China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Carl, maybe you are right but what I thought was most interesting was the concept of a self sustaining city.....what exactly does that mean? Invasion by we(China) have a better idea on how to run things.

---

They're guided by a signal in the heavens
They're guided by this birthmark on their skin
They're guided by the beauty of their weapons
First they take Boise, then they take Detroit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVDgUnmX1E

- with apologies to Leonard Cohen. :cool:

Quote:

---

This month, NPR is examining the many ways China is expanding its reach in the world — through investments, infrastructure, military power and more.

When the United States took over from Britain as the predominant world power 100 years ago, the transition was like one between brothers — or cousins, at least. And the two countries remain close allies to this day. The rise of China in relation to U.S. predominance presents a somewhat different challenge — with decades of sometimes outright hostility and an ongoing fractious relationship.

As it reemerges as a world power, the question is: Is China's awakening to be welcomed — or feared?

---

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/136889...-hug-the-world

One of the things people should weigh more heavily in this is the importance of emotion as a driver in China's actions. As noted by many here there is no rational reason for China to go to war with anybody. They are making lots of money right now and there is absolutely no extant external military threat to them, none, zero, zilch, nada. Yet, they continue to do the things they do.

They go ape if we sell Taiwan F-16s. Taiwan will never be a threat to mainland China. Never. We could transfer them the entire B-1B bomber force and all the logistics to go with it and they still wouldn't be a threat to China. But they go ape every time anything is done to enhance Taiwan's ability to defend itself from China. That only makes sense if they want to take it and are willing to do so by force, sometime in the future. Is there any rational, cost vs. benefit reason for them to continue to desire this? No, none. But there is an emotional one for the CCP. They can complete what they started decades ago and smite those who have defied them for so long. That is a very powerful emotional impulse and if it were done there would be very powerful emotional satisfaction.

If you look at their actions with emotion in mind, the things they are doing make some sense. They are building a powerful navy. Why? They haven't been subject to a blockade since the CCP took the place over. We don't do blockades, with the sole exception of Haiphong and that was only briefly and after the NVA had been killing our guys for almost a decade. (whoops, I forgot Libya, but pushing around itty-bitty countries shouldn't make a difference unless you are blinded by emotions.) In any case our navy is shrinking and in 10 years we couldn't do it we wanted to. There is no other navy that could do one. But they are still building a big navy. That only makes sense if they see a possibility of going toe to toe with us at sometime in the future, and that would only make sense if they have a plan in mind that would provoke us beyond endurance. Run the numbers and there is no rational payoff in chancing a fight with us. But there would be emotional satisfaction in showing up the arrogant Yankees.

There was no rational reason for the Japanese to pick on China but they did. There was no good reason for Italy to conquer Ethiopia but they did. There was no good reason for the Germans to invade Poland beyond a desire to do so, but they did it anyway. If anybody in the CCP bigwig room really runs the numbers, there is no reason for them to be do any of the provocative things they have been up to, but they are anyway because they want to. I think it is an emotional drive and helps to lead them into believing their own propaganda as the The Cuyahoga Kid suggested. Emotions are very powerful things and they lead people down paths they oughtant'a go down. This could get very bad.

Emotion? Maybe. But controlled emotion. The Chinese psyche is ineffected with concepts of sovereignty; much more so than your average right-wing, black helicopter-seeing, militia guy in the US. It comes from their "century of humiliation" when they were taken advantage of by western powers. Whether we agree with that characterization is irrelevant, it's what they believe. Thus, they will take whatever action necessary to preserve their sovereignty. Since they see Taiwan as part of China (and they have a pretty good legal argument), this naturally fits within their sovereignty plans. They don't need to go toe-to-toe with us in an effort to win. They simply need to make it too costly for us to fight and that's looking much easier these days. Would most Americans really support spilling American blood to protect Taiwan? As the father of a kid who could be doing the fighting in as little as ten years, I'd say NO.

That being said, the real issue isn't really Taiwan. Assuming complete compliance with international law in all respects, would our world really change if Taiwan decided tomorrow to join China? However, I think our world would change greatly if access to that part of the world was suddenly denied. Half of world maritime trade transits that part of the world. This short paper, although dated, gives a good idea of the issue. I'm really only beginning to explore the economic nexus here, but I see the potential impact as perhaps catastrophic. China seems to be pursuing an anit-access/are denial (A2/AD) strategy that, if successful, poses are far larger threat than AQ and their ilk. This A2/AD strategy employs military, political, legal, and media means. Sure, the Air Force uses this to strike up fears to drive their share of the budget, but there is still a concern here that should be address and I think we've ignored this for too long because of our other committments.

John:

If Taiwan decided to join China no one would care. If Taiwan was forced to decide to join China, then a lot of people would care, because that could only happen if China stared us down. If that happened it would change the calculations of a lot of countries. The countries on the Pacific and Indian oceans rim can only stand against China WITH us; and we can only handle China WITH them. If we didn't stand WITH Taiwan against China in a critical situation they would wonder if we would stand with them when the time came. In those circumstances, they would be well advised not to count on us and make their own arrangements.

When that happened, there goes your access to the area. It wouldn't be denied though. It would be controlled and given the life's outlook in the CCP bigwig room, god only knows what that would mean. It wouldn't be good.

There is lots of room for miscalculation in all of this and those miscalculation would be driven by emotion probably. The Poles fought and the Vietnamese might too. The trick is to postpone all this as long as possible to give China a chance to settle down. I believe the way to do that is to start early when things are small and miscalculations don't entail such big consequences. For example, protest loud and strong when the Chinese Navy pushes around Filipino fishermen, sked port calls to Cam Ranh bay and sell the durn F-16s to Taiwan.

I don't expect this to happen though. Early action is contrary to the sensibilities of our betters inside the beltway. They will consider the matter thoughtfully while being cognizant of the subtle nuances of the various alternatives until the alternatives are the devil and the deep blue sea.

Emotions are emotions. Controlled ones are maybe more dangerous because they are more deeply imprinted in the mind. Things may get very dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

John:

If that happened it would change the calculations of a lot of countries. The countries on the Pacific and Indian oceans rim can only stand against China WITH us; and we can only handle China WITH them. If we didn't stand WITH Taiwan against China in a critical situation they would wonder if we would stand with them when the time came. In those circumstances, they would be well advised not to count on us and make their own arrangements.

When that happened, there goes your access to the area. It wouldn't be denied though. It would be controlled and given the life's outlook in the CCP bigwig room, god only knows what that would mean. It wouldn't be good.

---

Somebody once said "Geography is destiny." The location plays in China's favor more so than it does to the US. We are a hemispheric power(North,Central,South America) not the World Power we think we are. Of course I could be wrong to.:D

Slap:

I think the geography is stacked against China if it wants to be hostile. It does not have unfettered access to the world by sea. There are lots of islands and straits out there. Landward it has the snowlands to the north, empty grasslands to the west, monster mountains to the south and only one seacoast. Peaceful has worked out great for them. Hostile may not work so good in the long run because their geographic position isn't that great. That is why I say their is nothing rational in their actions. It is emotional and dangerous.

We have the best geographic position on the planet. Fronting 2 oceans, multiple ports and all our hemispheric neighbors are either friendly or of little consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Slap:

I think the geography is stacked against China if it wants to be hostile. It does not have unfettered access to the world by sea. There are lots of islands and straits out there. Landward it has the snowlands to the north, empty grasslands to the west, monster mountains to the south and only one seacoast. Peaceful has worked out great for them. Hostile may not work so good in the long run because their geographic position isn't that great. That is why I say their is nothing rational in their actions. It is emotional and dangerous.

We have the best geographic position on the planet. Fronting 2 oceans, multiple ports and all our hemispheric neighbors are either friendly or of little consequence.

---

Keep going. How do we pull this off? What would it take?

Slap:

Are you trying an analog to the old human bait trick "There he is Carl! Chase him!"? OK, off I go.

The prime thing is China can be rich and secure, and all their neighbors can be rich and secure without everybody fighting. That is a truth that will eventually win out if it is given time. The time may not be there because the CCP is feeling stroppy and finds it emotionally appealing to shove folks around right now. So, how do we get time for them to grow up a bit?

We do that the old fashioned way, building friendships and alliances with all those other countries. And then standing by them. Stop being so darned understanding about Chinese aggressiveness. Call it what it is, a police state trying to have its way by force. At the same time keep up the trade, cultural and tourist intercourse we have with China and increase it if possible. It is all standard stuff but it requires a little confidence in who you are.

Now if we do that, and do it consistently for a few decades, we present the Chinese with something like the obverse of "death by a thousand cuts", sorta "frustration by always having your toes stubbed". They meet resistance when pushing out a little then draw back. Time passes and hopefully CCP guys who are more interested in the welfare of the average Chinese, which will increase with each peaceful year, than in making their mark in history with a conquest or two, come to power. Time is the key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Are you trying an analog to the old human bait trick "There he is Carl! Chase him!"? OK, off I go.

---

carl,No trick just a question(s). I think our most serious threat(s) are South of the Border and our Economy. But, basically you believe in the Navy's Maritime strategy proposal?

Slap:

I don't know what the Navy is proposing. i do think we are a maritime power foremost. If we forget and neglect that, we're done for.

The Brits are a maritime power too. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Slap:

I don't know what the Navy is proposing. i do think we are a maritime power foremost. If we forget and neglect that, we're done for.

The Brits are a maritime power too. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten that.

---

Concur with the maritime power statement. And this becomes quite obvious if you look at defense spending and other things prior to World War II. I don't think it's any coincidence that our best-known defense thinker happens to be a navy guy named Mahan. China's position is better suited to defensive warfare, IMO. If they were to get too aggressive they'd run into issues.

Somewhat off topic, but God Bless the Dalai Lama, uh, that is... ah hell, you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Beijing reviles the Dalai Lama and frequently denounces him, alleging that he wants independence for Tibet.

When asked if China was the enemy, the Tibetan spiritual leader demurred.

“Not China. Some hard-liner Communists. They really brought a lot of suffering,” he said.

But the Nobel peace laureate said the solution was not to hate them back.

“I myself deliberately visualized them and practiced tolerance,” he told reporters.

He said he tries to take “their anger, their jealously, their suspicion … then give them, through visualization, give them compassion, forgiveness…. That kind of practice (doesn’t) help to solve the problem, but that practice is immense help to maintain my peace of mind.”

---

Dalai Lama Sez China Not His Enemy - Tibet Sun - June 10, 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

One of the things people should weigh more heavily in this is the importance of emotion as a driver in China's actions.

---

So true. A shallow, self-involved and somewhat hysterical emotionalism often blinds China to the faults that seem so obvious to others. Fortunately, most other nations base their statements and actions entirely on well-informed, rational and balanced analysis. China would do well to take note.

18-Hole Diplomacy and Its Discontents:

Quote:

---

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday called for the drafting of a “code of conduct” for retired generals after a former general on a visit to China was quoted as saying that the Republic of China (ROC) Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are both “China’s army.”
Retired generals should put the interests of Taiwan above all, present a transparent itinerary and exercise prudence when visiting China, Presidential Office spokesman Fan Chiang Tai-chi (范姜泰基) quoted Ma as saying at the Presidential Office.
“Retired generals are not government officials, but their words and actions remain very sensitive ... If the media reports are true, then the [general’s] comments went against national policy and should be condemned,” Fan Chiang said.

---

Ma calls for 'code of conduct' for retired generals - Taipei Times - June 10, 2011.

***

Quote:

---

The comment by ROC's AF General Hsia Ying-chou (here) has caused a firestorm in the Republic of China. What else you are going to do after 18 holes of golf?

"Hsia Ying-chou, a retired air force general and former president of National Defense University, was reported to have said on June 5 in China that no distinction should be made between the Republic of China (Taiwan) Army and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China since they were both "China's army."

---

Civil "Golf" War Part II - China Defense Blog - June 9, 2011.

***

A 'certain kind' of fire drill - Wikipedia

Though it was not agreed in another thread that the US has interest in containing China and instead it was emphasised that it was in the US interest that China should grow. It was also debunked that the South China Seas is of no interest to the US. However, going by the posts here itself, it appears that indeed the growth and actions by China seriously jeopardises the US interests in the Asia Pacific region.

By geography, China is better placed in Asia, but the geostrategic compulsions places the US interests a few notches higher. If for nothing else, the rise and modernisation of China and its Armed Forces will leave the US vulnerable from the Pacific end. In WWII, Japan did not have the power projection capability to knock at the Pacific coast of the US, but the manner in which China is modernising the PLAAF and PLAN, it could be within China's reach.

Cynical and brazen as it may sound, but Han culturalism is a very potent force that unites the Han Chinese the world over. A visit to forums would indicate how Chinese origin non PRC posters react to anti Chinese posts. This proves the point. The manner in which Han Chinese (to include those holding non PRC citizenship) all over the world united against the opposition along the Olympic Flame route is another case in point as an indicator how local Chinese would react to any anti China activity by other nations pursuing their own national interests. Therefore, suffice it to say, leaving the Pacific unchallenged is not conducive for the US.

It is also correct that the US is no longer the unchallenged power that it was, owing to various factors. However, one does not see the US abdicating her pristine position anywhere around the world. In fact, it is parcelling out its 'power projection' activities to willing partners as in Libya and elsewhere to save on costs in terms of money as also in terms of spilling American blood (which has a serious domestic repercussion).

The prolonged Obama visit to Asia was also perfunctorily rejected in the other thread when it was suggested that it was basically to build bridges and concretise the ‘containment of China’. Notwithstanding, there is a school of thought in India that India has sold itself out to the US. I cannot comment on that, but what is observed is that there is a lot of military cooperation going on and more are on the cards. There is also a change in the Indian Armed Forces inventory that is moving West and the US is taking the chunk of the Defence Budget. It is also interesting to note that after Obama’s visit to India, Chinese media went bonkers about US plans to contain China. Some wonder how? And some also wonder why the senior military and political personage visited Vietnam soon after Obama visited India and why the Indo Vietnamese cooperation has seen a spurt in activities.

It is also a moot point as to why China has suddenly gone easy with India on her diplomatic snubs that were coming fast and thick after the Obama's visit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

John:

If Taiwan decided to join China no one would care. If Taiwan was forced to decide to join China, then a lot of people would care, because that could only happen if China stared us down. If that happened it would change the calculations of a lot of countries. The countries on the Pacific and Indian oceans rim can only stand against China WITH us; and we can only handle China WITH them. If we didn't stand WITH Taiwan against China in a critical situation they would wonder if we would stand with them when the time came. In those circumstances, they would be well advised not to count on us and make their own arrangements.

When that happened, there goes your access to the area.

---

Much to ponder here; you may be right. If China flat out attacked tomorrow, you would definitely be right. However, I'm not sure it would happen that way. China seems a bit consumed by it's public image, so that may dictate how they bring about absorbing Taiwan (if they ever do). How they accomplish that might give the US a way out.

That being said I concur that we are a sea power. We rise or fall depending on it.

carl or anybody that wants to. Do you really think that if push came to shove the US would go to war with China over Taiwan?

Slap:

If you are asking for prognostication, I don't know. Much would depend on who comprises the political leadership of the US and the other states. I don't know.

If you are asking should we, I am assuming we let things get to a state where the Chinese felt confident enough of the outcome to make the play. In that case, if we didn't risk it, we might be surrendering the entire western Pacific to the Chinese to do with as they pleased. That includes Japan, Australia, the Philippines and New Zealand. The Indians might check out on us too. If people object to the size of the defense budget now, their eyes will pop out of their heads when they see military spending quintuple after a defeat like that.

The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.

It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.

More from the Dalai guy:

Quote:

---

THE Dalai Lama, after a lifetime of struggles against China's government, sees hopeful signs of change in the world's biggest dictatorship.

The spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhists says he hears more voices for freedom in China and its repressiveness "cannot last forever". He even sees encouraging signs for the future of China's policy in Tibet, the homeland he fled as a youth in the face of the Chinese takeover.

---

China's repression can't last sez Dalai Lama - Sydney Morning Herald - June 11, 2011.

***

Air Force general says controversial thing approved by party:

Quote:

---

A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People's Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.

As officers of similar rank rattle their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its dominance off China's eastern coast.

''If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,'' writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong's Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.

---

China must reform or die - Sydney Morning Herald - Aug 12, 2010.

Same Air Force General thinks PLA should shrink ground component, sees 'world in a grain of sand':

Quote:

---

Back in August 2010, Lt General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar (PC) of the PLA's National Defense University caused a stir by proclaiming that China must reform or die.

Fast forward to now -- writing for the latest edition of the China Brief, Dr Zhang, associate professor in the Department of Leadership and Strategy at the Air War College (USAF), predicts that he is inline as the next Political Commissar of the entire PLAAF. If Dr Zhang's prediction is correct, expect to see a different PLAAF five years from now under General Liu's new leadership.

"As early as 2000, Lt General Liu Yazhou proposed that Chinese military authorities consider reorganizing the PLAAF into functional air commands by separating the air force from the PLA military region (MR) system to become a true independent service. [...] His advocacy for eliminating the ground force dominated military system, however, has received little support from the PLA military establishment."

---

Criticizing the Chinese...will get you promoted. A follow up on the career of Lt Gen Liu Yazhou - China Defence Blog - June 4, 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.

It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.

---

I don't think this is really that remarkable. It's realism, pure and simple. If things go south between China and Taiwan, the US should assess the situtaion at that time, account for long-term fallout, and then act (or not). The US, like any nation, should do what is in its best interests. It may be that you are absolutely correct and that "abandoning a free nation" would present to many negatives. However, the situation could very well be one in which supporting Taiwan could pose significant long-term drawbacks or short-term issues we can't handle. In that case, I would hope our leaders would do what is best for us, not Taiwan or anyone else.

I do, of course, agree that we shouldn't let things get to that point.