China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[JeffC]

[QUOTE=Global Scout;32488]JeffC,

Hi Global Scout

While I enjoyed the paper, I thought it was inconclusive and I am not exactly sure what your point was.

My primary point was that China will most likely become the world's next Superpower, while my secondary point was that the U.S. should pay attention to its own fragilities in that regard (partricularly it's growing reliance on foreign nation's owning our debt, and our nation's declining Science and Math graduates).

For example, China, and several other countries, are modernizing their military, and of course the U.S. Special Operations is seen as especially effective, so they'll adapt that model where it fits.

The underlying point for my example of China's modeling of U.S. Special Operations Command techniques is that China is leveraging what we do best as a means of rapid development for their own nation's advancement. They follow that method across the board: technology, education, military, consumer goods.

My point is you could have selected a number of countries and have basically written the same paper with minor changes.

I don't believe that to be the case. China's in a unique position due to it's enormous population with its undeniable attraction as consumers for global companies, the size of its military, it's nuclear capability, it's scientific community, and the fact that it currently holds almost US$1.5 Trillion in foreign debt (and that's expected to continue to rise). None of those factors can be duplicated by any other nation except possibly India, and that to a much lesser extent.

I'm not arguing with your facts, but with your slant. China may be a looming menance to our national security, but this paper was not convincing. I think a serious counter argument could be made that China is very fragile on a number of levels, militarily, politically, and economically.

That's fair, and accurate. China isn't a Superpower yet, and it does face serious problems, although I don't believe that any of them are insurmountable.

My main concern with some of the skeptics that I've read regarding China is that they seem to think that acknowledging China's rise to power is somehow un-patriotic. If history teaches us anything about the rise and fall of nations, it's that a great nation (like the U.S.) takes its position for granted at its peril. In my opinion, in order for the U.S. to remain a great nation, it needs to use clear vision in viewing both its own troubles (and fixing them) and its competitors' strengths. I don't see that happening as often as it should.

I still enjoyed the paper though, thanks.

My pleasure.

[Watcher In The Middle]

The great fall of China - Revised GDP calculations show that Beijing isn't the giant we thought it was
By Walter Russell Mead; December 30, 2007

The most important story to come out of Washington recently had nothing to do with the endless presidential campaign. And although the media largely ignored it, the story changes the world.

The story's unlikely source was the staid World Bank, which published updated statistics on the economic output of 146 countries. China's economy, said the bank, is smaller than it thought.

About 40% smaller.

China, it turns out, isn't a $10-trillion economy on the brink of catching up with the United States. It is a $6-trillion economy, less than half our size. For the foreseeable future, China will have far less money to spend on its military and will face much deeper social and economic problems at home than experts previously believed.

What happened to $4 trillion in Chinese gross domestic product?

Statistics. When economists calculate a country's gross domestic product, they add up the prices of the goods and services its economy produces and get a total -- in dollars for the United States, euros for such countries as Germany and France and yuan for China. To compare countries' GDP, they typically convert each country's product into dollars.

The simplest way to do this is to use exchange rates. In 2006, the World Bank calculated that China produced 21 trillion yuan worth of goods and services. Using the market exchange rate of 7.8 yuan to the dollar, the bank pegged China's GDP at $2.7 trillion.

That number is too low. For one thing, like many countries, China artificially manipulates the value of its currency. For another, many goods in less developed economies such as China and Mexico are much cheaper than they are in countries such as the United States.

To take these factors into account, economists compare prices from one economy to another and compute an adjusted GDP figure based on "purchasing-power parity." The idea is that a country's GDP adjusted for purchasing-power parity provides a more realistic measure of relative economic strength and of living standards than the unadjusted GDP numbers.

Unfortunately, comparing hundreds and even thousands of prices in almost 150 economies all over the world is a difficult thing to do. Concerned that its purchasing-power-parity numbers were out of whack, the World Bank went back to the drawing board and, with help from such countries as India and China, reviewed the data behind its GDP adjustments.

It learned that there is less difference between China's domestic prices and those in such countries as the United States than previously thought. So the new purchasing-power-parity adjustment is smaller than the old one -- and $4 trillion in Chinese GDP melts into air.

Link

As the article (Editorial) points out, this has serious implications for a whole host of players. If the numbers are correct, there's been a whole lot of economic assumptions being made that really aren't justifiable, and could easily come back to haunt the entities making those decisions.

[JeffC]

Link

As the article (Editorial) points out, this has serious implications for a whole host of players. If the numbers are correct, there's been a whole lot of economic assumptions being made that really aren't justifiable, and could easily come back to haunt the entities making those decisions.

I disagree. Does anyone doubt that China will get there? No. So what if it's not there now. It doesn't change the fundamentals. 1.6 Billion people. Some of the best math and science minds in the world, thanks to their emphasis on science and math in education. And the second largest holder of U.S. debt in the world, after Japan. None of that has changed.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by JeffC:

I disagree. Does anyone doubt that China will get there? No. So what if it's not there now. It doesn't change the fundamentals. 1.6 Billion people. Some of the best math and science minds in the world, thanks to their emphasis on science and math in education. And the second largest holder of U.S. debt in the world, after Japan. None of that has changed.

Not sure I'd bite on that one, because making up $4 trillion isn't pocket change. You are talking about China duplicating what looks to be at least several (3-4 years, possibly more) of continuous growth at existing levels, and the export numbers (at least anecdotial for the quarter ending September, 2007) just weren't there.

And there's a whole lot of other issues - China is experiencing all the negative environmental impacts of industrialization, and honestly, the water pollution and air pollution issues they are facing are just staggering (makes pollution issues in the old Soviet Union pale in comparison). The national government is having huge fights (ongoing, and honestly, they are being ignored) with both provincial and municipal governments who are going "full speed ahead" over expansion, regardless of the pollution issues. As a single example, look at the very latest reporting on the environmental issues coming home to roost on China's Yangtze River Three Gorges Project. They are now talking about having to literally relocate at least an additional 750,000 people from around the already completed project, because of "unanticipated" environmental issues. And they're not sure that doing that is going to solve the environmental issues.

Also, lets remember that China has serious natural resource issues, and from here on out, everything's going to be more expensive. Plus China has a number of outstanding subsidy issues (a Gal. of regular unleaded gas in China was priced = to approx. $2.44 after government subsidies). They just increased the retail gas costs by 10%, and there were a whole lot of problems (demonstrations, etc.). They are truly walking the tightrope without a net.

China has a whole lot of issues, and those issues will certainly affect the fundamentals. And I always remember what a good friend told me: "Ain't no such thing as a sure thing".

[William F. Owen]

I wouldn't want to say China will never be a problem or peer competitor, but as I just don't get how China will ever obtain any military level of competence.

Why does everyone assume that these guys could ever perform?

Their are significant cultural limitations to Chinas ability to effectively project military power in a way that we understand. On what evidence do we all keep assuming that they have the capacity to improve?

[tequila]

Can you detail the cultural limitations that you are talking about? That descriptor is pretty vague.

[William F. Owen]

Can you detail the cultural limitations that you are talking about? That descriptor is pretty vague.

I'd equate it to those limitations to those that were very apparent in Soviet Russia. Talk star wars, but when push comes to shove, act caveman.

In the same way that I never did rate the Soviet Army in any way, except for mass, I don't see anything in the PLA that makes me think they are any better. Modernisation will get them to about where we were in the late 1980's. I don't see training and leadership as anywhere near what most NATO armies have.

[JeffC]

I wouldn't want to say China will never be a problem or peer competitor, but as I just don't get how China will ever obtain any military level of competence.

Why does everyone assume that these guys could ever perform?

Their are significant cultural limitations to Chinas ability to effectively project military power in a way that we understand. On what evidence do we all keep assuming that they have the capacity to improve?

Wow, that's quite an opinion. I note that you didn't provide much supporting information to it in response to Tequila's request. Perhaps you'll be more forthcoming in future posts. In the meantime, here are a few reasons why China should be regarded as a future military threat.

1. In most of it's 4,000 + year history, it has dominated Asia as a military and cultural power.

2. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is the world's oldest manual of military strategy, and his principles are still applied with success today.

3. Chinese martial arts are the origin of all Asian martial fighting forms, and have influenced those of the rest of the world, including our own.

4. The U.S. has no existing defense for implementation of an Unrestricted Warfare attack, as proposed by two Chinese Colonels in 1998, and which is being implemented in China's current cyberwarfare strategy.

5. "China continues to invest heavily in the modernization of its military, particularly in strategic weapons and capabilities to support power projection and access denial operations." Read the PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MR. RICHARD P. LAWLESS DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN & PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007

[Ron Humphrey]

that China is or would be a more than effective foe.

I think the big thing I look to is the fact that most of how their society works always seemed to be based in order vs chaos. Structure vs compromise.

All or nothing in unrestricted warfare while being a very real concern doesn't really seem to be as likely as some other forms of movement from them.

Chaos tends to stem from unrestricted conflict, and isn't that somewhat counter to their philosophical and social constructs.

To look at them in the same way as say a Hitlers Germany or Soviet union
doesn't seem to be a good comparison
(Wouldn't they be the first ones to look to get maximum effect from least effort being more patient than others.) SOFT Power


This will keep them on a path of growth but their not the only ones growing and their close neighbors are on schedule to out populate them within ten years or so plus I think have even more specialization in the maths and science areas.

Just asking these are some of what my assumptions or limited knowledge is in this regard. Please disabuse me of those which are incorrect or mistaken.

[William F. Owen]

In the meantime, here are a few reasons why China should be regarded as a future military threat.

1. In most of it's 4,000 + year history, it has dominated Asia as a military and cultural power.

2. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is the world's oldest manual of military strategy, and his principles are still applied with success today.

3. Chinese martial arts are the origin of all Asian martial fighting forms, and have influenced those of the rest of the world, including our own.

4. The U.S. has no existing defense for implementation of an Unrestricted Warfare attack, as proposed by two Chinese Colonels in 1998, and which is being implemented in China's current cyberwarfare strategy.

5. "China continues to invest heavily in the modernization of its military, particularly in strategic weapons and capabilities to support power projection and access denial operations." Read the PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MR. RICHARD P. LAWLESS DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN & PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007

1. I think Japan managed to dominate Asia, far more than China in recent history. Modern China is a product of an adaptive form of Communism, not it's 4,000 years of culture. They got their asses handed to them on a plate by the Vietnamese in 1979.

2. Sun Tzu's art of War/Strategy is not highly regarded by the Chinese military, at least not the former PLA members I have talked to. Even Mao came unstuck when they tried to export "On Guerilla Warfare" to non-Confucian based cultures.

3. Martial Arts is nothing to do with warfare.

4. The two Chinese Colonels are no better informed than anyone else. It's a typical product of Chinese military thought, that sounds clever, but that probably falls short in performance.

5. So they say. The Chinese military budget is smoke and mirrors of the worst order.

NOW - I am not saying the Chinese are not a threat, but I work in the Far East, I have worked with the Chinese, and they are no more skilled, cunning or clever than we are. They just don't have democracy to hold back ambition, but they are severely constrained by things like status, face and image.

Why would we assume them to be more capable than the Russians?