayuhan
06-17-2012, 10:25 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/06/12/chinas-capital-flight-us-real-estate-edition/#axzz1y5ZrDqyp
China’s capital flight: to US real estate
Excerpt:
Pamela Liebman, chief executive of The Corcoran Group, a residential real estate brokerage company, says the group has seen a “huge” influx of wealthy mainland Chinese shopping for high-end properties in New York since the start of the year.
“It’s extraordinary,” she says. “Five years ago, we never talked about Chinese buyers. We started noticing them 18 months ago but they have only become much more prevalent in the past year.”
Liebman says she saw “hundreds of millions” of dollars in sales last year to Chinese buyers and the pace has intensified since the start of 2012. “The past quarter has been our best quarter ever in terms of sales to Chinese buyers.”
Properties that have been snapped up by China’s rich range from $1m apartments to $20m trophy properties. “Buying groups” – group tours of mainland buyers coming to New York to view properties – have become commonplace, says Liebman.
It's not just NY or the US, either. Chinese buyers are buying high-end real estate all over the world. That suggests that controls on capital movement are (predictably) ineffective, and that wealthy Chinese are not entirely confident about the domestic future... but we shall see.
davidbfpo
06-18-2012, 05:51 AM
I have certainly read explanations for this purchasing overseas activity; it was explained that official economic policy was to encourage the investment of foreign earnings abroad, as their return to China would cause problems, inflation primarily.
Overseas property purchasing was very noticeable before the Hong Kong handover, notably in Vancouver, Canada - which was more amenable to granting citizenship IIRC and there being an established Chinese community.
I don't think it is ineffective capital controls out of China, it is that foreign earnings are not fully declared.
Fuchs
06-18-2012, 07:47 PM
I have certainly read explanations for this purchasing overseas activity; it was explained that official economic policy was to encourage the investment of foreign earnings abroad, as their return to China would cause problems, inflation primarily.
Check the national accounts for net capital export and trade balance in goods and services.
They're pretty much the same, for they're two sides of the same coin.
A country with trade balance surplus has foreign currency or obligations, and it's only natural that this is a lot about buying or setting up productive means or companies.
Germany has a trade balance surplus and we don't buy many corporations. That's because our direct investments (= at least 10% of shares) are almost all about marketing (=subsidiaries that sell our products) and our other investments are usually done by individuals or institutions without any interest in control, but much interest in risk diversification and profit rate. This leads to many, many small buys of shares on financial markets.
The mentioned inflation thing is nonsense in my opinion. What could you do with U.S. Dollars in China? You certainly couldn't drive up inflation. What you could do is you could spend it on imports, both investment goods and consumption goods - even exportable services. this was apparently not desirable. Showing off riches was not desirable, buying foreign instead of domestic products was a mixed bag.
Entropy
06-18-2012, 08:45 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/06/12/chinas-capital-flight-us-real-estate-edition/#axzz1y5ZrDqyp
China’s capital flight: to US real estate
Different situations obviously, but I'm reminded of the Japanese real-estate buying spree before their great stagnation.
Uboat509
06-19-2012, 09:17 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/06/12/chinas-capital-flight-us-real-estate-edition/#axzz1y5ZrDqyp
China’s capital flight: to US real estate
Excerpt:
It's not just NY or the US, either. Chinese buyers are buying high-end real estate all over the world. That suggests that controls on capital movement are (predictably) ineffective, and that wealthy Chinese are not entirely confident about the domestic future... but we shall see.
There is a pretty good piece about this here (http://www.economist.com/node/21555766) in the Economist. The Chinese are still pretty good about the control of capital within the country but the rich and/or well connected are able to find ways around the capital controls. Under the current system, the government needs to severely limit the places that Chinese citizens can put their money, i.e. Chinese banks. The interest rate that these banks pay to their account holders is controlled directly by the state and is below the rate of inflation which means that it is actually negative in real terms. This is, of course, bad for depositors, who have no choice in the matter, but it is great for banks because it gives them a large buffer of cheap capital. This gives them plenty of cheap money to lend to state champions and local governments. It also allows them to weather the storm when the gross inefficiencies of a centrally planned economy come home to roost.
Dayuhan
06-19-2012, 11:39 PM
it is great for banks because it gives them a large buffer of cheap capital. This gives them plenty of cheap money to lend to state champions and local governments.
They also lend it, increasingly and in massive quantities, to the well-connected and extraordinarily wealthy elite that straddles government and "private" enterprise. Crony lending is a huge issue, and nobody has a clue what the banks actually have on their books in terms of bad loans.
Of course the Chinese government can bail out the banks, but whether or not they can bail out the companies that incurred those loans is another question. If a company borrows, builds a dozen skyscrapers that end up empty, and goes bust... ok, the bank cam be bailed out, but the company isn't going to keep building skyscrapers (though the people behind that company, closely connected to those running the banks and those staging the bailouts, will have salted their share away). That means a whole lot of unemployed workers, and a whole lot less demand for steel, concrete, etc.
It will be interesting to see where it all goes and there's absolutely no certainty about outcomes, but anyone who thinks the Chinese have created a superior economic model that's bound to swallow the world is barking at the moon.
davidbfpo
06-20-2012, 01:33 PM
The author of this book is on tour, with several speaking engagements in London next week and from emailed invite:
In her new book ‘Winner Take All: China’s Race for Resources and What It Means For The World’, Dambisa Moyo analyses the commodity dynamics facing the world over the forthcoming decades and highlights the central role of China in the global competition for finite resources. Commodity scarcity is being brought to the fore at a time when twenty-five military conflicts around the world are the result of competition over raw materials. Contrary to mainstream political discourse, Moyo shows how this phenomenon does not simply concern oil, but hard commodities such as metals and minerals, as well as soft commodities including timber and food. These resources all permeate our everyday lives – without access to them we cannot power our electricity grids, access potable water, or manufacture the technologies on which we all depend.
Holding cash reserves of over $3 trillion, China is doing what other states cannot afford to do, and undertaking a worldwide commodity shopping spree. This venture is backed by an innovative and symbiotic multilateral economic development approach to resource-rich countries, many in Africa and Latin America, to lock up resources for the future development of Chinese industry and infrastructure. Dambisa Moyo has demonstrates where this is happening, who is trading away their commodities, and the geopolitical effects these actions are likely to have in the future, prompting the overarching question: Is large-scale resource conflict inevitable or avoidable?
Her bio is different, although some here will see the hand of US capitalism:
Dr. Dambisa Moyo is an international economist...Born and raised in Lusaka, Zambia, Dr. Moyo holds a PhD in Economics from St Antony’s College, Oxford University; an MPA from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and an MBA in Finance and BS in Chemistry from American University in Washington DC. She has worked as a Consultant at the World Bank and as an Economist at Goldman Sachs where she worked in debt capital markets and as part of the global macroeconomics team. In 2009, Dr. Moyo was named one of the world’s 100 most influential people by TIME Magazine, and a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
Additionally, Dr. Moyo serves on the boards of Barclays Bank, SABMiller and Barrick Gold. She has also spoken at organisations including the OECD, World Bank, IMF, Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Moyo contributes regularly to The Economist and Financial Times and has appeared as a guest on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, BBC and Fox Business.
Link to Amazon, with one review:http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Chinas-Resources/dp/0465028284/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340199101&sr=1-1&keywords=Dambisa+Moyo
davidbfpo
06-20-2012, 01:53 PM
Patrick Porter, an Australian strategist teaching in the UK, has an op-ed which considers the role of war generally and whether Asian is the next battlefield:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/homebrewed-cold-war-bad-for-business-20120617-20hzt.html
There a couple of sentences that struck me, here is one:
America and China are economically interdependent. The truth is, they really can't afford a major clash. China, by investing so heavily in US Treasuries, has become America's banker. In turn, it relies on American demand for its exports, as the consumer-in-chief to feed its growth.
Uboat509
06-20-2012, 08:11 PM
They also lend it, increasingly and in massive quantities, to the well-connected and extraordinarily wealthy elite that straddles government and "private" enterprise. Crony lending is a huge issue, and nobody has a clue what the banks actually have on their books in terms of bad loans.
Of course the Chinese government can bail out the banks, but whether or not they can bail out the companies that incurred those loans is another question. If a company borrows, builds a dozen skyscrapers that end up empty, and goes bust... ok, the bank cam be bailed out, but the company isn't going to keep building skyscrapers (though the people behind that company, closely connected to those running the banks and those staging the bailouts, will have salted their share away). That means a whole lot of unemployed workers, and a whole lot less demand for steel, concrete, etc.
It will be interesting to see where it all goes and there's absolutely no certainty about outcomes, but anyone who thinks the Chinese have created a superior economic model that's bound to swallow the world is barking at the moon.
This is a good summary of the weak points of state capitalism. State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and state champions get plenty of government support in the form of cheap money and favorable legislation but that can only help a business that is competitive. Propping up uncompetitive businesses simply because they are owned or favored by the state just drains the governments coffers for little or no return. Anyone who has been to the Department of Motor Vehicles in the US knows that the state is poor at encouraging productivity and that includes state owned/supported commercial ventures. This is also true of innovation as government bureaucrats have little incentive to innovate and innovators outside of SOEs or state champions cannot compete for resources. By themselves these things put the lie to the "superiority" of state capitalism but the rampant corruption that accompanies state capitalism frankly obliterates the myth.
Fuchs
06-20-2012, 09:25 PM
This is a good summary of the weak points of state capitalism. State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and state champions get plenty of government support in the form of cheap money and favorable legislation but that can only help a business that is competitive. Propping up uncompetitive businesses simply because they are owned or favored by the state just drains the governments coffers for little or no return.
It depends.
For starters, you are usually completely wrong with your assertion.
Imagine a shipyard competing with South Koreans. Let's say South Koreans are 20% more competitive (in part due to subsidies).
Does it make sense to subsidize the shipyard by 20%?
Likely YES.
Taxes and stuff mean that half of those 20% come back to government coffers (even without considering any service sector multipliers) within 12 months.
Now we're down to 10%.
The alternative for the shipyard workers was to be unemployed, unemployment pay is probably something like 50%. Now we save a lot instead of having 20% losses.
The costs of the shipyard are of course be much less than 100% labour costs. That doesn't change the picture, though. The material and energy costs will be about domestic suppliers in a large country. In the end, about 60-70% of these costs end up being labour costs somewhere else, while 30-40% would end up being capital income of someone.
So in the end, net savings from subsidizing may be about three times as high as the subsidies.
I know that popular economics doesn't consider such second-order effects and prefers a more Darwinian approach, but the reality is messy. Millions of workers have no alternatives to speak of. One worker fired at a closing shipyard equals an increase of the structural unemployment by more than one person.
The Darwinian stuff only applies to some markets, it does not apply to old industries at all.
Dayuhan
06-20-2012, 11:15 PM
For starters, you are usually completely wrong with your assertion.
Imagine a shipyard competing with South Koreans. Let's say South Koreans are 20% more competitive (in part due to subsidies).
Does it make sense to subsidize the shipyard by 20%?
Likely YES.
So what do you do when the Koreans raise their subsidy? Raise yours too?
That of course would depend on the extent of the "in part due to subsidies" argument. How big exactly is that part? If you're in the US, you also have to consider the very limited availability of skilled labor in technical disciplines, high labor costs, very restrictive regulatory environments, etc.
At what point do you begin taxing competitive sectors (rendering them less competitive) to subsidize non-competitive sectors?
I can see an argument for subsidizing industries that have potential to be competitive, but which need a temporary subsidy in order to achieve that status. Pouring money into industries that have low potential for competitiveness and which will probably require perpetually increasing subsidies makes a lot less sense.
In any even the Chinese problem is less one of subsidizing industries competing with those in other countries than one of an extraordinarily incestuous relationship among industry (particularly the domestic construction industry), government, and lenders. The Chinese cushioned the impact of recession in their export markets by subsidizing an enormous surge in construction, which along with its second and third tier support industries created an enormous amount of employment. The problem is sustaining this, as in many cases end-user demand is not sufficient to absorb the building stock coming onto the market. Prices have been artificially propped up due to speculative buying, but sustainability is also an issue there.
Nobody's quite sure where it's all headed, but it looks to be a quite unsettled situation, on reason why rich Chinese seem so eager to get money out of the country.
Fuchs
06-21-2012, 01:38 AM
So what do you do when the Koreans raise their subsidy? Raise yours too?
This turns into an investment calculation with great dependence on expectations. Wrong forum to do it.
At what point do you begin taxing competitive sectors (rendering them less competitive) to subsidize non-competitive sectors?
This shows you didn't understand. A country as a whole has to support its population's goods and services consumption with its economy.
A given quantity of workers - unemployed or working - has to get its goods and services from their economy (closed economy model for simplicity).
This only gets easier if they keep working (for example in the shipyard) and more troublesome to the rest of the economy (not less!) if the example shipyard closes!
I can see an argument for subsidizing industries that have potential to be competitive, but which need a temporary subsidy in order to achieve that status. Pouring money into industries that have low potential for competitiveness and which will probably require perpetually increasing subsidies makes a lot less sense.
Forget factories buildings, machinery and the illusion of companies for a while. Remember; it's really only about people.
Many workers will not get a decent job in another sector, given their age, qualifications et cetera.
What really counts is thus the middle ground between your "temporary" and your "perpetually". It makes usually perfect sense to keep even substantially uncompetitive companies/industries above water until their non-versatile workers have retired (an exception is extreme lack of competitiveness, such as higher losses than labour costs).
Again: Low productivity work is more productive than no work at all.
The Chinese cushioned the impact of recession in their export markets by subsidizing an enormous surge in construction, which along with its second and third tier support industries created an enormous amount of employment. The problem is sustaining this, as in many cases end-user demand is not sufficient to absorb the building stock coming onto the market. Prices have been artificially propped up due to speculative buying, but sustainability is also an issue there.
Playing the markets in order to sustain (or replace) this system may be tricky, but China as a nation is having surpluses in trade and has thus proved that their system works without net foreign input. It is most likely possible to stabilise it.
The biggest challenge to this is their necessarily sharp demographic change (they would be worse off if they hadn't have it).
Dayuhan
06-21-2012, 07:55 AM
This turns into an investment calculation with great dependence on expectations. Wrong forum to do it.
Certainly so, but for the purposes of this discussion may we take it as agreed that there is an extent beyond which it is no longer economically rational to subsidize an unprofitable enterprise?
This shows you didn't understand. A country as a whole has to support its population's goods and services consumption with its economy.
A given quantity of workers - unemployed or working - has to get its goods and services from their economy (closed economy model for simplicity).
This only gets easier if they keep working (for example in the shipyard) and more troublesome to the rest of the economy (not less!) if the example shipyard closes!
That makes sense if you are subsidizing a limited number of enterprises. Unfortunately, once you subsidize some, others demand the smae treatment, and all of them have all sorts of emotionally compelling reasons why they should be on the public teat. At some point this will become unsustainable: what do you do when the number of industries being subsidized exceeds the number that are self-sufficient, or the number of workers whose salaries depend on subsidy exceeds those with salaries not depending on subsidy? If the uncompetitive are to be subsidized, the subsidy must ultimately be paid by the competitive, no? Who else will pay it?
Many workers will not get a decent job in another sector, given their age, qualifications et cetera.
What really counts is thus the middle ground between your "temporary" and your "perpetually". It makes usually perfect sense to keep even substantially uncompetitive companies/industries above water until their non-versatile workers have retired (an exception is extreme lack of competitiveness, such as higher losses than labour costs).
Again: Low productivity work is more productive than no work at all.
You won't be able to sustain the industry purely with the non-versatile workers. You'll have to hire new workers to keep the enterprise afloat, thus creating a new generation of workers that need to be subsidized. Essentially you walk onto an unending wheel in which industries have to be subsidized just to keep the workers employed. Obviously the final calculation will depend on how badly uncompetitive the industry is to start with, but I expect that if the industry has little to no chance of ever being competitive, it will in most cases be more effective to close them and retrain or adapt as many workers as possible. For the few that cannot adapt, many of whom will be approaching retirement anyway, simply paying their salaries to retirement age will likely be more cost-effective than sustaining and entire uncompetitive business just to keep them employed.
Playing the markets in order to sustain (or replace) this system may be tricky, but China as a nation is having surpluses in trade and has thus proved that their system works without net foreign input. It is most likely possible to stabilise it.
Didn't the Japanese maintain a strong trade surplus right up to and into their lost decades? A trade surplus is a nice thing to have, but it's not a guarantee of economic health.
The difference between Japan and China, of course, is that Japan's social structure allowed it to sustain a high degree of political stability through an extended downturn. That's not likely to be the case in China.
Uboat509
06-21-2012, 06:28 PM
It depends.
For starters, you are usually completely wrong with your assertion.
Imagine a shipyard competing with South Koreans. Let's say South Koreans are 20% more competitive (in part due to subsidies).
Does it make sense to subsidize the shipyard by 20%?
Likely YES.
This assumes A) that the state is better at picking winners than the private sector and B) that competitiveness can be raised simply by throwing money at the problem. I am not saying that the state should never provide subsidies to young industries with potential (although the whole Solyndra debacle clearly illustrates the danger in that), but the key word is temporary.
Taxes and stuff mean that half of those 20% come back to government coffers (even without considering any service sector multipliers) within 12 months.
Now we're down to 10%.
That depends entirely on your tax system.
The alternative for the shipyard workers was to be unemployed, unemployment pay is probably something like 50%. Now we save a lot instead of having 20% losses.
That assumes that 100% will remain unemployed. Even allowing for that, how long do you continue to subsidize an uncompetitive business before the cost of subsidies becomes greater than the cost of paying temporary unemployment benefits? How does the state address the underlying cause of the uncompetitiveness?
I know that popular economics doesn't consider such second-order effects and prefers a more Darwinian approach, but the reality is messy. Millions of workers have no alternatives to speak of. One worker fired at a closing shipyard equals an increase of the structural unemployment by more than one person.
Modern economics most certainly does consider second order effects, which is why the auto industry was bailed out in the US. The overall losses to the economy from the loss of the auto industry would have been catastrophic but the bailouts were temporary and the industry was required to repay the cost as soon as it was back on its feet. It is not that modern economics prefers a Darwinian approach, it is simply that Darwin is inevitable. Industries that fail to innovate and remain competitive will eventually fail.
The Darwinian stuff only applies to some markets, it does not apply to old industries at all.
In which old industries do the markets not determine success or failure?
tequila
06-21-2012, 07:26 PM
This assumes A) that the state is better at picking winners than the private sector and B) that competitiveness can be raised simply by throwing money at the problem. I am not saying that the state should never provide subsidies to young industries with potential (although the whole Solyndra debacle clearly illustrates the danger in that), but the key word is temporary.
...
In which old industries do the markets not determine success or failure?
The banking, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, defense, and agricultural industries disagree with you. Nat gas and nuclear might be more "new" industry, but all the rest have been around for centuries and depend enormously on government largesse/policy/regulatory authority to survive.
Uboat509
06-22-2012, 12:15 AM
The banking, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, defense, and agricultural industries disagree with you. Nat gas and nuclear might be more "new" industry, but all the rest have been around for centuries and depend enormously on government largesse/policy/regulatory authority to survive.
Banking is a special case. Countries need at least a functional banking system to grow and an outright collapse of the banking system will be devastating to the economy. Part of the problem with growth now in the rich world is that the banking system is only barely functional in many places.
Natural gas and oil do get significant help from various governments but remember, many of the states that provide these commodities and have gotten rich from them like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela for instance, are wholly dependent on them. A significant drop in commodity prices could be devastating to their economies. They can ill-afford not to support these industries in any way they can. Conversely, countries that are net fossil fuel importers are also dependent these commodities although it is a significant rise is prices that can devastate their economies. No other industry, with the possible exception of banking, has as much power to destroy a nation's economy.
The defense industry is another special case because the main customers for the defense industry are governments. The goods and services provided by the defense industry are important to their home states not only as providers of defense technology but also as useful tools of foreign policy.
Nuclear power is also a special case because of the immense (and necessary) regulation necessary to build and run a nuclear power plant as well as the huge start-up cost.
The enormous benefits that the agricultural industry has enjoyed in this country has far more to do with blatant populism than need. The only reason that we have not seen sharper cuts to agricultural subsidies in this country is that both parties lack the political will to make those cuts although that may be changing.
Dayuhan
06-22-2012, 03:36 AM
US agricultural subsidies are 100% politics and make no economic sense at all... the Japanese and the Europeans are even worse.
The Chinese have of course taken a different approach to subsidizing export manufacturing, relying heavily on a distorted exchange rate and controls on lablr cost. How sustainable that will be remains to be seen. The extent of corruption in China, generally under-recognized in the West, will eventually become a significant stumbling block, I suspect. You can get away with a lot when everything's growing at 8-10% annually, but that's not going to last forever.
Fuchs
06-22-2012, 09:47 AM
This assumes A) that the state is better at picking winners than the private sector
No, that's entirely unrelated.
I am not saying that the state should never provide subsidies to young industries with potential (although the whole Solyndra debacle clearly illustrates the danger in that), but the key word is temporary.
It's questionable whether this "temporary" is really a good idea. in regard to industries which face foreign competition. Subsidies or another privileged status can make sense as permanent institution if they lead to the lesser evil.
That depends entirely on your tax system.
Not really. It's 40-60% for all developed countries. This automatic return plays a huge role in regard to arms purchases; it means a factor 2 preference for domestic suppliers. They're often effectively cheaper even if their price is substantially higher.
That assumes that 100% will remain unemployed. Even allowing for that, how long do you continue to subsidize an uncompetitive business before the cost of subsidies becomes greater than the cost of paying temporary unemployment benefits?
I tell you that the vast majority of those workers will often end up unemployed or employed in such poor jobs that keeping them in their old job means a vastly higher productivity even before taking subsidies into account.
It makes no sense whatsoever on the macroeconomic scale to tolerate such a change.
How does the state address the underlying cause of the uncompetitiveness?
I don't care. I was pointing at an optimisation problem that's only visible if you're willing to look at issues on a case-by-case basis. Nobody will ever recognise such counter-intuitive details if he or she only applies general rules or even ideologies.
The optimisation problem does not require an answer to your question, in fact my remarks about the problem already reveal a decision model that leads to an optimal decision without any addressing of the underlying cause of competitiveness.
Shed off the blinders and forget this overemphasis on relative performance (competitiveness). In the end, absolute performance should not drop.
It is not that modern economics prefers a Darwinian approach, it is simply that Darwin is inevitable. Industries that fail to innovate and remain competitive will eventually fail.
That's wrong. Many industries are very mature and have next to nothing left to innovate. Moreover, some sectors are so much privileged (as oil in the U.S.) that even the worst management debacles don't keep the company from producing a huge profit.
Industries in mature economies that fail to compete with rising economies' industries don't do so because they're not innovating (often times the upstarts innovate nothing).
The typical reasons are rather
* a wage disadvantage that's outweighing transportation issues only until the rising economy has reached a better income level about a decade later
* subsidies and other privileges offered in the rising economy
* low profit in the mature economy (not the same as lack of competitiveness at all, for the foreign competitors who rise often do so with a string of losses; see South Korean shipyards). The low profit cuts the chance to finance necessary re-investments with outside capital.
In which old industries do the markets not determine success or failure?
In monopolies and oligopolies.
You misunderstood me, though. I was referring to the desirability of evolutionary selection, not to it itself.
Entropy
06-22-2012, 01:02 PM
Fuchs,
It seems to me you're ignoring deadweight loss, not to mention political reality. It may theoretically be possible to do what you're suggesting, but one must account for the politics. A political system (especially the US) isn't going to determine subsidies and when to end them on a strictly technocratic basis.
Fuchs
06-22-2012, 01:12 PM
I'm not sure how this deadweight loss does happen in your opinion.
We didn't really talk about shifting prices?
Entropy
06-22-2012, 02:00 PM
You are talking about subsidies, right? Subsidies produce deadweight loss.
Dayuhan
06-22-2012, 02:32 PM
I tell you that the vast majority of those workers will often end up unemployed or employed in such poor jobs that keeping them in their old job means a vastly higher productivity even before taking subsidies into account.
Vast majority? I doubt that. Based on what empitical evidence?
Fuchs
06-22-2012, 03:58 PM
Vast majority? I doubt that. Based on what empitical evidence?
It's such a non-controversial thing usually that I merely had to do a quick google search to come up with an examples study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2732771
You are talking about subsidies, right? Subsidies produce deadweight loss.
I had to look it up initially (languages...) and so far found it to be similar to "Wohlstandsverlust" (at least deadweight loss marks the areas on diagrams which we would mark as "Wohlstandsverlust".
Subsidies are transfers, and I do not remember a theoretical basis for claiming that a transfer itself means a Wohlstandsverlust. There are transaction costs, of course - administration, enforcing of revenue, distortions caused by tax dodging etc.
Even if there was a deadweight loss; I pointed at the output loss by closing the factory and sending a fraction of the workers to marginal jobs, a small fraction to decent jobs and a large fraction into unemployment.
Finally, there's a macro level to the problem: Contrary to antiquated free trade theory, it's simply stupid to believe that everything should be produced by the fittest ones. This would inevitably leave some unfit ones without the exportable output to afford a decent material standard of life.
Mali et al have no choice, but countries with industries (for technically export-capable products, that is; at the very least suitable as substitutes to imports) should not give them up easily and de-industrialise, for they would move to join Mali.
Relatively inefficient industries can very well be good industries and vital to a countries' material standard of life.
Uboat509
06-22-2012, 05:45 PM
No, that's entirely unrelated.
On the contrary, if the state is going to pour a bunch of subsidies into a business they are usually doing it with the expectation that the business will return to profitability at some point in the future.
It's questionable whether this "temporary" is really a good idea. in regard to industries which face foreign competition. Subsidies or another privileged status can make sense as permanent institution if they lead to the lesser evil.
How often does that happen?
Not really. It's 40-60% for all developed countries. This automatic return plays a huge role in regard to arms purchases; it means a factor 2 preference for domestic suppliers. They're often effectively cheaper even if their price is substantially higher.
Actually the top rate in the US is %35. Most of the employees will be in a lower tax bracket and will not pay that much. The Corporate tax take will also be lower than that after deductions. The bottom line is that subsidies will not pay for themselves over the long term.
I tell you that the vast majority of those workers will often end up unemployed or employed in such poor jobs that keeping them in their old job means a vastly higher productivity even before taking subsidies into account.
It makes no sense whatsoever on the macroeconomic scale to tolerate such a change.
I am not sure that is true but even if it is, pouring subsidies into an uncompetitive business simply maintain employment crosses the line from economics to social welfare. As someone pointed out already, as long as the business remains open, new workers will be brought in to replace those who leave thus passing the cost of maintaining the business open on to a new generation. As a social welfare program this would do nothing to address the problem all the while being a net drag on the economy. A far better way to spend social welfare money is on programs like job retraining schemes.
I don't care. I was pointing at an optimisation problem that's only visible if you're willing to look at issues on a case-by-case basis. Nobody will ever recognise such counter-intuitive details if he or she only applies general rules or even ideologies.
The optimisation problem does not require an answer to your question, in fact my remarks about the problem already reveal a decision model that leads to an optimal decision without any addressing of the underlying cause of competitiveness.
Shed off the blinders and forget this overemphasis on relative performance (competitiveness). In the end, absolute performance should not drop.
You cannot simply ignore the cause of uncompetitiveness. Throwing money at the problem while failing to address the underlying cause is treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. That can only work in the short term. Ignore the disease long enough and it will kill the patient. The question then becomes how many resources will be expended in fruitless palliative measures before the patient dies?
That's wrong. Many industries are very mature and have next to nothing left to innovate. Moreover, some sectors are so much privileged (as oil in the U.S.) that even the worst management debacles don't keep the company from producing a huge profit.
Which industries have nothing left to innovate?
Industries in mature economies that fail to compete with rising economies' industries don't do so because they're not innovating (often times the upstarts innovate nothing).
The typical reasons are rather
* a wage disadvantage that's outweighing transportation issues only until the rising economy has reached a better income level about a decade later
* subsidies and other privileges offered in the rising economy
* low profit in the mature economy (not the same as lack of competitiveness at all, for the foreign competitors who rise often do so with a string of losses; see South Korean shipyards). The low profit cuts the chance to finance necessary re-investments with outside capital.
All of those things will provide short term benefits but ultimately only the persistent innovators can hold market share. Apple did not get where it is through subsidies wage advantages etc, they did so through innovation. The oil companies are continuously innovating (fracking for instance). Auto makers must innovate or die (Saab). In short, anyone who is not looking for a way to provide a product or service that is better, faster and/or cheaper will eventually lose out to someone who is. There are some few exceptions but that is not the norm.
I should mention that good marketing can mitigate a lack of innovation to some extent but only in the short term for the most part.
Fuchs
06-22-2012, 06:58 PM
On the contrary, if the state is going to pour a bunch of subsidies into a business they are usually doing it with the expectation that the business will return to profitability at some point in the future.
You probably haven't heard of the German coal subsidies...
Actually the top rate in the US is %35. Most of the employees will be in a lower tax bracket and will not pay that much. The Corporate tax take will also be lower than that after deductions. The bottom line is that subsidies will not pay for themselves over the long term.
The U.S. is easily in the 40-60% bracket because of second-order effects. Workers may pay up to 35% taxes on their income, but then they pay VAT in many places, pay fees, qualify for less transfers...
I am not sure that is true but even if it is, pouring subsidies into an uncompetitive business simply maintain employment crosses the line from economics to social welfare. As someone pointed out already, as long as the business remains open, new workers will be brought in to replace those who leave thus passing the cost of maintaining the business open on to a new generation.
You really don't know German coal subsidies. :D
The Ruhr area coal sector as a whole was subsidised, but one mine after another closed. very few new workers were hired, and very few old workers were fired. The sector largely dismantled itself over decades.
You cannot simply ignore the cause of uncompetitiveness. Throwing money at the problem while failing to address the underlying cause is treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. That can only work in the short term. Ignore the disease long enough and it will kill the patient. The question then becomes how many resources will be expended in fruitless palliative measures before the patient dies?
Some diseases cannot be defeated, and simply giving up the countries' industrial base is no option. Without it, the country tumbles sooner or later to a much lower material standard of life.
Which industries have nothing left to innovate?
Many. One example being the producers of ceramic underground sewage tubes.
It's not important, though; specifically the Chinese upstarts are NOT competitive because of their innovation (in)capability.
All of those things will provide short term benefits but ultimately only the persistent innovators can hold market share. Apple did not get where it is through subsidies wage advantages etc, they did so through innovation. The oil companies are continuously innovating (fracking for instance). Auto makers must innovate or die (Saab). In short, anyone who is not looking for a way to provide a product or service that is better, faster and/or cheaper will eventually lose out to someone who is. There are some few exceptions but that is not the norm.
You vastly overrate innovation. Almost all of what passes as innovation is actually merely adaption of others' innovation or superficial fashion stuff.
Again; low prices (at times including subsidy-driven dumping and undervalued currencies) drive the gaining of market shares by developing countries, not innovation.
Innovation is no great problem; the Japanese were the horror of the Germans in the early 90's and only half a decade later the Japanese advantages in management had been adapted.
Companies which fall behind in productivity/competitiveness are much more likely to do so because of a lack of capital investment or because of management errors.
Dayuhan
06-22-2012, 10:22 PM
It's such a non-controversial thing usually that I merely had to do a quick google search to come up with an examples study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2732771
Nothing there indicating a "vast majority". If "This excess of disabilities then stayed relatively constant at approximately 17 per 100 persons from 5 to 10 years after the shut-down", wouldn't subsidizing that excess of 17 per 100 through retirement be cheaper than subsidizing the entire factory ad infinitum?
Companies which fall behind in productivity/competitiveness are much more likely to do so because of a lack of capital investment or because of management errors.
Labor cost and regulatory burden don't enter into it at all? Do you really think any level of capital investment and management expertise could have kept, say, the US textile industry competitive?
Subsidies in developed also have a negative global impact, posing a serious obstacle to countries that are trying to develop viable industries
This thread needs to get back to China...
Fuchs
06-23-2012, 12:42 AM
Nothing there indicating a "vast majority".
Actually,
After the factory closure, the annual employment rate of the study group showed a steady rise to a maximum level of 44% within 6 years, but even after 10 years never matched the employment rate of the controls.
AND I didn't only refer to unemployed, but rather wrote
...the vast majority of those workers will often end up unemployed or employed in such poor jobs that keeping them in their old job means a vastly higher productivity even before taking subsidies into account.
Now look at my emphasis, please.
I don't believe that you think about the same as I do. I think of the economy as something that creates goods & services, sustains itself and distributes the goods and services (and there are some trade effects).
To close a factory in a distressed sector usually means to reduce the goods produced in the country, for the workers don't simply move to another factory.
It's a strange idea of efficiency to favour substantially less output and substantially less consumption only because a company failed on the market.
This makes sense when there's a lot of flexibility, when workers get a new job of at least equivalent productivity and when capital is simply allocated to a better use.
The reality in Germany is that the former doesn't happen and the latter takes the shape of capital export that helps nobody but a handful of big ticket capital owners.
The reality in the U.S. and UK is more about the former, while the latter cannot be said as long as the macro picture includes a substantial net capital import.
Keep in mind that the economic theory that says 'bad' companies shall be liquidated to free up resources for better uses is a very primitive one (early 20th century) and so very basic that it doesn't include the substantial limits on those "better uses".
Moreover, economic theory is not nationalistic-egoistic, but rather totally fixated on efficiency. Studying macro and micro basically means a three to five year indoctrination of aversion against waste of resources.
A nation has different priorities than to optimise the global economy.
Some developing countries have used subsidies to horrible effect (example low oil prices in Iran) while others have become the foundation of the countries' new prosperity (example electronics and shipyard industries in South Korea).
Subsidies aren't only good for attack (gaining market shares), but also for defence (keeping market shares).
Western countries can use subsidies (and other privileges, as subsidies are IIRC a problem under the WTO regime) to help the development of all-new sectors (biochemical technology etc) and to sustain old sectors in order to avoid the after-effects of losing them.
“The new American ‘pivot towards Asia’ is a brilliant illustration of the place of this region which is now key to the balance of today’s world and in defining our security interests. This area is indeed a strategic stake for France which is and will remain a power in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. I came here to affirm that France firmly intends to remain committed to fostering security in the Asia Pacific area.”--------- French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Address at Shangri-La Dialogue Singapore June 03 2012.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers51/paper5081.html
Bob's World
06-24-2012, 05:56 PM
France appears to be working aggressively to reestablish influence in many of their old haunts.
When nations wearied of French control and colonialism, many turned to the US for hope. Now it appears it is France that is offering itself as a less controlling option. Ironic.
davidbfpo
06-24-2012, 07:14 PM
Bob,
What evidence supports your argument? Leaving aside Libya.
France appears to be working aggressively to reestablish influence in many of their old haunts.
In the Pacific France has retained most of colonies; in Asia I think France is glad to be gone (Cambodia did see some activity when peace was achieved); in Africa she has retreated, in the Ivory Coast she had to "share" peacekeeping with the UN (which failed) and in the Middle East selling weapons in the Gulf and being noisy on Syria hardly fits.
The UK of course has a new, stronger relationship with France and President Hollande has taken a little step to show this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-18548327
Has France any military assets to spare for the Pacific?
If so, how?
Dayuhan
06-24-2012, 09:28 PM
Influence is not achieved only by the deployment of military assets... still, I haven't seen much evidence that the French are trying to build influence in the neighborhood, would be interested in the sources behind the claim.
Bob's World
06-24-2012, 10:52 PM
Ray's source is the first I have seen in regard to the Pacific. I had just been noticing in recent months a variety of sources in regard to the recent rise of how residents of the Middle East perceived France as compared to other Western powers.
Here is one source, a youth survey in the Middle East in 2012
http://www.arabyouthsurvey.com/english/pdf/white_paper_ays2012_English.pdf
"ARAB YOUTH SEE FRANCE
MOST FAVOURABLY
AMONG ALL FOREIGN
COUNTRIES; VIEWS OF
CHINA AND INDIA ARE
ALSO INCREASINGLY
POSITIVE
One year after the start of the
Arab Spring, young people in the
Middle East have changed some
of their views of major foreign
powers, and now look more
favourably upon France, China
and India"
Dayuhan
06-25-2012, 03:36 AM
Of course a French Defence Minister on a tour of Asia will make brave noises about commitment to the region, but I have to wonder if those noises are being backed up by any sort of action.
ganulv
06-25-2012, 03:01 PM
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Made-in-...-.png
LINK (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/how-much-of-us-consumables-are-made-in-china/)
French military Strategy
http://www.cfr.org/france/french-military-strategy-nato-reintegration/p16619
French Foreign, Defense, And National Security Policy: New Initiatives?
http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/french-foreign-defense-and-national-security-policy-new-initiatives/
Fuchs
06-25-2012, 05:40 PM
Quick plausibility check:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
"2012 : U.S. trade in goods with China"
"TOTAL 2012 (...) 127,032.0" (imports, million USD)
in 4 months, so roughly 380 billion in a year.
U.S. production of goods (this goes beyond consumption just as the trade statistic):
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=5
"Gross Output by Industry Billions of dollars"
"All industries" "2010"(last available, dunno why) "25811.4"
(Note: U.S. definition of "industries" isn't actually about resource production and manufacturing only!)
Quick check using the gross figures instead of value added:
380/25811.4*100% = approx. 1.5%
So this is probably approx. where they got the pie chart's 1.2+0.7% from.
It looks to be at about the same order of magnitude as the 1.2+0.7% of the pie chart.
This was about gross output. Total GDP of the U.S. is only about 15.1 trillion, though -and only about 20% of it is primary+secondary sector. Obviously, gross output is a poor base for such calculations as it's bigger than the GDP!
Now let's look at value added:
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=5 (direct links don't seem to work well there)
"Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting"
"Mining
"Utilities"
"Construction"
"Manufacturing"
(these are as far as I can tell the true goods-producing sectors)
"Value Added by Industry Billions of dollars"
year: "2011"
"177.8"
"287.6"
"250.8"
"520.3"
"1837.0"
sum: 3037
Now let's have fun and compare the 380 billion with the 3037 billion:
380/3037*100% = approx. 12.5%
I call the pie chart B.S.
(I love it when I make a 15 minute plausibility check and it's not in vain!)
Whoever compiled that chart was either incompetent, did at least one mistake less than me and/or meant to produce wrong propaganda.
After all, the share of Chinese goods in consumables is likely larger than smaller in comparison to its share in regard to investment goods.
ganulv
06-25-2012, 06:32 PM
Whoever compiled that chart was either incompetent, did at least one mistake less than me and/or meant to produce wrong propaganda.
It’s a graphic in an article (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-25.pdf) published via the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (http://www.frbsf.org/economics/pbc/publications.php). As to whether the authors [1 (http://www.frbsf.org/economics/economists/staff.php?ghale), 2 (http://www.frbsf.org/economics/economists/staff.php?bhobijn)] are culpable on any of those three counts, I suspect…
Quick check using the gross figures instead of value added:
380/25811.4*100% = approx. 1.5%
So this is probably approx. where they got the pie chart's 1.2+0.7% from.
that the issue might be one of operational definitions. Perhaps that you are not reading <content> as per the authors’ usage? From the article:
Of the 2.7% of U.S. consumer purchases going to goods labeled “Made in China,” only 1.2% actually represents China-produced content. If we take into account imported intermediate goods, about 13.9% of U.S. consumer spending is attributable to imports, including 1.9% imported from China.
Fuchs
06-25-2012, 08:17 PM
Their credentials aren't better than mine, academically.
The Chinese are not known for exporting investment goods. Thus most of their exports to the U.S. are about consumption goods.
They produce most of the intermediate goods for their production (metals, plastics) by themselves, so the overwhelming share of their goods exports is really Chinese value added.
Their goods exports to the U.S. are large in comparison to the U.S. OVERALL production of goods.
Sorry, their pie chart flunks the plausibility test badly, almost by an order of magnitude.
Feel free to ask for a 4th opinion.
Besides; it's probably pointless to mention in an anglophone forum, but U.S. econ statistics have become questionable years ago.
Example: FTD "Quadratur des US-Wirtschaftskreislaufes (http://www.ftd.de/finanzen/maerkte/:das-kapital-quadratur-des-us-wirtschaftskreislaufs/196140.html)", 6.5.2007
(A complete copy is here (http://aktien-portal.at/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=29842&mesg_id=14893), but google translate won't help with so many econ terminology in it.)
Excerpt (one of many inconsistencies mentioned there): The U.S. statistics claimed an increase in capital investment by 4.4% at the same time when the U.S. investment goods industry was supposed to have experienced a 10.2% turnover slump.
ganulv
06-25-2012, 09:18 PM
Their credentials aren't better than mine, academically.
One literally cannot achieve a higher level of credentialization in the U.S. than those two have! Our university system does not offer students the option to habilitate and does not require it of faculty. But that’s neither here nor there…
The Chinese are not known for exporting investment goods. Thus most of their exports to the U.S. are about consumption goods.
They produce most of the intermediate goods for their production (metals, plastics) by themselves, so the overwhelming share of their goods exports is really Chinese value added.
Their goods exports to the U.S. are large in comparison to the U.S. OVERALL production of goods.
Sorry, their pie chart flunks the plausibility test badly, almost by an order of magnitude.
Feel free to ask for a 4th opinion.
You appear to fail to apprehend that the pie chart is meant to illustrate U.S. consumer spending on all goods and services. The vast majority of American consumer spending is on housing, sustenance, insurance, pensions, health care, and education. Contrary to your assertion, any version of that pie chart which is not mostly grey does not pass the plausibility test. That fact stands even if the authors’ methodology is shoddy and even if the statistics are bad.
Dayuhan
07-03-2012, 11:19 PM
Probably exaggerated, still of interest... the list could be a whole lot longer:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/02/5_signs_of_the_chinese_economic_apocalypse
5 Signs of the Chinese Economic Apocalypse
"ARAB YOUTH SEE FRANCE MOST FAVOURABLY
AMONG ALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES;"
Winning friends and influencing people via the Armee de l'Air.
flagg
07-04-2012, 07:35 AM
Probably exaggerated, still of interest... the list could be a whole lot longer:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/02/5_signs_of_the_chinese_economic_apocalypse
Keep an eye on iTulip.com forum for analysis of the China slowdown.
It's well worth putting on the reading list for analysis on China as well as the entire GFC.
davidbfpo
07-04-2012, 10:08 AM
What a great example of inter-dependence from the FP article, my emphasis:
Electricity consumption usually spikes over the summer, as people turn on their air-conditioners to cope with the seasonal heat. But this year, many Chinese appear to be braving the high temperatures to economize. China's ports are piled high with coal that should be roaring in the country's power plants.... Now it looks as if China has imported more fuel than it needs, as hard-pressed citizens, businesses, and factories cut their electricity consumption in order to reduce their bills.
The national price of coal has already dropped 10 percent since late last year. This drop could further dent the global economy, which would in turn cool demand for Chinese exports even more. That's globalization for you: A Chinese person turns off the air-conditioning, and the world economy catches a cold.
China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries
Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire.
Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China’s claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable. Despite the fact that the Chinese are very pleased to partner with Russia and have always supported Russia in the UN Security Council, in person, on the sidelines, its diplomats supposedly jokingly hint to their Russian colleagues: you must understand that soon you will have to share the Far East?
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/17-07-2012/121658-china_territorial_claims-0/
one of those things that make for good neighbors...or is that fences?
Dayuhan
08-02-2012, 10:33 AM
On information flow in China:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/01/beijings-growing-credibility-gap/
On China and Russia:
http://thediplomat.com/2011/06/22/china-looms-over-russia-far-east/
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/pipeline-nowhere-beijing-moscow-dance-continues
China accuses West of hindering Syria peace efforts, repeats call for non-military solution
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-accuses-west-of-hindering-syria-peace-efforts-repeats-call-for-non-military-solution/2012/08/04/eab2f66a-de17-11e1-8ad1-909913931f71_story.html
China is ballistics over the West's attempt to what it feels 'regime change'.
Is what is happening in Syria a West sponsored activity or is it a genuine uprising?
It is understandable that China would be against all uprisings since it has two troubled regions in its own country that are also tinderboxes requiring a mere spark.
However, China should not forget that before accusing the West, it needs to ponder about the assistance given to uprising elsewhere, even if they pretend to be holier than thou!
Bill Moore
08-05-2012, 04:44 PM
Although the Chinese officials didn’t mention the United States by name, their charges apparently targeted Washington, which has openly said Assad needs to go.
Ray,
I think the Chinese may be half right when we make statements like this, but of course the Chinese aren't saying this for altruistic reasons. There can't be settlement when an ultimatum is presented, so a peaceful resolution (assuming it ever was possible) is definitely out of reach now.
I find it odd the Chinese would think we would support something like this, it is a no win situation for anyone, but then again I guess we have set a precedent for acting irrationally in the region.
None the less the Chinese continue to demonstrate to the world they are out of step with the general political and social trends, so they simply isolate themselves further and become less effective on the global stage.
Dayuhan
08-06-2012, 12:21 AM
I find it odd the Chinese would think we would support something like this, it is a no win situation for anyone, but then again I guess we have set a precedent for acting irrationally in the region.
I don't think the Chinese really believe that, but they know that given our reputation for meddling, that message will seem credible in a lot of places.
None the less the Chinese continue to demonstrate to the world they are out of step with the general political and social trends, so they simply isolate themselves further and become less effective on the global stage.
We've also seemd out of step on many occasions... and much of the world views the Chinese as less inclined to meddle and intervene in support of their own interest than the US. I'm not sure the balance of perception is altogether in our favor.
I don't think the Chinese really believe that, but they know that given our reputation for meddling, that message will seem credible in a lot of places.
You are right.
It is an ideal opportunity for the Chinese to show that they are the champions of the underdogs and can be the bulwark against the US.
Does marvels for the morale of the third world countries! ;):D
We've also seemd out of step on many occasions... and much of the world views the Chinese as less inclined to meddle and intervene in support of their own interest than the US. I'm not sure the balance of perception is altogether in our favor.
It is conceded that the US is a bit 'gung ho' about issues and that attitude does upset many.
But, even third world and small countries realise that the US is, like the Chinese, are at preserving their own interests, even if it is done in a rather ham handed manner.
China, on the other hand, attempts to do the same in a more subtle way.
However, with China getting stronger by the day, they not only are doing things in a ham handed manner and more outrageously than the US, but adding insult to injury, the act coy by quoting fables as history. (Sima Qian Records of the Grand Historian).
davidbfpo
08-10-2012, 05:16 PM
A short article on this expanding relationship, without mentioning the consequent vulnerabilities and no map!
Link:http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39751&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=27&cHash=8f33c91ef51b483a63bd8596982eb3e6
Dayuhan
08-10-2012, 10:32 PM
It is an ideal opportunity for the Chinese to show that they are the champions of the underdogs and can be the bulwark against the US.
This is more or less the case, though I'd say it gives them the chance to claim they are the champions of the underdog, and to present themselves less as a bulwark against the West than as an alternative. Chinese investments and loans have eased them in a number of doors, especially in places where the conditions and demands associated with western investment have been irritants.
Even in ASEAN there are mixed opinions. Vietnam and the Philippines have a somewhat adversarial relationship with China, but Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore are trying to stay out of it and Thailand, Laos and Cambodia are close to being on China's side, consequence of who they see filling the rice bowl.
It is conceded that the US is a bit 'gung ho' about issues and that attitude does upset many.
The US has a difficult legacy in a lot of places. The left hates us because of a long history of supporting right-wing dictators and intrusive corporations, the right is suspicious over our demands on human rights, gay rights, women's rights, environmental issues, etc. We have big feet and we manage to step on practically everybody's toes at the same time. Still we have some utility, but there's not a lot of trust in many places.
But, even third world and small countries realise that the US is, like the Chinese, are at preserving their own interests, even if it is done in a rather ham handed manner.
Absolutely, and I suspect that as the Chinese go on they will wear out their welcome in many places. Many of the deals that seem very wonderful now may seem less wonderful as time goes on; the Chinese aren't giving anything away. When the Chinese offer to build highways for no money up front and take cotton or copper or oil as payment down the line, that sounds great. In 10 years when the highway is already crumbling and the bribes are spent and the cotton or copper or oil is being shipped out and no cash is coming in... well, the deal may seem less good.
As I've said elsewhere, I do not buy the idea that China's strength and international influence will inexorably grow for all eternity and continue on the trend of the last 10 years until they swallow the world, and that this can only be prevented by military force. Too much of what China is doing, domestically and internationally, rests on foundations of questionable sustainability, and the cracks will inevitably show.
Absolutely, and I suspect that as the Chinese go on they will wear out their welcome in many places. Many of the deals that seem very wonderful now may seem less wonderful as time goes on; the Chinese aren't giving anything away. When the Chinese offer to build highways for no money up front and take cotton or copper or oil as payment down the line, that sounds great. In 10 years when the highway is already crumbling and the bribes are spent and the cotton or copper or oil is being shipped out and no cash is coming in... well, the deal may seem less good.
As I've said elsewhere, I do not buy the idea that China's strength and international influence will inexorably grow for all eternity and continue on the trend of the last 10 years until they swallow the world, and that this can only be prevented by military force. Too much of what China is doing, domestically and internationally, rests on foundations of questionable sustainability, and the cracks will inevitably show.
I do agree with you. In this case many have still more or less fresh bad memories of US behaviour. In many other countries China is still the new guy in town. The had and will have their fair share of upsetting others. In Europe I do hear some who are happy by a more multipolar world and sometimes I'm also thinking that some humble lessons might serve the USA well but I think it is very important to keep things in a sensible perspective.
The Chinese government may be wise and crafty but it is also all too human and has to deal with a strong nationalistic current. It has blundered already, blunders and will blunder in the future.
Fuchs
08-11-2012, 01:06 PM
The Chinese government may be wise and crafty but it is also all too human and has to deal with a strong nationalistic current.
I suppose that's no current, but their replacement ideology for communism, which they obviously discarded in practice.
Their communist party transformed into a nationalistic unity party. Their best claim for power is that China did not fare well with decentralisation in the past and that their rule is what keeps China united, strong and civil war away.
Fuchs
09-11-2012, 01:11 PM
Sometimes I wonder why humans have not developed well enough to get rid of territorial disputes through negotiations. There's a surprisingly long list of territorial disputes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes), some of which are much more serious than others.
Even Germany has two harmless ones.
Could it be prompted by Lebensraum (One word than many to put it across) or mere desire to expand the hegemony?
Dayuhan
09-11-2012, 11:39 PM
Most of today's disputes (with exceptions, of course) involve areas with little advantage in the lebensraum sense... certainly there's not a lot of raum for leben in the the Senkaku Islands, the South China Sea, the Falklands, or many others.
Resources are often an issue, but people tend to underrate the importance of pride, ego, and the desire of governments to rally support or deflect criticism on domestic issues by waving flags and appealing to nationalist emotions.
Fuchs
09-11-2012, 11:47 PM
To give way in territorial disputes rarely offers any advantage, so governments maintain the claim. To do otherwise for no substantial gain would invite jingoists at home and look bad in history books.
Bob's World
09-12-2012, 03:12 AM
I suspect that mostly China wants respect.
Someday that may morph to wanting to exact a little payback for what was put upon them, but for now I think respect is #1.
Over the last months I read The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chinese-Economy-Transitions-Growth/dp/0262640643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348653723&sr=8-1&keywords=chinese+economy+textbook) from Barry J. Naughton.
A brilliant book which does full justice to the description, which I think can be fairly quoted here:
This comprehensive overview of the modern Chinese economy by a noted expert on China's economic development offers a quality and breadth of coverage not found in any other English-language text. In The Chinese Economy, Barry Naughton provides both an engaging, broadly focused introduction to China's economy since 1949 and original insights based on his own extensive research. The book will be an essential resource for students, teachers, scholars, business people, and policymakers. It is suitable for classroom use for undergraduate or graduate courses.
After presenting background material on the pre-1949 economy and the industrialization, reform, and market transition that have taken place since, the book examines different aspects of the modern Chinese economy. It analyzes patterns of growth and development, including population growth and the one-child family policy; the rural economy, including agriculture and rural industrialization; industrial and technological development in urban areas; international trade and foreign investment; macroeconomic trends and cycles and the financial system; and the largely unaddressed problems of environmental quality and the sustainability of growth.
The text is notable also for placing China's economy in interesting comparative contexts, discussing it in relation to other transitional or developing economies and to such advanced industrial countries as the United States and Japan. It provides both a broad historical and macro perspective as well as a focused examination of the actual workings of China's complex and dynamic economic development. Interest in the Chinese economy will only grow as China becomes an increasingly important player on the world's stage. This book will be the standard reference for understanding and teaching about the next economic superpower.
Note it is from 2006 and China has undergone a great deal of changes in the meantime. Anyway I think it is a great way to take a closer look at the fundamentals of a country which has been often in the news but mostly discussed without deep knowledge and the proper focus on the key economic issues. A good refresher for my old Macro mind, too.
CHINA CAN NOW DESTROY MAJOR US PACIFIC BASES
A congressional report released days ago acknowledges that China can now destroy five of the six large American military bases in the Western Pacific region.
http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=3370
AdamG
10-22-2012, 02:06 AM
China is on course to becoming a superpower - but not in the way many expect, writes economist Martin Jacques.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19995218
jmm99
10-22-2012, 03:22 AM
Prophecy Updates and Commentary (http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=3370), and the three reports cited:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/14/chinese-missiles-can-ravage-us-bases/
http://nation.foxnews.com/chinese-missiles/2010/11/15/chinese-missiles-can-ravage-us-bases
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-15/china-threats-merit-shifting-of-u-s-defense-dollars-house-s-mckeon-says.html
are from Nov 2010.
Regards
Mike
Dayuhan
11-01-2012, 03:14 AM
This may have been posted somewhere on the site, but I can't find it and it seems worthy of attention:
Rotting From Within
Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.
...The institution is riddled with corruption and professional decay, compromised by ties of patronage, and asphyxiated by the ever-greater effort required to impose political control. The speeches, one in late December and the other in mid-February, were given by Gen. Liu Yuan, the son of a former president of China and one of the PLA's rising stars; the speeches and Liu's actions suggest that the PLA might be the site of the next major struggle for control of the Communist Party, of the type that recently brought down former Chongqing party boss Bo Xilai. Liu is the political commissar and the most powerful official of the PLA's General Logistics Department, which handles enormous contracts in land, housing, food, finance, and services for China's 2.3 million-strong military.
"No country can defeat China," Liu told about 600 officers in his department in unscripted comments to an enlarged party meeting on the afternoon of Dec. 29, according to sources who have verified notes of his speech. "Only our own corruption can destroy us and cause our armed forces to be defeated without fighting."...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/16/rotting_from_within?page=0,0
davidbfpo
11-01-2012, 12:20 PM
Dayuhan,
We have briefly touched upon this aspect of China before:wry:, within the thread on 'China's Emergence as a Superpower':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4366
In January 2012 Ray spotted this report of a speech by the same person in 2010, albeit with a different spelling and your citation is from April 2012:
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.”
From:http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinese-general-backs-the-american-dream-20100811-11zsr.html
The newly discovered and linked FP Blog article has far more detail on the interaction within the PLA and with the civilian party leadership - so a good read. Interesting to note the speaker, Lieutenant General Liu Yazhou, has a relatively short time as a commissar, nor is he a professional soldier:
Liu spent less than a decade in the PLA, and some officers resent being led by a man who lacks a professional military background, according to a source close to a rival princeling general. Others are suspicious of his personal ambition and believe his political comments have overstepped the boundaries of military discipline: Liu, like Bo, has suggested China should return to Mao-era ideals. Many see Liu's challenge to their financial and political interests as an existential threat.
davidbfpo
11-08-2012, 12:39 PM
Hat tip to the Lowy Institute's e-newsletter 'The Interpreter' for this:
Visiting PLA Lieutenant-General Ren Haiquin offered some stern thoughts on Asian security during a speech at the Chief of Army's annual conference in Melbourne last week.
One excerpt that caused local comment:
China suffered a lot from foreign aggressions and suppression in the last century and for a long time to time I was so weak that it could not even protect its most basic sovereign rights and interests. Such experiences leave in Chinese people's hearts a long lasting and painful memory. To prevent repetition of this historical tragedy, China has no other choice but to develop proper military strength. ...Nowadays, some people refuse to accept the result of World War II, intend to deny the victory of international anti- fascism war and challenge post war international order. One should never forget history and should learn from history. Claims of the war ignited by fascist countries engulfed the whole region and many places including Darwin in Australia were bombed… "Pull of one hair may lead to the move of whole body". If such thing happens, it may lead to war, history may repeat itself and ordinary people would suffer once more.
The speech in full:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/file.axd?file=2012%2f11%2flt+gen+ren+speech.pdf
Link to the source:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/11/07/Melbourne-fireworks-from-PLA-general.aspx
Dayuhan
11-09-2012, 06:30 AM
Worth a look...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138419/damien-ma/before-and-after-hu?page=show
Before and After Hu
Is China Better Off Than It Was Ten Years Ago?
...If the Chinese people were allowed such a choice, however, they would likely ask the perennial question of U.S. presidential elections since the time of Ronald Reagan, albeit in a slightly modified form: Are you better off now than you were ten years ago?
Despite all that is made of China’s spectacular rise, the numbers show that many people in China would likely answer no. As Hu prepares to leave office, China is prosperous but staggeringly unequal, and strong but profoundly insecure. Indeed, in recent years, China has experienced intensifying clashes between bottom-up demands for social equality, individual freedoms, and environmental stewardship and the Chinese Communist Party’s aggressive defense of the status quo...
...That so many domestic problems are coming to a head at the same time reveals that the premises on which China’s economic miracle have rested are proving untenable in the long term.
Bob's World
11-09-2012, 11:44 AM
As China continues to rise, I believe two very interesting conditions rise with it:
1. US influence as a strong, but distant, security partner for the nations living within China's strengthening sphere of influence is growing. These nations do not want the monopolistic relationships (with us or against us) that the US has grown used to, but rather want to grow both strong economic relations with China, while balancing with greater security relations with the US. We need to appreciate this and play it to our advantage. We should also appreciate that these nations are not looking to rush into some grand Chinese coalition and exclude us from the region. Most worked far too hard for their independence, and simply wish to sustain it.
2. China has had a major (untold millions killed) internal revolution in each of the past 3 centuries. Those with more knowledge on this can probably attest to more. As the growing economy places growing pressure on seems and cracks within Chinese society their internal instability will continue to grow. I suspect the government of China is far more concerned with a handful of powerful populace groups than they are with the US Navy or Air Force. My prediction is that China is far more likely to implode in than explode out, and that they are nearer to their next revolution than they are to their last.
(But Western Nations are wise to appreciate that the "100 years of humiliation" and clearly expressed red lines are very real to China, and we do well to stop poking this growing, but restlessly sleeping dragon with little sticks. If we do not make room for Chinese influence in the world, they will take the room they believe they deserve. Better to sort this out now rather than overly cling to postures that are long obsolete.)
Dayuhan
11-09-2012, 09:43 PM
The Chinese will certainly try to play the nationalist card ("we deserve to rule because we made China great again") to distract the populace from their domestic issues. They're doing it now and they will continue. They will do this whether or not we cooperate by providing a unifying threat, but it will be more effective if we fall into the trap of providing that threat.
Fuchs
11-09-2012, 10:10 PM
It will be a bit more difficult to play up the U.S. as huge threat as long as both countries are doing so much business together.
Even the ruling elite's wealth will suffer if said business was reduced.
India and even Japan would probably be more beneficial bogeymen to the Chinese elites.
I suppose the march towards rivalry is in an essential part a U.S. move, for the military-industrial-congressional-think tank complex needs a new bogeyman now that Arabs are less and less suitable as such.
Romney wanted to revive the Russian bogeyman in order to keep business with China intact and probably to bolster influence in East Europe, but Obama appears to have decided 'in favour' of rivalry with China instead.
The army lobby loses - while navy, marines and air force lobbies win.
Dayuhan
11-09-2012, 11:30 PM
The Chinese need a bogeyman more than the US does - they have a military-industrial complex too, and their corruption probably exceeds even that of the US - and the US is by far the most credible candidate. Business is no obstacle, never has been, as long as you can scare the populace without interfering with business... which exactly what the Chinese have been trying to do, generally successfully.
Backwards Observer
11-10-2012, 12:43 PM
2013 - Year of the Snake
Barack Obama - Metal Ox -
Like metal, these Oxen are amazingly strong. They’re extremely hard-working individuals who will do whatever is necessary to achieve their goals. They’re trustworthy, dependable individuals who are not likely to show emotion. They have difficulty interpreting the feelings of others.
Ox Fortune - 2013, Year of the Snake (http://www.about-sichuan-china.com/year-of-the-ox-2013.html)
$$$
Vladimir Putin - Water Dragon -
Water calms the Dragon’s fire. Water Dragons are able to see things from other points of view. They don’t have the need to always be right. Their decisions, if well-researched, are usually better since they allow others to become involved.
Dragon Fortune -2013, Year of the Snake (http://www.about-sichuan-china.com/chinese-year-of-the-dragon-2013.html)
$$$
Manmohan Singh - Water Monkey -
Water Monkeys are extremely sensitive and often feel hurt by the things that are said to them. They refuse to show their sensitive side to others and as a result, are extreme jokesters. If they can stay focused, they can succeed, but more often than not, they’re easily distracted from their goals.
Monkey Fortune - 2013, Year of the Snake (http://www.about-sichuan-china.com/year-of-the-monkey-2013.html)
$$$
Xi Jinping - Water Snake -
Influential, motivated, insightful, and highly intellectual are words that best characterize Water Snakes. These Snakes work well with others and enjoy being recognized and rewarded. They’ll reveal feelings to those closest to them, but no one else.
Snake Fortune - 2013, Year of the Snake (http://www.about-sichuan-china.com/year-of-the-snake-2013.html)
Fuchs
11-10-2012, 12:47 PM
The Chinese need a bogeyman more than the US does - they have a military-industrial complex too, and their corruption probably exceeds even that of the US - and the US is by far the most credible candidate. Business is no obstacle, never has been, as long as you can scare the populace without interfering with business... which exactly what the Chinese have been trying to do, generally successfully.
You seem to disregard the Chinese situation.
Their story is the revival of the great Chinese nation from the ashes of the embarrassing 19th century up to 1945 period.
They do not need so much a bogeyman (too bad I used the term myself) as an antagonist - and it suits them to have a now inferior antagonist since, after all, they are now back in their natural greatness and glory!
Japan with its nationalism and particular history concerning the Chinese fits nicely, and even India fits. The U.S. will only fit nicely once it's widely perceived in the PRC as being well past its zenith IMO.
Dayuhan
11-22-2012, 10:33 AM
People who think China is destined to swallow the world should be paying close attention to what's going on inside...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-culture-of-bribery-spreads.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
For Chinese children and their devoted parents, education has long been seen as the key to getting ahead in a highly competitive society. But just as money and power grease business deals and civil servant promotions, the academic race here is increasingly rigged in favor of the wealthy and well connected, who pay large sums and use connections to give their children an edge at government-run schools...
...“Corruption is pervasive in every part of Chinese society, and education is no exception,” Mr. Li said...
People who think China is destined to swallow the world should be paying close attention to what's going on inside...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-culture-of-bribery-spreads.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
One wonders if they are wanting to 'swallow the world'. But what does this indicate?
China angers neighbours with sea claims on new passports
The Philippines and Vietnam condemned Chinese passports containing a map of China's disputed maritime claims on Thursday, branding the new design a violation of their sovereignty.
The map means countries disputing the Chinese claims will have to stamp microchip-equipped passports of countless visitors, in effect acquiescing to the Chinese point of view.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/china-southchinasea-idUSL4N0921ST20121122?feedType=RSS&feedName=basicMaterialsSector
Dayuhan
11-22-2012, 10:20 PM
One wonders if they are wanting to 'swallow the world'. But what does this indicate?
The question is less what they want than what they can do. They won't be able to swallow anything if they're choking on their own internal issues. I wouldn't want to guess at the timing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a significant internal conflict is coming down the road over there. Of course that could end up in the drivers seat and things could wind up worse, but that's beyond anyone's capacity to predict or control.
The passport thing is just one more in a long line of little bouts of pushing and shoving, wouldn't assign it any great importance.
davidbfpo
11-25-2012, 08:09 PM
A different perspective:
We’d all assume that China would come to Brazil for the sole reason that there are resources it wants here. That, after all, would be the dominant tale in Australia where I am now based. Chinese Overseas Direct Investment, we’re all reassured, is driven by the country’s immense hunger for energy and minerals to feed its massive industrial and manufacturing needs. Brazil has an abundance of these. So, logically, you’d look to see Chinese investment going into these sectors.
And in fact that was true till the end of 2010. But then things changed dramatically. The vast bulk of Chinese money coming into Brazil since then has been into services, into leasing, into supporting its export industries – into, in fact, the very same sectors it has gone into in Europe.
A taster followed by a punch line - with my emphasis:
The idea that Chinese overseas investment is some highly strategic, well articulated and structured force is almost certainly wrong for the very simple reason that many of the main actors on the Chinese side are as puzzled and surprised by what is happening as people are outside.
This mutual confusion explains why, at least for the short to medium term future, these conferences on China are not likely to disappear. They are simply a testament to how hard we are all finding it to make sense of what is happening.
Link:http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2012/11/23/avoiding-mutual-confusion-between-china-and-other-countries/
Dayuhan
11-25-2012, 10:12 PM
If there's no apparent strategic logic to an investment pattern, it's always possible that the investing party is simply trying to make money. People, companies, even nations do invest for profit as well as for strategic gain.
Taipei protests China’s new passports
China’s official maps have long included Taiwan and the South China Sea as Chinese territory, but the act of including those in its passports could be seen as a provocation since it would require other nations to tacitly endorse those claims by affixing their official seals to the documents.
Presidential Office spokesman Fan Chiang Tai-chi (范姜泰基) said President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) hoped China would not take inappropriate action to break the hard-earned stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Fan Chiang said the two famous tourist destinations are “under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China [ROC] government and not under the control of China.”
He said Ma had instructed the Mainland Affairs Council to issue a statement on the issue.
Fang Chiang said the government promotes cross-strait exchanges on the basis of “not recognizing each other’s sovereignty and not denying each other’s right to rule.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/11/24/2003548465
It is not only the non Chinese who are riled, but also Taiwan, who are also Chinese.
Therefore, it is only the Red or Communist Chinese and the like who are the one who are trying to create issues that can only unnecessarily upset the stability of the area.
Hegemonic pursuit is known, but not in such a crass and crude manner.
The peace and stability of the region should not be imbalanced.
Soon the major part of the US naval fleet will shift from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific region.
Therefore, it will become a tinderbox and the Communist Chinese aggressive initiative is hardly worth its while to act as a match to the fire.
Peace is the necessity and not confrontation, physical or contrived!
It is a hope in hell if China feels that it can physically capture the areas they claim to give credence to their dreams!
China puts Himalayan claims on passport map, India maps its own
India on Friday termed as 'unacceptable' China depicting Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as its territory in maps of the country on their new e-passports, a step that led to retaliatory action by New Delhi.
China sprung the surprise on India when it showed these territories as part of its own in the maps on their new e-passports.
The Indian Embassy in Beijing responded by issuing visas to Chinese nationals with a map of India including Arunachal and Aksai Chin as part of its territory.
In India's first official reaction, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said,"We are not prepared to accept it."
"We, therefore, ensure that our flags of disagreement are put out immediately when something happens. We can do it in an agreeable way or you can do it in a disagreeable way," he told a TV channel.
China, on its part, sort of fudged the issue with its Foreign Ministry Spokesperson saying that the matter should be dealt with in a 'level headed and rational manner' to avoid 'unnecessary disruptions' to people to people exchanges.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/north/china-puts-himalayan-claims-passport-map-india-maps-its-own-829
People, companies, even nations do invest for profit as well as for strategic gain.
What strategic aim has China to invest around the world to including making inroads into the US and western economies?
He who pays the piper calls the tune!
Fuchs
11-26-2012, 07:38 PM
I suppose in the case of the U.S. there might be some interesting potential given the influence of money on elections and the (afaik) fact that foreign parties must not donate such money while foreign-controlled ones (say, with 45% foreign-held shares) can do.
Maybe the Chinese want to outdo the U.S. in a corruption race to the bottom by accelerating the latter. :D
What strategic aim has China to invest around the world to including making inroads into the US and western economies?
He who pays the piper calls the tune!
Seriously; a country with goods and services balance surplus (such as Chin) has by definition a capital export surplus. It owns a lot of foreign money. You can put this into foreign government bonds, but that's not 100% unproblematic if said government may simply decide to solve a debt problem by ordering its central bank to print more money (which the U.S. can, while South Europeans cannot anymore - it even works despite inflation-indexed bonds).
The Chinese need practically no specific reason to invest abroad. They have the cash, and its only uses are abroad. It's that simple.
Dayuhan
01-19-2013, 11:58 PM
A look at the emergence of more aggressive voices among the Chinese military/foreign policy elite:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-china-hawks-idUSBRE90G00C20130117
What remains to be seen is whether these voices represent a dominant bloc or are making actual policy, or whether they are encouraged as the harsh half of a good cop/bad cop routine.
If the Chinese ever did decide to do a "limited war" just to show will, they would of course want to have a go at the Philippines. A limited naval encounter with Japan would be way too equal for the Chinese liking and would very likely end with the Chinese taking a black eye and a bloody nose, which would be politically catastrophic. Even the Vietnamese could pull a surprise or two.
The question of course would be how far the Chinese could go against the Philippines without suffering repercussions that could affect trade and an increasingly vulnerable domestic economy. My guess is that if they limited it to sinking or seizing a few ships and expelling the Philippine garrison from the Spratlys, they could probably get away with it, meaning the consequences would be manageable. An attack on the major islands would be a lot more problematic.
It could happen. Probably won't, but it could. We'll see...
China ships in waters around disputed islands: Japan
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a joint news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida in Washington on Friday, said the disputed area was under Japan's administration and hence protected under a US security treaty with Tokyo.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/01/19/13/china-ships-waters-around-disputed-islands-japan
Japan talk of warning shots heats up China dispute
Japan says it may fire warning shots and take other measures to keep foreign aircraft from violating its airspace in the latest verbal blast between Tokyo and Beijing that raises concerns that a dispute over hotly contested islands could spin out of control.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Japan-talk-of-warning-shots-heats-up-China-dispute-4208899.php#ixzz2IVRG8PvL
davidbfpo
02-09-2013, 10:43 PM
Hat tip to The Lowy Institute and Zenpundit for drawing attention to:
During the panel discussion on the Chinese Navy last week at the USNI West Conference in San Diego, Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for US Pacific Fleet had some “bracing” comments about the Chinese Navy. When I quote “bracing” I am actually quoting Sam Roggeveen of the Australian Lowy Institute Interpreter blog.
What makes the comments “bracing” is that they are both blunt and honest in commentary.
What did the Captain say? You can watch the video or peruse select quotes:
Select quotes:
(China’s) expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet.’
The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare…Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet.’
On China Marine Surveillance, which supervises and patrols China’s claimed maritime territory: ‘If you map out their harassments you will see that they form a curved front that has over time expanded out against the coast of China’s neighbours, becoming the infamous nine-dashed line, plus the entire East China Sea…China is negotiating for control of other nations’ resources off their coasts; what’s mine is mine, and we’ll negotiate what’s yours.’
China Marine Surveillance cutters have no other mission but to harass other nations into submitting to China’s expansive claims…China Marine Surveillance is a full-time maritime sovereignty harassment organisation’.
In my opinion, China is knowingly, operationally and incrementally seizing maritime rights of its neighbours under the rubric of a maritime history that is not only contested in the international community but has largely been fabricated by Chinese government propaganda bureaus in order to “educate” the populous about China’s rich maritime history, clearly as a tool to sustain the Party’s control.’
The video:http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2013/2/4/interesting-panel-on-chinese-navy-video.html
Lowy Institute:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/02/05/Blunt-words-on-China-from-US-Navy.aspx
Zenpundit:http://zenpundit.com/?p=19115
Backwards Observer
02-10-2013, 03:24 AM
I love the smell of honesty in the morning.:)
"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs!" - Fleet Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, Jr.
WW II Quotes (http://www.wwiidogtags.com/blog/wwii-quotes/jan-2/) - wwiidogtags.com
Backwards Observer
02-10-2013, 05:11 AM
Speaking of honesty, which we all justifiably hold in such high esteem:
Japan Wants To Rewrite World War II
by James Dunnigan
August 22, 2010
[...]
World War II, which killed over a hundred million people, had a profound effect on the nations where it was fought. Japan (which began invading in 1937) and Germany (1939) were the two main aggressors, and after the war, the Germans and Japanese had a different reaction to their bad behavior during the war. The Germans (most of them) were remorseful and guilt ridden.
The Japanese immediately tried to rewrite history, and are still at it. Within days of Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945, coded messages went out from Tokyo to Japanese diplomats around the world, ordering them to start a campaign portraying Japan as a victim in the war, and to play down Japanese atrocities and play up Japanese civilian losses in the recent atomic bomb attacks. These particular messages were not decrypted by the United States until years after the war. That's because the war was over, there were other priorities (like cracking Russian codes) and the Japanese the messages were recorded and filed away. By the time the Japanese messages were deciphered, the Cold War had begun, and Japan was needed as an ally against the communist menace. Those decrypted messages were kept secret for decades, along with most of the details of how Allied code breakers had read most of the enemies (and some friends) secret messages throughout the war.
What was not so secret were Japanese efforts to ignore the war and portray themselves as victims. Many Japanese opposed rewriting history, which was often quite blatant. This meddling with historical facts regularly caused problems with neighbors, especially China. But the Japanese were insistent on evading responsibility. They still are, and many Japanese really believe it.
[...]
Japan Wants To Rewrite World War 2 (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Japan-Wants-To-Rewrite-World-War-II--8-22-2010.asp) - Strategy Page - 8.22.2010.
Japanese War Crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes) - wikipedia
Casualties in Asia Pacific (http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm) - Pacific War Online Encyclopedia
The common wisdom seems to be that the only way forward is for the mainland commies to just get over it and/or stop cynically trying use the 18 or 25 million or whatever Chinese civilians killed during WW2 as a bargaining point. Since Japan has forgiven the US for incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and the US has managed to let go of the whole Pearl Harbour thing, maybe the commies should put their historical grievances aside. After all, being responsible for the deaths of millions of Chinese civilians is actually something they have in common with Japan. As a common saying in Asia goes, "The strong man folds his arms." Otherwise I guess it'll be, "Kill chinks, kill chinks, kill more chinks!" (http://blog.angryasianman.com/2012/11/racist-idiots-watch-red-dawn-tweet.html).:rolleyes:
davidbfpo
02-24-2013, 06:55 PM
Unifying China remains a national objective for PRC, so an article from Taiwan on the balance between PRC & RoC is welcome, if only as an update. IIRC the defence of Taiwan has appeared here before sometime ago.
Link:http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/02/22/2003555383/1
Maeda Toshiie
02-28-2013, 03:32 AM
1. The PLA still does not have the ability to invade and occupy Taiwan (see their amphibious capabilities). There is also no sign that the PLA is engaging in efforts to build up its amphibious capabilities (which will take a lot of time to build up the ships and necessary skills).
2. Unless the US does not honour its agreement with Taiwan, the PLA cannot successfully blockade Taiwan to force a submission.
3. The host of ballistic missiles that PLA can throw across the Straits alone cannot force submission, unless the Taiwanese government loses its nerves. A prolonged air-sea battle alongside the aerial trading of missiles will only mess up seaborne trade in the region (which hurts both sides) and prompt an eventual external intervention. It is hard to say how the UNSC will act given that the PRC wields veto powers. Meanwhile SKorea and Japan will pressure the US to intervene, especially in the case of SKorea being worried that NKoreans might use the occasion for some monkey business.
At least for the next decade (and probably longer), what can cause Taiwan to fall to the PLA is that of the Taiwanese government losing its nerves.
Bill Moore
03-10-2013, 03:24 AM
Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy, former ambassador to China and senior U.S. diplomat, speaks at the East-West Center in Hawai'i on "Strategic Challenges for the U.S.-China Relationship," Feb. 13, 2013.
http://vimeo.com/59754895
For those interested in the U.S. view on the challenges with managing the U.S.-China relationship this is an outstanding presentation by a true expert on the region, on China, and on U.S. policy.
The actual presentation is 37 or so minutes long before he goes into a question and answer period. For those only interested in the military issues you can start at the 25 minute mark. I think you'll miss the important context if you jump forward though.
I love the smell of honesty in the morning.:)
WW II Quotes (http://www.wwiidogtags.com/blog/wwii-quotes/jan-2/) - wwiidogtags.com
There are no permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests in international relations.
http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/173/main/25/581308.jpg
Backwards Observer
03-13-2013, 06:59 PM
There are no permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests in international relations.
Speaking of interests.
Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should — in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 — and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied. In 1927 Chiang Kai Shek boiled hundreds of Communists alive, and yet within ten years he had become one of the heroes of the Left. The re-alignment of world politics had brought him into the anti-Fascist camp, and so it was felt that the boiling of the Communists ‘didn't count’, or perhaps had not happened. The primary aim of propaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. When one considers the elaborate forgeries that have been committed in order to show that Trotsky did not play a valuable part in the Russian civil war, it is difficult to feel that the people responsible are merely lying. More probably they feel that their own version was what happened in the sight of God, and that one is justified in rearranging the records accordingly.
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine? Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world. (from Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell, May 1945)
Notes On Nationalism by George Orwell (http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat)
A vision of the future... (fiction) (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159438.html)
A vision of the future... (non-fiction) (http://publicshaming.tumblr.com)
Bill Moore
03-17-2013, 09:46 PM
The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world. (from Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell, May 1945)
Backwards Observer, the truth in this partial quote extends well beyond nationalists. In the U.S. it applies equally to Democrats and Republicans, in religious circles it applies to many religions, and in fact it seems any identity group (environmentalists for example) must have some degree of irrational belief to exist. While important, in the end it appears to be same as it ever was.
Backwards Observer
03-18-2013, 02:08 AM
While important, in the end it appears to be same as it ever was.
Well then, enjoy.:)
Backwards Observer
03-18-2013, 04:42 AM
Japan could tender a significant diplomatic coup in the restive region by gifting the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands to Taiwan, pending a pledge by the PRC to (solemnly) recognise sole Taiwanese administration of said islands. Given the currents of human history, a peaceful gesture of this magnitude by all three parties would probably immediately lead to war. Such is life.
A major territorial dispute is brewing in the East China Sea.
As one of the founders of the United Nations, the Republic of China (Taiwan) believes it has the responsibility to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner under the principles of the U.N. Charter. We are committed to the peaceful resolution because at the heart of the dispute are islands that belong to Taiwan.
These islands are known as the Diaoyutai Islands, which means “fishing platform” in Chinese. We see the islands as more than a platform for fishing, we also see them as a platform for peacemaking. (from The East China Sea Peace Initiative)
The East China Sea Peace Initiative (http://www.taiwantoday.tw/public/Data/211218183571.png) - Taiwan Today
***
(Image Source - Dwight Hwang Calligraphy (http://www.etsy.com/listing/116577956/bible-verse-i-will-make-you-fishers-of))
Bill Moore
03-24-2013, 02:11 AM
http://www.ted.com/playlists/73/the_global_power_shift.htmlAn interesting presentation on TED by the man who wrote, "When China Rules the World."
It is the third talk on global power shifts. A couple of key points I don't think many will refute.
Westerners tend to look at the world through western eyes, and incorrectly believe that when China modernizes will become like the West. The fact is the State of China is seen as more legitimate than any government in the West. The people view the State as the representative and protector of China's great culture.
The West hasn't had to learn about the rest of the world due to its power, if it didn't get its way it could always employ force, while most countries in the world couldn't do this. When China and East Asia surpasss the West as the geopolitical center of world power Europe will be lost, they're walking blind into the future now and have no idea how much the world is changing around them.
The first presentation by Paddy Ashdown was equally interesting. It is now projected that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy by 2020. Seems our rebalance strategy is a step in the right direction to me if we want to maintain secure access to the world's largest market.
slapout9
03-24-2013, 04:08 PM
It is the third talk on global power shifts. A couple of key points I don't think many will refute.
Bill,
I wouldn't call it refuting the points but I will bring up some concerns. First one is wanting to rule the world is a pretty Western idea to begin with??? and assuming that China wants to do that may not be such a wise perspective to start with. As far as I can see China is pursuing a make China as great as possible policy, and if any body gets in the way then smack them down, if not don't worry about them.
IMO what makes China scary is they don't believe in any of that "Invisible Hand" Bullsheet that is spewed from American business schools. China has a planned program for success.......we give tax breaks to rich people as our policy for success......we may be doomed:(
Bill Moore
03-24-2013, 06:30 PM
Bill,
I wouldn't call it refuting the points but I will bring up some concerns. First one is wanting to rule the world is a pretty Western idea to begin with??? and assuming that China wants to do that may not be such a wise perspective to start with. As far as I can see China is pursuing a make China as great as possible policy, and if any body gets in the way then smack them down, if not don't worry about them.
IMO what makes China scary is they don't believe in any of that "Invisible Hand" Bullsheet that is spewed from American business schools. China has a planned program for success.......we give tax breaks to rich people as our policy for success......we may be doomed:(
Slap that was the title of his book, that wasn't the point of the post or his presentation. You have to listen to it to pick up on some important points he is making.
Dayuhan
03-24-2013, 10:55 PM
The fact is the State of China is seen as more legitimate than any government in the West. The people view the State as the representative and protector of China's great culture.
All 1.3 billion of them? What's the basis for that assumption?
China's huge domestic economic and political problems seem often underrated in conversations on this topic
IMO what makes China scary is they don't believe in any of that "Invisible Hand" Bullsheet that is spewed from American business schools. China has a planned program for success.......we give tax breaks to rich people as our policy for success......we may be doomed:(
You think the rich in China don't get tax breaks? Have you any idea of the scale of corruption in that country?
slapout9
03-25-2013, 05:12 AM
Slap that was the title of his book, that wasn't the point of the post or his presentation. You have to listen to it to pick up on some important points he is making.
Bill I got it and I did listen to the first 3 videos but still think the same way.
slapout9
03-25-2013, 05:17 AM
You think the rich in China don't get tax breaks? Have you any idea of the scale of corruption in that country?
I work for a company that has a rather large factory in China and soon one in Cambodia for that matter, so I am somewhat familiar with the corruption problem as in big country, big population, big corruption.
Link to 60 minutes piece on China's Real estate bubble H/T to Fab Max for posting it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxjwhk1ktNw&feature=player_embedded
Bill Moore
03-25-2013, 05:42 AM
All 1.3 billion of them? What's the basis for that assumption?
China's huge domestic economic and political problems seem often underrated in conversations on this topic
You think the rich in China don't get tax breaks? Have you any idea of the scale of corruption in that country?
Dayuhan, I think you posted elsewhere that you couldn't access videos in your location, something to due with the nice tropical weather interfering with your bandwidth:D The speaker actually goes into a fair amount of detail on why he thinks the Chinese view their government as legitimate and points out it is not near as centralized as most of us think. He does point out that most Chinese identify themselves as Han, so those that don't like Tibetans, Uyghers, etc. don't share that view. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his argument, simply posted it for consideration.
Bill Moore
03-25-2013, 05:53 AM
Bill I got it and I did listen to the first 3 videos but still think the same way.
If you mean you don't think China want's to rule the world I agree. I don't think they want to be bothered with an Empire, but they do want to become the leading power in the Asia-Pacific and marginalize the U.S. in the region, which "could" have a somewhat devastating economic impact on the U.S., since East Asia is now the world's economic power house and will likely continue to be in the coming decades. That would be a threat to our vital national security interests.
If you recall the first video the speaker talked about the probability of conflict being pretty high when another power arises that challenges the existing power. That is the concern, and I think/suspect that both China and U.S. would prefer to avoid conflict even if history isn't on our side. History may not repeat itself, but it still rhymes, and we may see a shift from ideological conflicts back to economic conflicts in the coming years.
Globalism isn't new, and a popular argument in Europe prior to WWI was that war in Europe was impossible because the economies were so integrated. That is a mitigating factor, but obviously it wasn't the decisive one.
Dayuhan
03-25-2013, 11:10 AM
Dayuhan, I think you posted elsewhere that you couldn't access videos in your location, something to due with the nice tropical weather interfering with your bandwidth:D The speaker actually goes into a fair amount of detail on why he thinks the Chinese view their government as legitimate and points out it is not near as centralized as most of us think. He does point out that most Chinese identify themselves as Han, so those that don't like Tibetans, Uyghers, etc. don't share that view. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his argument, simply posted it for consideration.
I do have a hard time loading videos, and I'd also really rather read, if the matter is at all serious. I have read various perspectives on the subject. Any time you start talking about what "the Chinese" collectively think of their government you're on thin ice: in China, as everywhere else, there's a spectrum of opinion. There's certainly a sense of renewed nationalism and pride; the government gets a fair bit of credit for that and tries very hard to promote it. There's also a whole lot of anger and frustration, much of it directed at local governments, over corruption, rising inequality, an increasingly unliveable environment, and many other things. There are conflicting currents and opinion can swing very quickly. To put it's simply, it's way too complex to write off with a simple statement of what the Chinese think.
I do think the Chinese government is very deeply concerned with the possibility of domestic unrest, and that when growth starts to stutter they may rely on jingoism to sustain support. Thay also know that's dangerous.
It's complicated, like a lot of other things.
Bill Moore
03-26-2013, 06:21 PM
Vietnam Accuses China of Firing Flare at Fishermen
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/03/25/world/asia/ap-as-vietnam-china.html?ref=world
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China had taken unspecified but "legitimate and reasonable" actions against Vietnamese boats working illegally in Chinese waters. He denied that any boats had been damaged, but gave few other details.
There have been other clashes in the waters, often related to claims of illegal fishing or violations of Chinese unilaterally imposed fishing moratoriums.
Vietnam and China each claim large parts of the South China Sea. The Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also maintain that parts of the sea are theirs.
The dangerous drift towards world war in Asia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9950791/The-dangerous-drift-towards-world-war-in-Asia.html
After talking to Japanese officials in Tokyo over the last few days, I have the strong impression not only that they are ready to fight, but also that they expect to win, and furthermore that conflict may come at any moment.
"They are sending ships and even aircraft into our territory every day. It is intense provocation. We're making every effort not to be provoked but they are using fire-control radar. This is one step away from conflict and we are very worried," said a top government official.
An interesting perspective, the article also discusses what the somewhat limited control that the PRC government has over its military.
Professor Huang Jing from Singapore University and a former adviser to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) says a rising cadre of officers has slipped the leash and picked up attitudes all too like the Japan's firebrand officers in the 1930s, when they defied orders from Tokyo. He said these young bloods are on a "collision course" with the US-dominated global system.
Apparently some in China think now is the time to act due to the U.S. being over stretched in the Middle East.
What frightens me most is talk from certain quarters in Beijing that the US is a busted flush, bled dry by the financial crisis, crippled by military over-stretch in the Middle East, and that now is the moment to test the paper tiger.
This is a fatal misjudgement of course.
Dayuhan
03-26-2013, 11:54 PM
After talking to Japanese officials in Tokyo over the last few days, I have the strong impression not only that they are ready to fight, but also that they expect to win, and furthermore that conflict may come at any moment.
Professor Huang Jing from Singapore University and a former adviser to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) says a rising cadre of officers has slipped the leash and picked up attitudes all too like the Japan's firebrand officers in the 1930s, when they defied orders from Tokyo.
The difference of course is that if the PLA slips the leash and has a go at Japan, they will not be dealing with fading colonial powers that are distracted by threats closer to home. They'd be taking a bite at one of the best equipped and most professional navies on the planet, and there's a very good chance that at least initially they would take a severe spanking. China might prevail by attrition in an extended conflict, but an extended conflict would not be easy for China to manage either, especially if it involved major interference with trade.
Bob's World
03-27-2013, 10:08 AM
Wars are easy to start.
Something the US should keep in mind as we define our relationships with key partners and allies. Currently we have empowered and emboldened far too many foreign "tails" to wag the American dog and drag us into wars we would never start on our own, and that are not in any way in our interests.
It would be an epic tragedy of misplaced loyalties if some day Iran and the US, or China and the US, or North Korea and the US found themselves much like England and Germany in 1914, wondering how things had somehow come to this between them.
We help our longtime allies and partners more when we posture ourself to be an effective mediator of small (but important) points of friction far more than we do when we simply commit to back their every play with a blank check of American influence, blood and treasure.
Wars are easy to start.
Something the US should keep in mind as we define our relationships with key partners and allies. Currently we have empowered and emboldened far too many foreign "tails" to wag the American dog and drag us into wars we would never start on our own, and that are not in any way in our interests.
It would be an epic tragedy of misplaced loyalties if some day Iran and the US, or China and the US, or North Korea and the US found themselves much like England and Germany in 1914, wondering how things had somehow come to this between them.
We help our longtime allies and partners more when we posture ourself to be an effective mediator of small (but important) points of friction far more than we do when we simply commit to back their every play with a blank check of American influence, blood and treasure.
So, I got a question. The Red Chinese have been doing their best to shove around Japan at sea for some years now. According to Bill Moore's info above Japan figures things are getting worse. Now say Red China and Japan start shooting at each other. Do we back the Japanese or not?
Dayuhan
04-08-2013, 03:48 AM
So, I got a question. The Red Chinese have been doing their best to shove around Japan at sea for some years now. According to Bill Moore's info above Japan figures things are getting worse. Now say Red China and Japan start shooting at each other. Do we back the Japanese or not?
I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Chines have been shoving the Japanese around. There have been provocations, and at an accelerated level, but the Japanese give as good as they get.
Whether we back the Japanese or not would depend on whether we're asked to and whether it's needed. In a full scale war, I would say yes. In a naval skirmish or other shooting short of full scale war, the JMSDF is more than capable of taking care of itself and would probably not need help.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Chines have been shoving the Japanese around. There have been provocations, and at an accelerated level, but the Japanese give as good as they get.
Whether we back the Japanese or not would depend on whether we're asked to and whether it's needed. In a full scale war, I would say yes. In a naval skirmish or other shooting short of full scale war, the JMSDF is more than capable of taking care of itself and would probably not need help.
Fair enough.
Stepping away from recent diplomatic issues I recently took a closer look at the recent macroeconomic developments in China:
Macroeconomic Imbalances (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKpsWiUTEgQ) is a 2 year old video by Barry Naughton, author of the brilliant book The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth (http://www.amazon.com/The-Chinese-Economy-Transitions-Growth/dp/0262640643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365523541&sr=8-1&keywords=Barry+naughton) which I read earlier.
The end of hypergrowth (http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/gtwoatgw/2012/naughton_endofhypergrowth_gtwoatgw12.pdf) and China’s Economy: Achievements; Institutional Constraints; and Development (http://inctpped.ie.ufrj.br/spiderweb/pdf/Barry_Naughton.pdf) are more recent papers of the same author.
It is easy to forget just how (vertically) integrated China is in the world economy, being indeed also the leading trade economy. This should tend to reduce the chances of conflict, but **** can still happen as European countries showed pretty convincingly around 1914. China exports are still dominated by labour-intensive products which add little value and high-tech share is in general a screw-driver (assembly) job. The strength of the increase in government spending/investment as a share of a GDP is a bit of a surprise to me, I imagined it to be more limited in time. But instead of a short Keynesian stimulus to a very dangerous demand-side shock the Chinese leadership seems to want to pull the Chinese economy towards their recent grand strategy.
P.S: A nice breakdown on how the iPhone wides the US trade deficit with China (http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-iphone-widens-us-trade-deficit-china)...
Dayuhan
06-03-2013, 08:14 AM
More on the economy...
http://news.yahoo.com/china-pmis-highlight-economic-momentum-023043130.html
China factory activity shrinks, adds to growth fears
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's factory activity shrank for the first time in seven months in May and growth in the services sector cooled, evidence that the world's second-largest economy is losing further momentum in the second quarter.
The HSBC/Markit Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for May dropped to 49.2, the lowest level since October 2012 and down from 50.4 in April, as domestic and overseas demand fell.
The figure was slightly lower than a preliminary reading of 49.6 released on May 23. Fifty divides expansion from contraction compared with the month before...
Madhu
06-03-2013, 01:32 PM
Don't know if the following Luttwak book has been discussed in this thread. Don't know this area well, so the following is for discussion. Don't know what to think:
For any country whose rising strength cannot go unnoticed, the universal logic of strategy allows only military or economic growth. But China is pursuing both goals simultaneously. Its military buildup and assertive foreign policy have already stirred up resistance among its neighbors, just three of whom—India, Japan, and Vietnam—together exceed China in population and wealth. Unless China’s leaders check their own ambitions, a host of countries, which are already forming tacit military coalitions, will start to impose economic restrictions as well.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066427
Madhu
06-03-2013, 01:33 PM
I thought the following was funny, given the tendency to romanticize a variety of Western and other texts within the American military context:
Chinese leaders will find it difficult to choose between pursuing economic prosperity and increasing China’s military strength. Such a change would be hard to explain to public opinion. Moreover, Chinese leaders would have to end their reliance on ancient strategic texts such as Sun Tzu’s Art of War. While these guides might have helped in diplomatic and military conflicts within China itself, their tactics—such as deliberately provoking crises to force negotiations—turned China’s neighbors into foes. To avoid arousing the world’s enmity further, Luttwak advises, Chinese leaders would be wise to pursue a more sustainable course of economic growth combined with increasing military and diplomatic restraint.
- from the same link above.
davidbfpo
06-06-2013, 10:25 AM
'Is China 'reciprocating' US maritime surveillance?' A fascinating story from the Australian Lowy Institute e-newsletter, that opens with:
Indeed, the most extraordinary thing I heard at the first full day of this year's dialogue here in Singapore came from a PLA senior colonel at a working session on maritime security.
It is common knowledge that China resents the presence of American surveillance ships and aircraft off its coast, in its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). China considers this bad for its national interest. After all, the Americans are presumably collecting data on Chinese military activities, among other things. China also presumably sees the ongoing presence as an insult to its national pride, a reminder of a history of humiliation by foreign powers.
Thus it was striking to hear a Chinese military officer reveal in an open discussion at this conference today that China had 'thought of reciprocating' by 'sending ships and planes to the US EEZ', and had in fact done so 'a few times', although not a daily basis (unlike the US presence off China).
Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/06/01/Is-China-reciprocating-US-maritime-surveillance.aspx
The venue was the Shangri-La Dialogue, an IISS event:http://www.iiss.org/en/events/shangri-s-la-s-dialogue
There are several threads on China's emerging power and stance on various regional issues, but this comment is so unusual it deserves its own thread, partly as I expect the US media will not mention it.
AdamG
06-13-2013, 03:06 AM
As if massive Chinese cyberespionage wasn’t enough, now China is indicating that it will – and already has – send ships and aircraft to spy on U.S. territory. Australian strategic analyst Rory Medcalf says that while attending a session on maritime security at the Shangri-La Asian security conference in Singapore last week, a Chinese People’s Liberation Army senior colonel openly announced that in retaliation for U.S. surveillance patrols off the China coast, “China had ‘thought of reciprocating’ by ‘sending ships and planes to the US EEZ [exclusive economic zone]‘, and had in fact done so ‘a few times’, although not a daily basis.”
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
I don't know how big a deal this really is. The Soviets did that kind of thing for decades.
AdamG
06-16-2013, 03:20 AM
It's a big deal when you look at Beijing's long range plan and their big picture.
China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.
The strategy is a Chinese version of what Beijing has charged is a U.S. strategy designed to encircle and “contain” China. It is also directed at countering the Obama administration’s new strategy called the pivot to Asia. The pivot calls for closer economic, diplomatic, and military ties to Asian states that are increasingly concerned about Chinese encroachment throughout that region.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/china-encircles-us-arming-western-hemisphere-state/#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ
It appears that China is feeling strangulated with the US policy to strangulate China and curb her imperialist and hegemonic designs.
It is interesting to note that China is playing ball by trying to encircle the United by seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.
The US neighbours, having had regular access to US military hardware for a variety of covert and overt reasons, naturally find the Chinese weaponry as third rate. Nothing unusual since US equipment are known for its cosmetic and sophisticated engineering. It is natural that those South American nations wary of the US will go in for an alternative to the low quality and non functional and even junk Chinese weaponry and Russia is the only alternative for an unhindered supply of fairly good defence weaponry, equipment and platforms.
However, China, flush with funds, will still attempt to garner support with liberal financial loans and to that extent, they will succeed in keeping the South American countries within its influence to the detriment of the US security.
What is however surprising is the defence equation between China and Canada unless, of course, it is the usual cosmetic one that happens around the world.
Why is China is conducting naval operations it considers illegal for its maritime boundaries inside U.S. EEZs is the interesting conundrum?
That Guam will be of Chinese interest, of that there is no doubt. It is from where the US threat to China fructify as has been stated in many defence analyses.
What is of real concern is that China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.
Indeed, this support of émigré Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of China’s new security policy and to the detriment of the host country.
Equally of concern is China's influence on chokepoints around the Caribbean, through its Chinese-run port facilities in Panama, Bahamas, Trinidad, and Venezuela
The Red Star rising over the world?
Dayuhan
06-18-2013, 01:13 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/china-encircles-us-arming-western-hemisphere-state/#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ
If anyone wondered whether or not hysterical Sinophobia was still with us, that should settle the issue.
It still baffles and amuses me how a certain remote fringe tries to paint, for example, every port or project managed by Hutchison-Whampoa as a Chinese military installation. First time I saw that particular meme was when H-W beat out a US company for a container port management contract in the Bahamas, and the disgruntled American company tried to declare a security threat as a concealed trade restraint. I guess some things persist, no matter how far off the wall they are...
It's a big deal when you look at Beijing's long range plan and their big picture.
Ok, I'll buy that. The true importance is as a further indicator of Red China's view of the US's place in the world vs. theirs and they want those places to change.
Adam G., I am starting a hysterics club. Would you like to join? The first few members get a T-shirt printed with the words "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.". I got mine in XXL because it is easier to hide in.
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 05:25 AM
What is of real concern is that China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.
Indeed, this support of emigre Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of Chinas new security policy and to the detriment of the host country.
Bummer.
The International Jew portrayed Jews as monolithic, malicious schemers plotting to control the planet. "If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power," the book stated. "Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously."
The International Jew blamed nearly all the troubles it saw in American society on Jews. "Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews," it claimed. Even problems with the "national pastime" were attributed to Jewish influence: "If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball, they have it in three words too much Jew."
The International Jew (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/ford.html) - jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 07:40 AM
All prejudices are unpleasantly alike on some level, but the prejudice that China and the Chinese face on a global scale has proven to be exceptionally resistant to change.
***
The first sign of Sinophobia many of us encounter is really its own ideological defenses; phrases which are used to preempt any discussion about it, like "Chinese chauvinism," "Chinese supremacism," "Chinese exceptionalism," "Chinese victimism," or just allegations of childish over-sensitiveness coupled with some sort of vague Eastern cultural fetishism pertaining to notions of honor (I have heard all of these sentiments informally or otherwise in my academic career from grad school until now). If we can get past these, perhaps we can see things more clearly.
***
After a brief decade or so of somewhat unexpected "China Rising" stories, China-bashing is once again becoming fashionable. As a media studies teacher, I always wonder what it means when a particular way of looking at things suddenly becomes prevalent in history. What does it tell us about our times and who we are? In the past Sinophobia was part of a colonial and then cold war mindset. Thinking of China as the very embodiment of wretchedness and poverty fit in with the western self-perception of the time. In recent times, things have improved at some levels. Racism is no longer legal and in many places no longer cool. With globalization and the economic success of China and Chinese abroad, it is no longer possible to deny to China its talent, labor, and its contribution to the world. All should have been well, at least now. But Sinophobia has found new reasons to resurface--and some of these reasons have less to do with China and more to do with where the United States sees itself in the world right now.
Oh wait, the author was writing about Indophobia. Bummer.
Indophobia - The Real Elephant In The Living Room (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vamsee-juluri/indophobia-the-real-eleph_b_415237.html) - Vamsee Juluri - huffington post - 1.8.2010
Dayuhan
06-18-2013, 07:49 AM
I am starting a hysterics club. Would you like to join? The first few members get a T-shirt printed with the words "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.". I got mine in XXL because it is easier to hide in.
Send an XXXL to this guy. With a rear-view mirror, one of those slanty-eyed demons might sneak up behind him:
http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/chinese-troops-seen-in-mexico-1703
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 08:48 AM
Thomas Szasz argued that mental illnesses are (often deceptive) social strategies. Using concepts from evolutionary biology, I investigate whether non-bizarre delusions might be a form of strategic deception. Non-bizarre delusions comprise a small number of themes, including grandiose, paranoid, and somatic. If, hypothetically, delusions were believed by friends and family members, delusional individuals would likely receive important benefits, such as increased social status and respect (in the case of grandiose delusions), increased protection (in the case of paranoid delusions), or increased care and assistance (in the case of somatic delusions).
There is considerable evidence that severe social problems are an important cause of non-bizarre delusions. Moreover, in many cultures and sub-cultures, delusional individuals are believed by friends and family members and, hence, receive many benefits. The possibility therefore exists that delusions evolved to mitigate the dangerous consequences of social failure by serving to unconsciously deceive others into providing social benefits that otherwise would not be forthcoming.
[...]
3.4.2 Defense
Belief that there is an external threat provides a very strong impetus for cooperation among humans [e.g., 72], and it has been argued that external threats were a significant selection pressure for the initial evolution of cooperation among hominids [73]. Because a high level of within-group cooperation among a large number of individuals is essential to successful defense, external threats provide an extremely strong incentive to suppress internal political conflicts. Further, in the face of an external threat, each healthy group member has considerable value to other group members as a defender. Group members should readily cooperate against possible external threats because the costs of responding to a false threat are lower than the costs of not responding to a real threat. Deceptive claims of external threats should therefore elicit social benefits by reducing internal political conflicts that might threaten those with few allies, and by increasing one’s social value as a provider of important information about enemies, and as a defender.
Non-bizarre delusions as strategic deception (http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/PDF/Delusions_revised_Aug_2007.pdf) - Edward H. Hagen - Department of Anthropology Washington State University, Vancouver - Aug 2007
Science, huh? Whatever.
Backwards Observer:
Plain speaking is a good thing. What is it you are trying to say?
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 01:16 PM
Backwards Observer:
Plain speaking is a good thing. What is it you are trying to say?
Since most people here seem pretty comfortable with Ray's bull#### appeals to anti-Chinese bigotry, reckon this'll be my last post here. As a corollary, I also suggest a collective pulling of heads out of asses in general.
Since most people here seem pretty comfortable with Ray's bull#### appeals to anti-Chinese bigotry, reckon this'll be my last post here. As a corollary, I also suggest a collective pulling of heads out of asses in general.
That is plain spoken. Sure enough.
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 04:54 PM
That is plain spoken. Sure enough.
Yeah, well...rotsa ruck with the rebalancing to the uh, "Indo-Pacific". From what I can see of the current level of regional fingerspitzengefuhl you're going to need it. I could be wrong. Sure hope so.
Since most people here seem pretty comfortable with Ray's bull#### appeals to anti-Chinese bigotry, reckon this'll be my last post here. As a corollary, I also suggest a collective pulling of heads out of asses in general.
A rather intellectual analysis on display.
Nothing to refute, but an overflow of bile.
An unique void in facts!
Indeed, the countries on the SCS rim are all wrong and bigoted.
The Chinese whipping out maps with dots and dashes are the only thing that is acceptable on this Planet Earth, right?
Remember Sima Qian's, China's 'grand historian' is based on myths and hearsay and the Chinese believe that it is irrefutable history!
Backwards Observer
06-18-2013, 07:01 PM
A rather intellectual analysis on display.
Nothing to refute, but an overflow of bile.
An unique void in facts!
Indeed, the countries on the SCS rim are all wrong and bigoted.
The Chinese whipping out maps with dots and dashes are the only thing that is acceptable on this Planet Earth, right?
Remember Sima Qian's, China's 'grand historian' is based on myths and hearsay and the Chinese believe that it is irrefutable history!
I'll let you answer this yourself chief.
Another of the usual hyperboles that are meaningless and trite, more so when you don't know anything about me.
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13460&page=23
If others find your interminable hogwash credible, more power to 'em. Enjoy:)
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
There is no one here who is above criticism. There is no one here who is not wrong on occasion.
I'll let you answer this yourself chief.
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13460&page=23
If others find your interminable hogwash credible, more power to 'em. Enjoy:)
A cloth is not woven from a single thread - Chinese proverb.
China’s 100 Years of Humiliation has left a deep mark on the collective psyche of Chinese citizens. The 1982 Constitution preamble gives lament to this national humiliation at the hands of foreign powers.
This national shame is so deeply ingrained and shameful that government spokespeople even today are quick to find “insults to the dignity of the Chinese people” in routine differences of diplomatic opinion, whether meeting with the Dalai Lama, selling defensive arms to Taiwan, or criticizing China’s Internet policies or raising issues of human rights. The manner in which China warned Nations insisting that they boycott the Nobel Prize Ceremony honouring Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident and winner of the Nobel peace prize indicates that the Chinese or Han are incapable of accepting any action that is not to China’s gain or adequately laudatory to pamper and massage the Han ethnic and cultural 'superiority' and pride!
Therefore, for the Chinese citizens and the Diaspora, any discussion that does not necessarily hold China in favourable light, even when such a situation cannot be contrived to show China in favourable light, they find it as “insults to the dignity of the Chinese people”.
This unique Chinese or Han mindset has to be understood in the correct perspective since sinocentrism, which is the ethnocentrism of the Han people and Han culture, or the modern concept of zhonghua minzu wherein areas outside the Sinocentric influence were called Huawaizhidi (化外之地), meaning uncivilized lands.
While modern Chinese people will outrightly deny this mindset with the 'correct degree' of incredulous astonishment, yet all actions indicate that the mindset is alive and thriving. Their lecturing and hectoring the world with pious platitudes and mealy mouthed homilies over even minor matters where they don't agree, is an indicator in this direction.
To wit, while there are many example, suffice it to mention the fierce indignation displayed by China over the US Naval exercises with the Philippines and Vietnam Navies. These naval exercises followed shortly after the the Scarborough Shoal flare up, which China claimed to be theirs based on the map of nine dashes that is said to have no historical basis. In short, it was the usual indication that China is the sole arbiter of what is right and any deviation to their viewpoint would be ‘insults to the Chinese people’ It maybe mentioned, in passing, that the unique map of Nine Dashes have no historical antecedent and yet, the Chinese insist and demand, if you will, that their view aone is the sole and correct view and other views be damned!
In the context of the Scarborough Shoal incident that indicates China’s newfound aggressive ‘muscle’, it is exemplified by the cavalier, supercilious and culturally arrogant attitude of a Chinese Air Force general Maj. Gen. Zhang Zhaozhong who boasted to the China’s media about how its military took control of Scarborough Shoal, sealing it using a layered “cabbage (security) strategy” and transforming the island 124 miles west of Zambales province into an exclusive fishing ground for Chinese fisherman.
Not satisfied by grabbing territory on contrived maps, he went on to showcase the insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions of China by indicating that the tactic could be adopted in other islands that are occupied by the Philippines.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/nation/32460-after-scarborough-is-ayungin-next
In other words, the message to the world was that China can, with impunity, merrily grab territory through ‘layered cabbage’ tactics, and others should merely meekly accept it as the rightful and moral thing that China has done.
However, if others wanted to indicate that China was contravening international law and norms, and even show some force in indicating that international norms should be adhered to, it became, for China an ‘insult to the dignity of the Chinese people’! That is the indicator of the twisted Han arrogance and supercilious superiority meanderings that the world is expected to grin and bear it!
The Chinese mindset is keen to right the wrongs of history as they perceive, now that they are a reckonable economic power and moving stridently to challenge US’ military superiority. They are out to prove their make belief theory and thrust it on the world as an Gospel truth that China is indeed the "central nation" or (traditionally) the "middle kingdom" and the world revolves around China and must revolve around China since Han culture deemed it so!
Therefore, any dispelling of this mental attitude makes them livid and they blame it on others' paranoia!
China will try to dominate the Asia-Pacific region to copycat the United States assumed domination the Western Hemisphere. China will attempt maximising the power gap between itself and potentially dangerous neighbours like India, Japan, and Russia. China will attempt to ensure that it is so powerful that no state in Asia has the wherewithal to threaten it and will do all to crush ‘splittists’ within like the Tibetans and the Uighurs, so that the Sinocization is complete and there is no internal threat. At the same time, China pursuing military superiority will not embark on war, although that is always a possibility. Instead, it is more likely that Beijing will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to neighbouring countries, which it is already doing and have done in the past.
Alongside, a much more powerful China will do everything feasible to try to push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific region
That is basically the rationale for China spying along the US coast and entrenching itself in nations, not only around the US, but around the world in a competitive superiority mode with the US, to prove to the world and to its own people that what the US can do, China can also do and, with a slight warping the facts, prove China does it better.
China is in the avatar of the ‘new kid in the block’ and it will do everything to indicate to the US and the world that it can copy and even outmatch the US.
Therefore, China spying on the US in US waters is not surprising!
The Han imagined cultural superiority will engine their ascendancy over the ‘uncivilised’ lands and people!
Or so they most ardently believe!
Dayuhan
06-19-2013, 11:39 AM
As is so often the case, these claims take a core of truth and blow it far out of proportion.
Certainly the Chinese are being pushy with the Philippines, the one among their neighbors that can be pushed without consequence. On the other hand, referring to the pushing around Scarborough and Ayungin shoals as "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions" seems a little over the top.
Certainly the Chinese want to be recognized as a global player and a dominant regional force, but "the world revolves around China and must revolve around China" is way overinflated.
I don't think the issue of China sailing ships into a US EEZ has any real significance at all n terms of gaining intelligence. They're doing it because we do it. They have no way to stop us from doing it, so they reciprocate in kind just to show that they can. It's best ignored.
The talk of China trying to "encircle" the US is really pretty ridiculous and does not deserve to be taken seriously. Does anyone really think that Chinese investment in the Canadian energy industry is going to turn Canada into a Chinese satellite? That countries that buy Chinese weapons are suddenly going to use those weapons according to the dictates of Beijing? That aid packages or Chinese companies managing western hemisphere ports are somehow a threat to American security?
Get real; stay calm.
As is so often the case, these claims take a core of truth and blow it far out of proportion.
Certainly the Chinese are being pushy with the Philippines, the one among their neighbors that can be pushed without consequence. On the other hand, referring to the pushing around Scarborough and Ayungin shoals as "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions" seems a little over the top.
Certainly the Chinese want to be recognized as a global player and a dominant regional force, but "the world revolves around China and must revolve around China" is way overinflated.
I don't think the issue of China sailing ships into a US EEZ has any real significance at all n terms of gaining intelligence. They're doing it because we do it. They have no way to stop us from doing it, so they reciprocate in kind just to show that they can. It's best ignored.
The talk of China trying to "encircle" the US is really pretty ridiculous and does not deserve to be taken seriously. Does anyone really think that Chinese investment in the Canadian energy industry is going to turn Canada into a Chinese satellite? That countries that buy Chinese weapons are suddenly going to use those weapons according to the dictates of Beijing? That aid packages or Chinese companies managing western hemisphere ports are somehow a threat to American security?
Get real; stay calm.
One has to get really real in these turbulent times or the turbulent times will get real with one!
Calmness comes when one has a grip over the events. Letting things drift with benign and sublime indifference and Buddha like calmness is an ideal mixture that can be catastrophic.
One should always heed to the Chinese proverb
不闻不若闻之，闻之不若见之，见之不若知之，知之不若行之；学至于行之而止矣
(Not hearing is not as good as hearing, hearing is not as good as seeing, seeing is not as good as mentally knowing, mentally knowing is not as good as acting; true learning continues up to the point that action comes forth)
Those who are aware of events are also aware of the Scarborough Shoal being just ONE of the events, amongst the many that have been taking place serially around the periphery of China and its self assigned claim lines. I am sure I would not have to enumerate them, they being known to all in the know of international events.
My interpretation of the same (serial events exerting hegemonic demands) would be literal of this Chinese proverb
长江后浪推前浪
the Changjiang River waves behind drive the waves ahead.
One should be safe than be sorry.
Chamberlain comes to mind!
Madhu
06-19-2013, 03:49 PM
China is India's largest trade partner.
....
But their overall aim must not be to balance trade with China, or target a particular trade deficit. Rather, India should target improvements in its own productivity and competitiveness. Once that happens, its trade deficit with all countries (including China) will automatically fall. Lesson: target the productivity gap, not the trade gap.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/entry/big-trade-deficit-with-china-excellent
China can also help India's drive to improve its infrastructure, he said.
"At present, we both face the heavy tasks of developing the economy, improving people's lives and reinvigorating the country. In seeking great neighborly relations and common development, we will not just benefit our own peoples but also create new opportunities for other Asian countries," he said.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/nationalnews/ci_23288259/chinas-li-seeks-stronger-economic-ties-india
While many regional powers are wary, it's important to remember that the relationships are complicated and there are overlapping interests as well.
I've read polls that show while there is concern about elites and power dynamics, the Indian and Chinese public view their respective peoples fairly well which is heartening.
Madhu:
Overlapping interests, true enough. But intimate trade relationships haven't stopped countries from clashing in the past.
Dayuhan
06-21-2013, 03:01 AM
Calmness comes when one has a grip over the events. Letting things drift with benign and sublime indifference and Buddha like calmness is an ideal mixture that can be catastrophic.
What would you propose that one do, beyond clutching the pearls and rending the occasional garment? I'm not suggesting indifference, but proclaiming "encirclement" where no such thing exists or is threatened is hardly a productive approach to anything. Chinese aid to Jamaica or arms sales to Ecuador or energy investments in Canada or port management contracts in the Bahamas pose no threat to the US. The US has no reasonable way to prevent them and no real reason to prevent them. What's to be gained by hyperventilating over them.
Those who are aware of events are also aware of the Scarborough Shoal being just ONE of the events, amongst the many that have been taking place serially around the periphery of China and its self assigned claim lines. I am sure I would not have to enumerate them, they being known to all in the know of international events.
Yes, we are all aware of the events. It's still hard to see them in any light that would constitute an "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions". That's a term that one might apply to, say, the US binge of 1898, which saw the annexation of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The Chinese effort to grab a few uninhabitable rocks hardly seems in the same league. Is it a threat to the US? Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
What would you propose that one do, beyond clutching the pearls and rending the occasional garment? I'm not suggesting indifference, but proclaiming "encirclement" where no such thing exists or is threatened is hardly a productive approach to anything. Chinese aid to Jamaica or arms sales to Ecuador or energy investments in Canada or port management contracts in the Bahamas pose no threat to the US. The US has no reasonable way to prevent them and no real reason to prevent them. What's to be gained by hyperventilating over them.
Yes, we are all aware of the events. It's still hard to see them in any light that would constitute an "insatiable quest for hegemonic and imperialist acquisitions". That's a term that one might apply to, say, the US binge of 1898, which saw the annexation of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The Chinese effort to grab a few uninhabitable rocks hardly seems in the same league. Is it a threat to the US? Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
I am afraid no one is ‘hyperventilating’ and such a comment would be indicative of the fact that one has not quite understood Political Realism, which is the bedrock of Geopolitics. Without understanding that, one would be going round and round like Tony Lumpkin.
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
Let us observes issues with pragmatism and realism.
On the issue of morals and viability of policy and action which seems to subsume your defence of China, let us visit history.
Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement politics were inspired by good morals and motives. He wanted Peace at all cost ignoring the progressive militarisation of, and consequent expansionism of Germany to embrace all territories that historically had Germanic roots. And the result of Chamberlain’s moral and peace inspired policy? World War II bringing devastation and misery to all!
On the other hand, Winston Churchill’s policy, arguably with lesser morality quotient, brought about Peace that was eluded in the first place by faulty appreciation of the geopolitical reality and motives of Hitler’s Germany.
Now, compare your analyses that you advocated in most of your posts on China - US equation with the above historical analogy.
By your analogy, we should be Chamberlain like and overlook the rapid militarisation and expansionism pursued by China. Peace must be at all costs! But then can I mention that we cannot foresee or predict the future, but must we forget the footprints on the sand of time as left to us by history, that too, recent history?
While no one is advocating going to war, yet, one cannot let one’s guard down and allow a Frankensteinian situation to overpower! All one is suggesting is that one should merely maintain a balance of power and status quo in the scenario of the Aggressive Rise, euphemistically called “Peaceful Rise” of China, basically adopted by China, for those who can see, to lull all into a complacent state of mind, and energetically assisted by those who fear ‘fear’ itself and be Ostrich like to find solace!
It is true that China’s increasing influence around the countries in, what could be called, US’ backyard, is hardly currently worrisome. Neither were Hitler’s incursions on Germany’s periphery worrisome to Chamberlain since it was not directly impinging on UK’s sovereignty or security.
One could argue that Hitler walked in with the military, but China is all 'peaceable'. True. But then that (What Hitler did) was the way it was done in those days to extend one’s power. We live in modern times these days. Such crude activities are not par for the course. It is economic aggression to start with and then……… ;)
You ask – Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
The US, for starters, could ‘contain’ (‘encirclement’ is such a four letter word for liberal sensitivity) China and impress through actions that each nation has a right to its territory and ocean space as per international law.
You may well ask, and justifiably so, as to why should the US bother about other country’s territorial integrity, for after all the US is not the ‘global policeman’?
The answer to that is simple.
Indeed, why should the US bother about other countries? The US could just hunker down in Continental US and watch China take its place as the Global Policeman.
And. as is wont, in such scenarios of global policemen, the US would be jumping to China’s tune! The Pied Piper and the rats (and what lemmings do elsewhere) of Hamelin town in Brunswick comes to mind!
Surely, Americans, who are so proud of their way of life – American way of life – and the painstaking sacrifices of it citizens and military personnel endured to maintain their ideals, would not find it delightful to have a scenario where Americans jump to the bidding of the Chinese!
I might as well remind that the Chinese have already made deep inroads in the US economy and I am yet to find an American who is rapturous with glee at this ‘heavenly’ state of affairs.
Therefore, I am not surprised that the US is an adherent of Miguel de Cervantes' theory, where he is supposed to have said - Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory.
I
Your goose should've been cooked back when you tried to pin being a "China Champion and apologist" on Robert C. Jones and then went on to trash talk Ken White. That was pretty ####ing bogus.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13460&page=23
Indeed, so many would have been 'cooked' on this forum, had it been a Chinese run show!
That is the beauty of the US and the West!
I am told that they call it Freedom of Speech and Thought!
It is unfortunate that you do not find it so invigorating as I do and instead prefer things to be governed by a 'Thought Police' as in China!
They, the Americans, are not narrow minded either. They also seem to believe that one must let 'Hundred Flowers Bloom' in the literal sense and not the way Mao used this theory of his!
I am sure you would not find it correct, given the Chinese historical antecedents of treating others as barbarians and converting them to Han and calling them 'cooked' barbarians!
I am glad that those who run the forum are not influenced by the Chinese policy of 'cooking' 'barbarians, as you find me to be, since I do not subscribe to the Han mode of existence and thought!
Lest you think I am talking through my hat, here it is about 'cooking' people as is done in China
The Chinese distinguished between ‘raw barbarians’ (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the ‘cooked barbarians’ (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the ‘cooked’ Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild ‘uncooked’ Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.
Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages.
This is from Olsen's Ethnoculture of China!
Also, the poor Americans have not understood the Theory Of Legalism that governs China and the Chinese mindset, the world over!
or in other words:
Fa (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law or principle"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law, not the ruler, ran the state, a statement of rule of law. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
Shu (Chinese: 術; pinyin: shù; literally "method, tactic or art"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behavior might help them get ahead, other than following the 法, or laws.
Shi (Chinese: 勢; pinyin: shì; literally "legitimacy, power or charisma"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
May I quote from Drake's Drum
Drake, he's in his hammock
And a thousand mile away . . .,
(Captain, art thou sleeping there below?)
Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
And dreaming all the time of Plymouth Hoe.
I hope you are still around here since you said you have done your last post.
BO,
I am glad that SWC is not a Laogai (Láodòng Gǎizào (勞動改造/劳动改造) ) !
If you feel it should be so and I should have been 'cooked' eons ago, then consider me as another Liu Xiaobo.
And thank God that this is an American/ Western forum!
I thank God for small mercies!
And this type of mentality that you display is what worries.
I dread the Chinese way of 'organising' the people to ensure 'law and order and harmony'!
I prefer the western Wild West, if you will, as a way of life. Better that than a slave or a Pavlovian Dog- totally conditioned to reflexes!
I rather be a soaring bird, than live in a gilded cage with timely food and grooming and yet, singing pretty to the tune of the Master at his whims and fancies!
One cannot be a performing monkey!
Dayuhan
06-21-2013, 09:27 AM
I am afraid no one is ‘hyperventilating’ and such a comment would be indicative of the fact that one has not quite understood Political Realism, which is the bedrock of Geopolitics.
The article cited above; this one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/china-encircles-us-arming-western-hemisphere-state/#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ
is an example of the kind of hyperventilated hysteria that all too often obstructs rational analysis.
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
The claim that China is "encircling" the US is, based on the evidence presented in the article, objectively and rationally absurd.
On the issue of morals and viability of policy and action which seems to subsume your defence of China, let us visit history.
I said nothing of morals; a subject I try to avoid to the greatest possible extent. Neither did I defend China, I simply pointed out that that a reasonable and practical response has to be based on a realistic assessment of the alleged threat, the realistic response options, and the interests and constraints of whoever is doing the assessing. Hysterical hyperventilation does not assist that process, and often obstructs it.
By your analogy, we should be Chamberlain like and overlook the rapid militarisation and expansionism pursued by China. Peace must be at all costs! But then can I mention that we cannot foresee or predict the future, but must we forget the footprints on the sand of time as left to us by history, that too, recent history?
The analogy id yours, not mine. Are you seriously comparing the occupation of Scarborough Shoal with the Anschluss?
While no one is advocating going to war, yet, one cannot let one’s guard down and allow a Frankensteinian situation to overpower! All one is suggesting is that one should merely maintain a balance of power and status quo in the scenario of the Aggressive Rise, euphemistically called “Peaceful Rise” of China, basically adopted by China, for those who can see, to lull all into a complacent state of mind, and energetically assisted by those who fear ‘fear’ itself and be Ostrich like to find solace!
You can't maintain both the status quo and a balance of power, because the status quo is an enormous imbalance of power, tilted toward the US and its allies. The Chinese want to make that imbalance smaller, maybe even to achieve parity in their own immediate neighborhood. Is that really a problem? If so, what exactly are we prepared to do about it? Getting involved in an unnecessary arms race would have serious consequences of its own, on the economic front.
China's raise is neither as peaceful as China pretends nor as militant as you pretend, but in any event it exists. There's no reasonable way to prevent or obstruct it, so it has to be managed, much as the rise of the Soviet Union was managed. That means choosing the areas of confrontation, if there must be any. It may mean backing off in situations where cost exceeds benefit, and being assertive where (and if) real and immediate threats exist. There were plenty who shouted "appeasement" when the US elected to let the Russians take Eastern Europe rather than starting WW3... but the Soviet Union is gone, and the US is still there, and we didn't have WW3.
It is true that China’s increasing influence around the countries in, what could be called, US’ backyard, is hardly currently worrisome. Neither were Hitler’s incursions on Germany’s periphery worrisome to Chamberlain since it was not directly impinging on UK’s sovereignty or security.
One could argue that Hitler walked in with the military, but China is all 'peaceable'. True. But then that (What Hitler did) was the way it was done in those days to extend one’s power. We live in modern times these days. Such crude activities are not par for the course. It is economic aggression to start with and then……… ;)
Where do you see Chinese "economic aggression" in the Western hemisphere?
There's nothing even remotely illegal or inappropriate in China investing in Canadian energy projects, or sending aid and loans to Jamaica, or selling arms to Equador or Peru, or in Chinese companies bidding for port projects in the Western hemisphere. This is normal business among sovereign states, and other states, including yours and mine, do the same thing on a regular basis. There's nothing even vaguely resembling a threat in it, and any American attempt to constrain or prevent these actions would be both ridiculous and an invitation to a Chinese teat-for-twat attempt to impose similar restrictions in their own neighborhood. There's no point in it. So of course you keep half an eye on what goes on - it hardly warrants more than that - and maybe get interested if a situation emerges that warrants it. Rants about "encirclement" is neither justified nor useful.
You ask – Is there something the US can or should do about it? If so, what?
The US, for starters, could ‘contain’ (‘encirclement’ is such a four letter word for liberal sensitivity) China and impress through actions that each nation has a right to its territory and ocean space as per international law.
Use "encirclement" if you like; in the unlikely event that a liberal wanders by they will just have to bear it.
What actions would you propose to impress? No need for US actions in the Senkakus; the Japanese are capable of dealing with that on their own, unless it escalates way beyond the current level. The US is not going to try to push CMS vessels and Chinese fishing fleets out of Scarborough Shoal or the Spratlys; they know it and so do we. That's why they've completely ignored the increased tempo of US port visits in the Philippines... there's almost always been a US ship or two in Subic over the last year or so, but it hasn't reduced the tempo of Chinese activity at all. They know exactly what they can get away with, and they keep the level of push-and-shove below the point where it would conceivably justify a US response. I don't see anything to be gained by playing games with them over it. Never makes sense to draw a red line that you know you haven't the political support to enforce.
You may well ask, and justifiably so, as to why should the US bother about other country’s territorial integrity, for after all the US is not the ‘global policeman’?
The answer to that is simple.
Indeed, why should the US bother about other countries? The US could just hunker down in Continental US and watch China take its place as the Global Policeman.
And. as is wont, in such scenarios of global policemen, the US would be jumping to China’s tune! The Pied Piper and the rats (and what lemmings do elsewhere) of Hamelin town in Brunswick comes to mind!
Surely, Americans, who are so proud of their way of life – American way of life – and the painstaking sacrifices of it citizens and military personnel endured to maintain their ideals, would not find it delightful to have a scenario where Americans jump to the bidding of the Chinese!
What makes you think that anyone jumps to the bidding of the global policeman? For all the years of US global policemanship, did the Chinese ever dance to US bidding? Did anyone? I don't think the Chinese want to be global policeman, nor can I imagine why anyone would want such a thoroughly thankless, profitless, and pointless function.
You seem to be overlooking the possibility that there may be a level of interaction between hunkering down and retreating to a fetal position and trying to challenge and confront over every minimal provocation or pseudo-provocation.
I might as well remind that the Chinese have already made deep inroads in the US economy and I am yet to find an American who is rapturous with glee at this ‘heavenly’ state of affairs.
Yes, Americans bitch and moan over it in million-part harmony, and when they're done they run off to Wal-Mart to buy another cartload of China-made goods. If spending is voting, the figures indicate that the actual US attitude toward Chinese participation in the US economy - expressed in actions, not words - is not far off rapturous glee.
You have not addressed anything that I have mentioned in the post and instead have gone off on your favourite hobby horse - tangential arguments that have no connection, but esoteric rhetoric!
Unlike you, I have addressed your posts directly.
When you understand Political Realism one could discuss and not subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
To remind you:
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
If Americans, including expatriates like you, have given up the ghost and are kowtowing, what chance has the world got?
If your contention is the contention subscribed by and taken to be the majority of US citizens' contention (which I don't think it is), it would be right that US gives up and let China rule the roost and US dances to its tune!
I am ready.
I am learning Mandarin, because you all, the mightiest nation of the world as represented by you, is ready to accept, as you, that its the Red Sun Rising - in deference to your benign and calm sagacity that is so crystal clear and totally in sync with the Tea Leaves reading of the Mandarins in Beijing!
All power to you and your ilk!
You are right when you state - till it escalates.
But would it not be too late as it happened before WWII?
BTW, do you check your electric connection, when your house burns down?
I am sure you do!
I must be wrong and you must be Sir Oracle!
You write -trying to challenge and confront over every minimal provocation
May I remind you
A drop in the ocean would lead to the ocean surging and turbulent because of that missing drop being allowed to flow in.
Every drop makes and ocean, in case you did not know!
I said nothing of morals
I said it since you were grandstanding on how China was so benevolent and all that!
Dayuhan
06-22-2013, 01:18 AM
Unlike you, I have addressed your posts directly.
Not.
When you understand Political Realism one could discuss and not subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
To remind you:
Political Realism bases on the objectivity of formulating a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objectives. It attempts to differentiate between truth and opinion, between - what is true objectivity and rationally, supported by evidence and catalysed by reason, - and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from fact and informed by wishful thinking!
All very well, but that seems a bit incongruous coming from someone whose comments on the subject are riddled with opinion and assumption, and artificial polarities.
If Americans, including expatriates like you, have given up the ghost and are kowtowing, what chance has the world got?
Who's kowtowing? That's an example of an artificial polarity: the assumption that one must either confront at every possible opportunity, or kowtow. Failure to acknowledge the rather extensive range of options in between is hardly consistent with the goal of "political realism".
If your contention is the contention subscribed by and taken to be the majority of US citizens' contention (which I don't think it is), it would be right that US gives up and let China rule the roost and US dances to its tune!
Again, the artificial polarity: failure to confront at every opportunity equates to surrender, anyone who falls short of the ideal of perfect sinophobia is "kowtowing". How is this consistent with "political realism"?
I am learning Mandarin, because you all, the mightiest nation of the world as represented by you, is ready to accept, as you, that its the Red Sun Rising - in deference to your benign and calm sagacity that is so crystal clear and totally in sync with the Tea Leaves reading of the Mandarins in Beijing!
I represent nobody but myself, but while I've little faith in the wisdom of American policymakers, I do hope they've the common sense to choose their points of confrontation, if indeed any is called for, with a bit of wisdom, and to act with some semblance of rationality and objectivity, rather than being carried away by the purveyors of panic. I certainly do not think any significant number of Americans want the US to get embroiled in the current maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and I think that position is sensible.
You are right when you state - till it escalates.
But would it not be too late as it happened before WWII?
BTW, do you check your electric connection, when your house burns down?
I am sure you do!
I don't rewire my house because someone shouted that everything must be wrong. I evaluate the wiring on its own merits and determine whether intervention is required or will be useful. If it's not, I let it be. I do not rewire my house because my neighbor has a bad circuit, though I might provide my neighbor some judicious assistance if he requires it.
A drop in the ocean would lead to the ocean surging and turbulent because of that missing drop being allowed to flow in.
Every drop makes and ocean, in case you did not know!
Those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and those who see a threat behind every blade of grass are likely to collapse from exhaustion and over-exertion by the time a real threat presents itself. The world is a messy place. Anyone who tries to order it to their liking will both fail and fall: nobody could sustain the required commitments. Political realism requires that one choose one's battles and act when it matters, not every time some convoluted combination of assumptions says it might someday matter. Trouble is infinite. Resources are not.
I said it since you were grandstanding on how China was so benevolent and all that!
Where exactly did I say any such thing? Specifically, please.
Not.
I cannot help but believe that this is one of your usual signature refrain. Lamentably, with great restraint, I am forced to conclude that this is your traditional hollow abbreviated avatar of customary bizarre one liners.
All very well, but that seems a bit incongruous coming from someone whose comments on the subject are riddled with opinion and assumption, and artificial polarities.
Fiddlesticks, if you will!
You have failed to comprehend what I wrote?
It shows!
My comments are based on studying links, reports, news and papers; and I only take the liberty of giving an opinion, when goaded by posts that foundation itself on personal opinion or anecdotal meandering demanding to be taken as the Gospel, or rubbishing other's opinion by the virtue of living as an expatriate somewhere near the scene of action, little realising that an expatriate cannot ever have the same psychology and aspirations of a native born.
Who's kowtowing? That's an example of an artificial polarity: the assumption that one must either confront at every possible opportunity, or kowtow. Failure to acknowledge the rather extensive range of options in between is hardly consistent with the goal of "political realism".
Who is Kowtowing, you ask?
As I see it, it appears to be the one who has failed to differentiate between truth, rationalised by reasoning and opinion, based on wishing thinking.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, while you sing paeans to the Chinese, you clearly do not understand the compulsion that manifests itself in the formulation of the US foreign policy.
The US foreign policy has pivoted around the theory of 'containment', from the beginning of the Cold War and is extending itself to the current era. It is a time tested policy, and regrettably for you (given that you find US Foreign Policy mandarins to be cretins), has been very successful.
That policy aimed at a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies and countering "Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world" through the "adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy." Such a policy, predicted, would "promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power."
And the US collapsed!
Now, are you sure that the mandarins in Washington were cretins and imbeciles?
They are applying the same to China.
But then it requires scholarship to realise the import of such a policy.
Any tendencies that falls short in such a scholarship, leads to lamentable conclusion leading to opinions that fail to fathom Political Realisms and instead encourages meandering muddling with total superficiality and even drivel.
If one understood Political Realism, then one would comprehend the compulsions and obligations that chart the US foreign policy and strategic goals. Those who don’t understand Political realism are the ones who crank the morality or the peace monkey grinder and are avid followers of the Chamberlain line! Such a line is indicative of abdicating the ideals of one’s country, and as an extension one's country's foreign policy, and in your case, I presume, the US. I am but a bystander.
It is for Americans to realise that obligations of citizenship is not merely singing a rousing rendition of 'The Star Spangled Banner', but also to live up to the ideals of the US and the obligations that the US has inherited, acquired, coerced over its history.
Again, the artificial polarity: failure to confront at every opportunity equates to surrender, anyone who falls short of the ideal of perfect sinophobia is "kowtowing". How is this consistent with "political realism"?
With each passing day the traditional boundary between the natural and the artificial becomes less distinct. Look around and you will realise it.
Kowtowing is because it is case of one who has failed to differentiate between truth, rationalised by reasoning and veers to opinion, based on wishing thinking.
If one could comprehend Political Realism, then one would realise that in it lies the verities and realities international political powerplay.
I represent nobody but myself, but while I've little faith in the wisdom of American policymakers, I do hope they've the common sense to choose their points of confrontation, if indeed any is called for, with a bit of wisdom, and to act with some semblance of rationality and objectivity, rather than being carried away by the purveyors of panic. I certainly do not think any significant number of Americans want the US to get embroiled in the current maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and I think that position is sensible.
Good that you have faith in yourself and not in the American policy makers.
Bully for you!
Yes, Americans would be chary of getting embroiled into any action that is not well thought through and is convincing, given their experience in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But then that was active intervention.
Here it is the time tested 'containment' that sceptics of your genre were equally cynical about. But the mandarins of the State Departments and the President, ignoring the sceptics, chiselled away and the USSR collapsed! A dangerous adversary and a competitor, was rendered impotent and for some time to come.
But, that was not all. The mandarins who made the Foreign Policy also have learnt a lesson from their attempt to 'actively' contain or 'actively intervene'. They have tweaked the policy of containment to an upgraded version of Commodore Perry's 'gunboat diplomacy'. And that is yielding results.
It is an universally accepted truth that the human nature desires to excel and be on top of the heap. Extend that to nations and the US and China are doing just that.
It would be wishful imagination that one can succeed in convincing one's own nation to back off and sink into the lowest layer of the heap. Neither will those who run the Nation, nor will the citizens accept that. Why? Because of another psychology facet - self esteem!
Nothing builds self-esteem and self-confidence like accomplishment. And if one believes that abdicating and abandoning historical ideals, values or primacy for the sake of peace at all cost is the right way, then one would have a second guess coming!
Man is an ambitious animal, though I will concede there are the scattering of wimps too.
I don't rewire my house because someone shouted that everything must be wrong. I evaluate the wiring on its own merits and determine whether intervention is required or will be useful. If it's not, I let it be. I do not rewire my house because my neighbor has a bad circuit, though I might provide my neighbor some judicious assistance if he requires it.
Of course, your reply is not out of the ordinary and is very signature like of your comments on this forum.
Yes, I am aware that you believe that you are the sole person who knows best and know all.
The qualified electricians are indeed chumps and don’t know the first thing of their job and the US policy makers are equal cretins – and you alone stand out as Sir Galahad come to the rescue with immense sagacity in defence of the adversary so that peace is achieved at all cost, and to quote you till it escalates. But then, as I have been saying, don;t you think that it would be too late?
I do observed that you advocate an immense faith in brinkmanship and doing things at the last minute, procrastinating and prevaricating till finally forced to act.
May I ask is that not too nerve wracking?
Of course, you would claim, true to style, that you have nerves of steel and you will blink last.
But remember, it might have its side effects - you will be prone to ulcers!
Those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and those who see a threat behind every blade of grass are likely to collapse from exhaustion and over-exertion by the time a real threat presents itself. The world is a messy place. Anyone who tries to order it to their liking will both fail and fall: nobody could sustain the required commitments. Political realism requires that one choose one's battles and act when it matters, not every time some convoluted combination of assumptions says it might someday matter. Trouble is infinite. Resources are not.
Indeed those who try to manage every drop in every ocean and see a threat behind every grass blade collapse from exhaustion!
I presume the US collapsed out of exhaustion trying to manage every drop of every oceans and seeing a threat behind every blade of grass against the USSR!
Let Christopher Hitchens, the English-born American author, journalist and literary critic answer that. He said:
If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the nineteenth province of Iraq. Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority of those that intone the "peace movement.
Where exactly did I say any such thing? Specifically, please.
It is all over the forum.
Seek and Ye Shall Find!
Have a good day!
And the US collapsed!
In the above post.
Lest misunderstood, I would like to clarify that it was in the sarcastic vein! ;)
In reality, the USSR not only collapsed because of US Foreign policy chiselling away, but made it impotent and it will take years for them to recover.
Observe the US approach to China.
It is not merely military containment, but ruining the Chinese social order, feeding on the Chinese yen for avarice and greed, causing industrial turmoil and social and regional inequalities that will have serious consequence in the overall context.
Dayuhan
06-27-2013, 01:51 AM
Make of it what you will...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html
Riot after Chinese teachers try to stop pupils cheating
What should have been a hushed scene of 800 Chinese students diligently sitting their university entrance exams erupted into siege warfare after invigilators tried to stop them from cheating...
... By late afternoon, the invigilators were trapped in a set of school offices, as groups of students pelted the windows with rocks. Outside, an angry mob of more than 2,000 people had gathered to vent its rage, smashing cars and chanting: "We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat."
According to the protesters, cheating is endemic in China, so being forced to sit the exams without help put their children at a disadvantage.
Dayuhan
06-27-2013, 08:31 AM
Against better judgment, but...
In reality, the USSR not only collapsed because of US Foreign policy chiselling away, but made it impotent and it will take years for them to recover.
The USSR collapsed not because of US foreign policy, but because of its own utterly dysfunctional economic system.
Observe the US approach to China.
It is not merely military containment, but ruining the Chinese social order, feeding on the Chinese yen for avarice and greed, causing industrial turmoil and social and regional inequalities that will have serious consequence in the overall context.
How is the US ruining the Chinese social order? The Chinese are doing it all by themselves. China has an abundance of social and economic problems, but they are not caused by anything the S has done, just as the social and economic problems of the US are not caused by China.
I don't know that any meaningful US "military containment" of China is really going on. The Chinese seem quite able to pursue their agenda in the South China Sea despite an increased US military tempo.
US port visits in Subic have increased dramatically: 51 in 2010, 54 in 2011, 72 already in 2013. There's a US/Philippine joint exercise starting near Scarborough Shoal tomorrow. Net impact on China's actions is pretty much zero: they are still occupying Scarborough shoal and being as pushy as ever in the Spratlys. The American ships can come and go as they please; the Chinese can ignore them, because they know very well that the Americans are not going to war over Scarborough Shoal or the Spratly Islands. An actual attack on the Philippines might be a different story, but there's no reason to think the Chinese have any intention of going there. Why would they?
US port visits in Subic have increased dramatically: 51 in 2010, 54 in 2011, 72 already in 2013. There's a US/Philippine joint exercise starting near Scarborough Shoal tomorrow. Net impact on China's actions is pretty much zero: they are still occupying Scarborough shoal and being as pushy as ever in the Spratlys. The American ships can come and go as they please; the Chinese can ignore them, because they know very well that the Americans are not going to war over Scarborough Shoal or the Spratly Islands. An actual attack on the Philippines might be a different story, but there's no reason to think the Chinese have any intention of going there. Why would they?
That is what is called 'containment'.
For the life of me, I don't know what else would be classified as 'containment'.
Military action would be called 'war'.
Without the US containment, China would have a cake walk in the SCS and be ruling the roost.
I could elaborate on how the US ensured that USSR came to its economic collapse and so can I on how the US is influencing the social order in China, but then that would not be possible in a short post!
Dayuhan
06-28-2013, 02:35 AM
Without the US containment, China would have a cake walk in the SCS and be ruling the roost.!
What does this supposed "containment" prevent the Chinese from doing in the SCS? They sail where they want, they fish where they want, they occupy the territory they want. The US sails around and visits ports, but what does that prevent the Chinese from doing?
I could elaborate on how the US ensured that USSR came to its economic collapse !
I've heard the arguments, and I'm not persuaded. Would any of these things the US did have been at all successful if not for the fundamentally and utterly dysfunctional nature of the Soviet economy and leadership? Certainly the US took steps that accelerated the decline, nbut the core problem of the Soviet Union was that communism doesn't work. It rotted from the inside out. An outside push might have helped topple it, but if it wasn't rotten inside, the outside push wouldn't have meant much.
and so can I on how the US is influencing the social order in China, but then that would not be possible in a short post!
That would be interesting to hear. Not sure how you could make that case without resort to the speculative, but I'd be interested to see the effort.
What does this supposed "containment" prevent the Chinese from doing in the SCS? They sail where they want, they fish where they want, they occupy the territory they want. The US sails around and visits ports, but what does that prevent the Chinese from doing?
Free movement across international waters has been the crux of US policies. Therefore, it is a flawed premise that ‘containment’ should correspond to some Medieval Siege! In modern terms, such a siege that you equate as ‘containment’ would be an ‘embargo’ with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war. It is reiterated that US is not at war with any country, including China. Nowhere has the US ‘containment’ been translated in preventing free navigation of any shipping in international waters! In fact, it is quite the opposite -the US insists on freedom of movement in international waters. You do injustice to the US with your contentions.
Since it appears that there is some cognitive gap about the US’ China containment policy, a clarification seems to be in order.
China containment policy is a political term referring to a claimed goal of U.S. foreign policy to diminish the economic and political growth of the People’s Republic of China. It also includes controlling Chinese hegemonic ambitions.
Apparently, it is bizarre to believe that anyone who assumedly is conversant with international affair could suggest that "containment" would encompass preventing the Chinese from operating in the SCS international waters! It would not be unfair to believe that such a person merely wants to situate the appreciation, rather than appreciating the situation, obfuscate and muddle issues, so as to make others lose track and to give the impression that something substantial and profound has been stated in reply! Unfortunately, what has been stated as 'profound insight' veers on being merely obtuse and illogical!
Nothing will protect an illogical idea from criticism like calling it practical
In so far as China occupying at will territories inspite of the US, as far as I know, after the US naval exercises, and the US sailing around and visiting ports, China has not occupied any territory, even though they have shown aggressive intent that has turned impotent, as against Japan.
I've heard the arguments, and I'm not persuaded. Would any of these things the US did have been at all successful if not for the fundamentally and utterly dysfunctional nature of the Soviet economy and leadership? Certainly the US took steps that accelerated the decline, nbut the core problem of the Soviet Union was that communism doesn't work. It rotted from the inside out. An outside push might have helped topple it, but if it wasn't rotten inside, the outside push wouldn't have meant much.
No one is in the business of persuading anyone. And why should one try to persuade someone else?
One is merely out here discussing issues and, wherever possible, learning of new things and ideas. I have, myself, found that some of the links appended here, most informative and what I have missed on the subject. Such links also encourages one to delve deeper in the subject and enlarge one's knowledge and perceptions. After all, I don't assume that I know all.
Socrates had said - True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.
The people who assume they know all and others know nothing should remember the key to success is to never stop learning. The key to failure is to think you know it all.
Did the USSR collapse because of Communism?
USSR did not collapse because of Communism. No political philosophy is perfect. Not only Communism floundered and faded, given the current indications, capitalism seems to be floundering and even though not fading. Therefore, the philosophies and ideologies are not flawed, the practitioners are not true to follow the philosophy in letter and spirit, be it Capitalism or Communism.
Take the case of the Scandanavian countries. What ‘ism’ are they following to be so successful?
The Scandinavian countries are flourishing and the people apparently are satisfied. And yet, their social and political philosophy is unique and almost Communist like – the real welfare States!
Their philosophy is based on egalitarian ideals that have formed the unique social welfare system, benefiting citizens practically from the womb to the tomb. This welfare system centres on the principle that both men and women are fully equal; furthermore society has a moral and legal obligation to remove all barriers preventing citizens from achieving their potential. Policies and laws intertwining gender equality, health care, education, and income distribution are the hallmark of Scandinavia’s welfare system and work interdependently.
They might feel that every other political philosophy is what is making them falter and finally fade. Would they be right? I wonder for after all what is sauce for the goose need not be sauce for the gander.
So, to attribute failure of a Nation solely to a political philosophy or ideology is misconceived. One can't blame anyone for harbouring such a dogmatic line of thinking because we are all influenced by the constant eulogy of our own system, in a variety of ways, and believe that it is better than every other system prevailing. Something on the lines of that of the Pavlovian dogs to conditional reflexes, wherein in an irrational manner, we club such failure of others with a 'catch all' conditioned mindset. As I said, neither the world nor ideologies are perfect. It is the environment, influenced by domestic and international stimuli that dictates the outcome.
One must keep one's mind free from popular biases and independently view issues. And each issue is unique and there is no formatted solution or rational that can be applied.
For instance, there have been countless insurgencies in the world. Are the causes of all insurgencies the same? What was successful in quelling the insurgency in Malaya, why is it not successful in other parts of the world? The environment prevailing for each insurgency, the geostrategic and geopolitical matrices are different and so is the time and the political environment in the timeline of history that manifests itself decides the outcome.
Therefore, the fall of the USSR had many reasons and the US policies were a great catalyst in causing its fall. The same cannot be scoffed over.
You may like to read this:
The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm
That would be interesting to hear. Not sure how you could make that case without resort to the speculative, but I'd be interested to see the effort.
I think speculation keeps things really interesting.
Only a gypsy fortune teller can read the crystal ball!
I am no gypsy, my moorings are very firm! ;)
Dayuhan
07-01-2013, 08:10 AM
Just noticed this today...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/06/30/citibank-caught-in-china-cash-crunch-not-making-money-transfers/?partner=yahootix
Citibank Caught In China Cash Crunch, Not Making Money Transfers
...Last Sunday, customers of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China’s largest bank, were not able to withdraw cash at its ATMs in cities across China or use its online banking platforms. ICBC , as the behemoth is known, blamed “system upgrades” for what official media now calls a “massive banking system paralysis.”
On Monday, a money transfer system at Bank of China, the country’s third-largest bank, went down. Bank of Nanjing customers faced similar problems during the week. Both banks cited technical difficulties.
“I cannot withdraw money from ICBC and BOC, and don’t know who will be next,” complained Wang Yangyu, a customer quoted by Reuters. “Can you banks give me a better explanation?”
Here’s my try at a better explanation. The rash of upgrades and glitches plaguing the Chinese banking system in the past week coincides with the country’s worsening liquidity crisis, which has hit large banks as well as smaller ones. ..
Other coverage:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/china-policy-bank-provides-100-billion-in-liquidity-since-may.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/484291/20130628/pboc-china-zhou-xiaochuan-liquidity-crunch.htm#
May be less than it seems, but there does seem to be something going on. We'll see... or maybe we won't. Not the most transparent banking industry on the planet. It will not do much for confidence in the banking system, that's for sure.
davidbfpo
07-01-2013, 09:15 AM
Dayuhan,
One of the banks with ATM problems, ICBC, is the No.1 bank according to this report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23122491
Caution seems wise:
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) moved into pole position on the back of a 15% increase in capital to $160.6bn.
Dayuhan
07-01-2013, 10:00 AM
There is a rush to reassure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business/global/regulator-says-chinas-banking-system-liquid-enough.html?_r=0
But even the admission that there has been a problem is unusual. These comments stood out to me:
He also highlighted the risks of wealth-management products, bank-issued securities that have exploded in recent years as households and companies have searched for higher-yielding alternatives to traditional deposits.
“In reality, wealth management products are investment products. Wealth management products are not the same as savings. Investors have to bear investment risk. When banks do these products, are they clearly explaining the risks to investors?” Mr. Shang said.
Analysts have said many who invest in wealth-management products believe their investments carry an implicit guarantee from state-backed banks, even if no legal guarantee exists.
Bank-issued wealth-management products totaled 8.2 trillion renminbi by the end of the first quarter, of which 70 percent were invested in the real economy.
I have to wonder what "invested in the real economy" means, exactly. When people make investments believing that there is protection from risk that does not actually exist, there is some potential for trouble. We will see. It would be interesting to have some first hand observations on ATM traffic and the number/amount of withdrawals, to see if there's any hint of panic withdrawal.
I watched the Chinese banking system for quite a while now but I confess I was a bit surprised by those spikes in the interbank interest rates.
Overall the problem has obvious causes:
1) The Chinese population has a very high saving rate, at least partly for very good reasons like housing, marriage, business investment, eduction for kids and life after work as there seems to be little credit available for the average Chinese guy. So what can they do with their hard-earend Yuan?
2) Small and medium enterprises and even larger private ones have difficulties to secure credits from banks. State-owned ones, which might not be the most profitable ones have in general not the same problem to get it from the - state-owned - banks.
3) The financial system is still not remotely comparable to the one we have in the Western world and good forces of capitalism are not allowed to their due work. It seems to be very hard for private equity to get into the stock market and get capital and to sell bonds. Instead the state-owned banks determine still to a large degree the capital allocation. That mechanism has certainly become quite inefficient in many instances because the risk was deemed non-existent or even necessary thanks to state backing or demand.
Big bad incentives for much money flowing into housing or in those infamous WMP. It is important to keep in mind that a couple of years ago banks&Co started to package away risk and transformed terrible loans to financial gold, at least for some time. Housing prices can indeed only go up and I fear to some extent that many a smart guy in China fell into the same trap. It is important to keep in mind that I do think that in the next twenty years or so China will see good growth. This is the reason why I invested recently in a broad ETF of Chinese stocks, even if a good deal of them are big state-owned banks. The better the reforms and policies the better the growth will be.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.