China's Emergence as a Superpower (2015 onwards)

[davidbfpo]

Bill,

Thanks for the above post.

In my reading list and it is a very short article is this:https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...angerous-29352

All very impressive, except as one comment in the PMC article remarked the PLA's last combat operation was in 1979.

A "lurker" suggested we examine this short PLA video of an amphibious operation. One response:

You don't just "walk through" on landings like this,there'll be a lot of obstacles, boobie traps , bad weather and blood bath before most of these armor vehicles get to reach the beaches.

Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4805xdhy8

[AdamG]

Repeat a perception until it becomes a reality.

A modernization program focused on naval and missile forces has shifted the balance of power in the Pacific in ways the United States and its allies are only beginning to digest.

While China lags in projecting firepower on a global scale, it can now challenge U.S. military supremacy in the places that matter most to it: the waters around Taiwan and in the disputed South China Sea.

That means a growing section of the Pacific Ocean — where the United States has operated unchallenged since the naval battles of World War II — is once again contested territory, with Chinese warships and aircraft regularly bumping up against those of the U.S. and its allies.

To prevail in these waters, according to officials and analysts who scrutinize Chinese military developments, China does not need a military that can defeat the U.S. outright but merely one that can make intervention in the region too costly for Washington to contemplate. Many analysts say Beijing has already achieved that goal.

https://www.wral.com/china-shoring-u...ific/17803020/

[AdamG]

Buying African votes in the UN.

China will write off any amount owed by indebted countries or developing nations, President Xi Jinping said. China is offering US$60 billion in financial support and a debt write-off to impoverished African nations- no strings attached, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Monday
*
The Chinese official laid out the extensive financial strategy to African leaders, with plans to invest US$5 billion in African exports, US$ 10 billion for "development financing" and US$15 billion in grants, interest-free loans, and concessional loans; a credit line of US$20 billion. Xi said their friendship was time-honored and that China's investment in Africa came with no political strings attached.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...0903-0005.html

[davidbfpo]

I discovered this commentary on the recent Beijing Sino-African meeting by a SME on China; slightly edited:

How should we understand the triannual Africa-China summit, which just concluded in Beijing? With 53 out of 54 countries in Africa represented and singing the praises of the host, China unquestionably deems it a success. It was a “win” too for leaders of African countries who attended. But what do average citizens of the African countries get out of it? Are we seeing a “new version of colonialism” being put in place? President Xi Jinping hails the summit as a success in partnering with Africa to build up “a community of shared destiny.” He committed $60 billion to assist Africa or, in reality, to support the implementation of his flagship “Belt and Road” initiative in Africa. If every country in Africa were to receive an equal share, this amounts to just over $1 billion each. But the funding will not be evenly distributed. Some will benefit more than others.
Among the commitments for the $60 billion China has earmarked are $15 billion for grants and no cost or low-cost loans; $10 billion for a special Sino-African fund; and $5 billion for supporting African exports to China. There are, however, no details.
Xi has given no indication that Beijing will abandon its centralized approach in dishing out funds for the Belt and Road initiative. This implies that the bulk of the funding will remain tightly controlled and mostly used to finance major infrastructural projects, as before.
But there is one notable change, in the allocation of $5 billion to support African exports to China. True, it is only 8 percent of the total, and that ratio reflects Beijing’s priorities as regards assistance to African countries to build sustainable economic capacities, such as often has been the focus of Western and Japanese development funding. But it is a step in the right direction. It appears to be a response to clamours from ordinary Africans for assistance to promote manufacturing so that jobs will be created for them.
Citizens of most African countries benefit little from shiny new infrastructural facilities that they cannot afford to use. What they need most are jobs and opportunities. Investments in manufacturing, where Africans are employed, are what will make a difference to ordinary folks, not grandiose projects undertaken by Chinese contractors who often employ Chinese workers on foreign worksites.
Yet, what remains to be seen is how this $5 billion will be used to create and sustain manufacturing jobs in African countries. Again, no road map was unveiled. This is a pity as there is tremendous scope for China to relocate labour-intensive low-cost manufacturing to African countries as rising labour costs make them uncompetitive in China. Since such industries are mostly small and medium-sized private enterprises, they will not relocate to Africa and create jobs for Africans just because Xi has set aside this fund. Indeed, the promises of funds do not always become reality.
Is Xi’s effort, limited as it is a response to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s recent articulation in Beijing of concern over “a new version of colonialism”? Mahathir’s reference was effective political rhetoric that enabled his country to back out of a number of unaffordable and non-essential grand projects that had the potential of creating another instance of the China “debt-trap” that has already ensnared a number of African and South Asian nations. That said, as an analytical concept it is not particularly useful. There is not one simple agreed definition of what colonialism means, let alone a “new version of colonialism.” The concept can easily be dismissed by Chinese leaders who claim that since China is a member of the global South, it is by definition not colonialist or imperialist.
This notwithstanding, Chinese leaders should not forget that action speaks louder than words. China does not need to deploy significant troops to any African country for it to be seen as behaving like a colonial power. Most African countries have a colonial past and they know what a “colonial relationship” looks like.
Historically, flag followed trade and informal empire often preceded the creation of a formal imperial relationship. British imperialists of the Victorian era did not have a blueprint for imperial conquest, so the lack of one in Beijing means little. The British Empire was created in a fit of absence of mind, when expanding British economic interests made it irresistible for the British Crown to protect British interests and incrementally assert imperial control. The British Empire also exemplified the most cost-effective imperial expansion. It mostly avoided expansive conquest and relied instead on working with local leaders – a “win-win” of an earlier age.
Whether China under Xi Jinping will follow the path of British imperialists of the past only time will tell. But citizens of African countries who witness rapid expansion of Chinese economic interests will not wait to draw their own conclusions. If Beijing works with them for their benefit, rather than for that of their leaders, they are likely to welcome China as a partner. So if Beijing is serious about making its partnership with Africa a genuine “win-win,” it will have to focus on projects that will benefit ordinary people in African countries, not just their national leaders and Beijing itself. This will be the acid test, but again, there are so far scant details of Beijing’s intentions.

Somewhere I have a UK commentary too, behind a paywall and will try to summarize that - it is now a few weeks old being published when Mrs may was on her three stop African tour.

[Bill Moore]

In the latest print version (SEP/OCT 2018) of "The National Interest" there is an interesting article titled Kaiser Xi Jinping. The author, John Mauer, is a professor at the Navy War College. He makes a compelling argument that Xi is heading down the same path as Kaiser Wilhelm II. In short, Xi is leading his country to ruin by engaging in an arm's race to deter potential competitors from interfering with his desire to become a global power if he continues to follow Wilhem's strategic logic. There is another relevant parallel to WWI not addressed in the article, but relevant to today. Prior to WWI, many argued that war in Europe was impossible due to the economic entanglement or interdependence between nations. We hear a similar argument today regarding China. History defied that argument previously, and I suspect it will do so again in the future.

Mauer's article explains that Kaiser built a fleet of battleships to expand Germany influence globally and as a national symbol of power to rally the German people around, in hopes of delaying or preventing the emergent social unrest in Germany. Wilhem's strategic aim was to break Britain's grip on the world in favor of Germany, in short a new international order. The Kaiser recognized that only a rich country could afford a fleet, so Germany should become rich. The parallel's to today's China's strategic views are obvious.

Xi may want to rethink his strategic approach as Wilhem's strategic judgment proved to be deeply flawed. He assumed Britain would back down without fighting. Instead, Britain actually started to rapidly expand its military and rebalance its focus from its frontiers to Europe to counter a rising Germany. The Kaiser calculated the only way to win was to decisively strike first. This of course failed, and the tragic results for the world to include the ruin of Germany are well known.

Maurer offers two ironic twists to this story that are worth mentioning. First, the Germany Navy mutinied toward the end of war when ordered to conduct a suicide mission again Britain's impressive A2/AD defenses along its first island chain. This mutiny trigger a social upheaval within Germany resulting in the ouster of the Kaiser. In the end, the great German fleet intended to rally the people to the nationalist cause was the catalyst for the uprising that ended the Kaiser's rule. The other irony, was that Germany's escalation of the war at sea, especially the U-boat attacks, brought America into the war as a decisive force. Maurer's closing point was that America, the emerging new global power, went to Europe to protect the old world order.

Mauer has a similar article at the following link, it isn't quite identical but it is very close.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature...mistakes-29667

[AdamG]

Nice move - benign soft force projection with a non-warship naval vessel.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A Chinese naval ship has traveled to Venezuela for the first time, following a visit by President Nicolas Maduro to Beijing this month, where he had been looking to gain China’s support for the Latin American nation’s struggling economy.The naval medical ship, known as the “Peace Ark”, arrived on Saturday at the Venezuelan port of La Guaira for an eight-day period of “friendly visits” to the country, the official Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1M3061

[AdamG]

Lahore, Pakistan (Reuters) - Islamabad has cut the size of the biggest Chinese “Silk Road” project in Pakistan by $2 billion, Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed said on Monday, citing government concerns about the country’s debt levels. The megaproject to revamp the colonial-era line stretching 1,872 km (1,163 miles) from Karachi to the northwestern city of Peshawar was initially priced at $8.2 billion, but wrangling over costs has led to delays.

https://in.reuters.com/article/pakis...KCN1MB30O?il=0