China's Emergence as a Superpower (2015 onwards)

[davidbfpo]

China is close to approving a law that will create a legal framework for sending troops abroad on counterterrorism missions as Beijing seeks to address the vulnerability of the country’s growing global commercial and diplomatic interests.

Article 76 would authorize the military, as well as state and public security personnel, to conduct counterterrorism operations abroad with the approval of the “relevant country.”

Link:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201.../#.VPRYGY4tzK9

[AdamG]

Seven Reasons China Will Start a War By 2017

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz3YwHfDmn7

[Bill Moore]

From SWJ News Roundup today, well worth the read if you're interested in China.

http://qz.com/415649/china-is-buildi...re-in-history/

China is building the most extensive global commercial-military empire in history

Yet these profiles of an allegedly grasping and treacherous China tend to consider its ambitions in disconnected pieces. What these pieces add up to is a whole latticework of infrastructure materializing around the world. Combined with the ambitious activities of Chinese companies, they are quickly growing into history’s most extensive global commercial empire.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I ran across and read that yesterday. Very important indeed. The quote that came to mind for me is "I drank your milkshake."

In the movie "There will be Blood" (note, this is my recollection, I saw this movie once, years ago) the Daniel Day Lewis character is developing oil fields in Southern California, but one farmer refuses to negotiate on matters of principle. Finally, the farmer breaks down and goes to Lewis and says "OK, I am ready to negotiate." At which point he is told he is too late, as he had drilled all around his property and no oil was left to sell, he had "drank his milkshake."

The US is like that principled farmer. We think we are holding onto something, where in fact activities all around us are taking away the very thing we think we are preserving. At some point, we too will come to the point where we will say to China, "Ok, lets sit down and talk about how we share responsibilities and work together." To which, China will likely reply that we are too late, that they "drank our milkshake..."

[Bill Moore]

Bill,

I ran across and read that yesterday. Very important indeed. The quote that came to mind for me is "I drank your milkshake."

In the movie "There will be Blood" (note, this is my recollection, I saw this movie once, years ago) the Daniel Day Lewis character is developing oil fields in Southern California, but one farmer refuses to negotiate on matters of principle. Finally, the farmer breaks down and goes to Lewis and says "OK, I am ready to negotiate." At which point he is told he is too late, as he had drilled all around his property and no oil was left to sell, he had "drank his milkshake."

The US is like that principled farmer. We think we are holding onto something, where in fact activities all around us are taking away the very thing we think we are preserving. At some point, we too will come to the point where we will say to China, "Ok, lets sit down and talk about how we share responsibilities and work together." To which, China will likely reply that we are too late, that they "drank our milkshake..."

Classic movie, I hated capitalism for an entire day after watching it, but then I saw a Michael Moore documentary, and became a capitalist again.

At some point, we too will come to the point where we will say to China, "Ok, lets sit down and talk about how we share responsibilities and work together."

We have been at this point for well over a decade, it isn't due to a lack of effort on our part. I don't think today's leaders in China really want to share, they want to monopolize and dictate. They increasingly believe they have the means to do this. I can't recall what renown world politician said it (he wasn't a U.S. politician), but he argued that East Asia is the future of the world economic engine, and if the U.S. gets marginalized in this region they will no longer be an economic superpower (and everything that comes with that). Terrorism in the Middle East and Africa is important, but it doesn't come close to the level of importance of other strategic interests. We're capable of dealing with both, but we tend to act as though we can only have one priority. If we can't move past transactional national security actions to focusing on longer term strategic interests we are setting ourselves up for failure, failure will manifest self as a crisis, then we'll shift effort with no underlying strategy and start flailing at threats again.

Sharing is a nice concept that mature actors can agree to, but when decision makers (from all concerned countries) rather embrace nationalism, pride, and greed rather than compromise, then a confrontation is perhaps inevitable?

[Bob's World]

"Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" - fortunately for the US we have a great "fence" between us and China. What is really at risk is US Influence relative to China's. We need to trust more in the fence, and focus on the competition for influence. Currently China is on a global campaign to buy a great deal of influence; meanwhile the US burns influence by the bucket in our odd perspective and response to 9/11 and subsequent political evolutions in the Greater Middle East.

It is well established that "goods follow power" - or as I prefer, "Sovereignty follows power." As power shifts between parties there will be a rebalancing of goods, and sovereign rights and duties commensurate to that shift.

I suspect China does indeed overestimate what they believe their rightful share to be based upon their current power-status. Equally, I suspect the US clings doggedly to far more than is our commensurate share. But where does one hold? How does one shift positions? Where does one give? There are no "right" answers, and any answer will be powerfully attacked by those who believe it to be the wrong answer.

So yes, we have conversations, but I suspect most begin along the lines of "While keeping the division of sovereign rights and duties just as they currently are, lets figure out how to better get along." That is not going to take us anywhere but to war.

[slapout9]

I think the situation may be worse than it appears. China pursues positive goals, that is they pursue goals that make them stronger. The USA pursues negative goals, all we do is try to block, which only spends resources with no overall gain for the USA. The company I work for is moving out of China and into Cambodia because China no longer considers them a Strategic asset to the country. Not being forced more just left to whether on the vine so to speak, no direct confrontation, but a very clear indirect message. Our CEO says that is the China way. They pursue opportunities and simply starve problems of needed resources. There is a lesson there I think!