China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Bob's World]

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Jesus of Nazareth

"our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." John O'Sullivan, 1845

"Go west, young man" Horace Greely, 1851

Etc, etc. Powerful nations (and influenctial informal leaders such as those listed above) have historically sought to achieve and sustain their largest possible spheres of territory, control and/or influence.

It seems to me, that nations get into as much trouble when they seek to hold onto too much, than they do when they seek to take on more. I suspect that China realizes that expanding their economic reach and overall influence is far more productive than attempting to aggressively acquire some physical real estate and it immediately resistant populace. They have enough internal forces of resistance and revolution to contend with as is. In the future? That is different, but for us to obsess on the potentiality of this future game now is to risk losing out on the game that is actually currently in play.

[tequila]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that the PRC seeks territorial claims in North America, or based on an article written by Mao in 1919?

[Ray]

t seems to me, that nations get into as much trouble when they seek to hold onto too much, than they do when they seek to take on more. I suspect that China realizes that expanding their economic reach and overall influence is far more productive than attempting to aggressively acquire some physical real estate and it immediately resistant populace. They have enough internal forces of resistance and revolution to contend with as is. In the future? That is different, but for us to obsess on the potentiality of this future game now is to risk losing out on the game that is actually currently in play.

So why is China so keen to expand and on fictitious grounds want to expand their Empire?

[Ray]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that the PRC seeks territorial claims in North America, or based on an article written by Mao in 1919?

Not today.

They are in no position to do so.

Who knows? Maybe at a later time frame when they can.

SCS was no big deal till now.

Now they developed 'muscle'.

[jmm99]

The link just opened for me - so obviously we have a very clever Han block on Indian access to the article. Short article - a snip from a longer 1919 piece by Mao - .pdf attached.

No, I'm not "suggesting" - seriously or otherwise - that this 1919 piece is a PRC claim to North America, or to the World for that matter. What I am seriously "asserting" is that to understand current Chinese foreign policy, one must look to the origins of that policy as asserted by its leaders.

References back to the "The Glory of the Hans" are scarcely limited to Mao's 1919 snip; nor are Mao's references back limited to the Han period and its policies. One which is very relevant to current Chinese law and politics is Mao's 1912 piece on Chinese Legalism and Shang Yang (several centuries prior to the Han Dynasty), with some WFF links on Chinese Legalism ("Rule by Law").

As an example of the Chinese historical approach to assertion of territorial claims, see Jianming Shen, China's Sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands: A Historical Perspective (2002), e.g. (Chinese characters omitted from quote):

III.A. Discovery

China was the first to have discovered the islands in the South China Sea. Chinese history books contain numerous references to the Chinese people's knowledge and actual use of the South China Sea throughout history.

In "Yi Zhou Shu" (Scattered Books of the Zhou Dynasties) written in the early Qin Dynasty, it was recorded that "in the Xia Dynasty [21st century-16th century B.C.] the tributes from the South Sea [by the southern "barbarians" to the Xia rulers] were zhuji dabei [pearl carrying shellfish]," turtles and hawksbill turtles, and these tributes continued through the Shang Dynasty (16th century-11th century B.C.), the Zhou Dynasties (11th century-221 B.C.) (comprising the West Zhou (11th century-771 B.C.) and the East Zhou (770-221 B.C.)), and the Qin (221-206 B.C.) and Han (206 B.C-220 A.D.) Dynasties (see Exhibit I). ...

JMM: 64 pages in all - a good brief from the PRC viewpoint.

But see, Wade, The Zheng He Voyages: A Reassessment (2004), for another person's "non-1421" view from Singapore:

Returning now to the three sets of Ming policies and practices detailed above, and in the light of the ideas and definitions of Armitage, Osterhammel and Emerson, it appears that there is quite some basis for classifying them as the actions of a colonial state.

1. The eunuch-led voyages at the beginning of the 15th century constituted only a proto maritime colonialism as there was no real rule over a people or territory. There was rule over nodes and networks. The military constituted the force on which the Ming armadas depended and their role was the maintenance of the pax Ming, which provided the Ming state with a capacity to influence polities and, at least in some ways, to achieve some short-term economic advantage.

2. The Ming invasion of Đại Việt is perhaps the most obvious example of a colonial adventure. There was invasion, occupation, the imposition of a military and civil administration, economic exploitation and domination by a court in the capital of the dominating power. The obvious decolonisation which occurred following the failure of this enterprise underlines its colonial nature.

3. The Ming invasion and occupation of the Yun-nan Tai polities during the 15th century was the most successful of the colonial ventures examined, as many of the areas colonised during the Ming still form a part of the People’s Republic of China today. There can be little doubt that these actions by the Ming rulers were colonial in nature. They involved the use of huge military force to invade peoples who were ethnically different from the Chinese, to occupy their territory, to break that territory into smaller administrative units, to appoint pliant rulers and “advisers” and to economically exploit the regions so occupied. The Ming colonial armies, local and Chinese, provided the actual or threatened violence necessary to maintain the Ming colonial administration in the Tai areas of Yun-nan.

Examination of the colonial experience in Southeast Asia has long remained limited to the period subsequent to the arrival of European forces in the region. The discussion above, even if not sufficient to sway all readers to all of its argument, should at least open an avenue for recognising that in investigating colonialism in Southeast Asia, we need to extend the existing temporal limits and include within our considerations the actions of the successive polities we know under the rubric “China”.

And so on and so forth ...

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

You should like this quote from a scholar of the Han Dynasty (LINK):

One of the first writers to articulate an explanation for the rapid decline of the Qin was the young genius Jia Yi (201-169 BCE).... The final sentence of Jia Yi’s essay is an effective summary of his argument: " . . . it failed to rule with humanity and righteousness and to realize that the power to attack and the power to retain what one has thereby won are not the same."

From the U of Oregon, Chinese 305: Ancient Chinese Literature - From the Beginnings to the End of the Han.

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

I do like that. To find a new idea, read an old book.

Human nature is like gravity. Just when you start to think you're something special... it brings you back down to earth.

[carl]

No, I'm not "suggesting" - seriously or otherwise - that this 1919 piece is a PRC claim to North America, or to the World for that matter. What I am seriously "asserting" is that to understand current Chinese foreign policy, one must look to the origins of that policy as asserted by its leaders.

That is a very good point.

[Dayuhan]

SCS was no big deal till now.

Now they developed 'muscle'.

Actually not true, the Chinese have been pushing SCS claims for decades, and there have been incidents for decades. Just because people just started paying attention recently doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal until recently.

Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

It is rather annoying how you constantly exaggerate everyone's else's position in a feeble attempt to make your arguments appear more rational. Who on this thread, or any other thread even suggested that?

No one? Um, then why do you make such outlandish claims?

A nation doesn't have to invade another nation to be a threat to that nation's interests. China illegally enforcing it territorial claims to secure its access to energy can be quite detrimental to the affected nations, and they have every right to be concerned.

China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

[Surferbeetle]

China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

China's economic ties both enable and constrain it's actions, just ours do.

Hu Jintau and Xi Jinping have had their hands full preparing for a successful Communist Party Congress this year, with the Bo Xi Lai saga the most visible part of the challenges to a smooth succession. Copper prices, euro vehicle import statics, and the Chinese shadow banking system are just a few places that investors and traders watch to continually gauge the stability of the system. Business clusters such as Chongqing may be seen as barometers of the larger whole.

Meanwhile back at the ranch we have our hands full with assessing the costs/benefits and sustainability of military keynesianism, not to mention system wide economic sustainability. The Budget Control Act of 2011 and the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will help DoD (among others), willingly or not, to prioritize incentives, behavior, strategy, and desired outcomes.

I think that neither the Chinese nor the US elite are willing to risk creative destruction at this inflection point in history, as the masses which they are responsible for are already under significant amounts of stress and strain.

• Hu Jintao, bio by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao

• Xi Jinping, bio by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

• Was die Falle Bo Xi Lai und Chen Guangcheng eint, Kolumne von Klaus Methfessel, 05.05.2012, WirtschaftsWoche, http://www.wiwo.de/politik/ausland/a...-/6594190.html

• The economy of Chongqing, by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing#Economy

• Military Keynesianism, by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

• Budget Control Act of 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s365enr.pdf

• UPDATE: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Sequester, April 26, 2012, Bipartisan Policy Center, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog...ommittee-fails

• 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf

• Creative Destruction by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

[Ray]

JMM

Those links were great finds!

[Dayuhan]

It is rather annoying how you constantly exaggerate everyone's else's position in a feeble attempt to make your arguments appear more rational. Who on this thread, or any other thread even suggested that?

No one? Um, then why do you make such outlandish claims?

I didn't make a claim. I asked a question. The question was intended to elicit some sort of specific response to a question nobody seems willing to address: what exactly do we fear that the Chinese will do. It's not an idle question, either: you can't devise a plan to deter or respond to actions unless you've some idea what you expect to deter or respond to.

A nation doesn't have to invade another nation to be a threat to that nation's interests.

Certainly not, but a threat to interests is not the same thing as an existential threat and dpesn't warrant the same level of response. Again, the question for any given nation, including the US, is what specifically are the threat scenarios involved, and what should be done about them.

China illegally enforcing it territorial claims to secure its access to energy can be quite detrimental to the affected nations, and they have every right to be concerned.

Illegally according to whom?

That's a start, though, and I agree that there's a right to be concerned. Concern, fear, and panic are different things.

There's also the question of what anyone proposes to do about the situation. Holding joint exercises lets everybody concerned say they're doing something, but there's little reason to think it will prevent the Chinese from pushing in on fishing or (potentially) energy activities. Existing exercises haven't prevented Chinese provocation, indeed circumstantial evidence suggests that the Chinese may be deliberately initiating incidents timed to coincide with exercises.

From the Philippine perspective, it's also doubtful that buying ships or aircraft will serve as much of a deterrent. Vietnam has a quite capable military, far beyond that of the Philippines, but the Chinese still harass their energy exploration ships and their fishermen. It's not likely that buying a few more ships or planes is going to alter the equation much.

Realistically, the area will continue to be contested no matter what any of the parties do, and incidents are likely to continue. So again, what is it exactly that we fear, and what does anyone propose to do about it?

China has never had the muslce it has now, and the way it is using that muscle is telling. Those in the know throughout SE Asia perceived the change and understand what it means.

Agreed.

I think that neither the Chinese nor the US elite are willing to risk creative destruction at this inflection point in history, as the masses which they are responsible for are already under significant amounts of stress and strain.

[Ken White]

Agree with his post and opinion. I also agree with Ray, those are good links...

As an aside, Bill Moore, there has been discussion in this thread about China taking the Philippines (among other places) and discussion earlier on their intentions toward Viet Nam. I think Dayuhan asked a good and fair question, you didn't really answer him but derided the question and then made implications that China has designs -- he just asked how serious some thought those designs were...

Like I said, I'm with Mike -- Not in my lifetime...

[carl]

Vietnam has a quite capable military, far beyond that of the Philippines, but the Chinese still harass their energy exploration ships and their fishermen. It's not likely that buying a few more ships or planes is going to alter the equation much.

Six Kilo class submarines in the Vietnamese navy will alter the equation rather a lot, especially if they can make cooperative arrangements with us. That is a lot of SSKs. The Royal Navy only has 7 SSNs. A lot will depend on the quality of the crews and how much time they have to work up the boats. By the way, does anybody know who is going to be helping them with the training?

I think that purchase makes it clear that the Vietnamese are concerned about Red China's intentions and they are not inclined to fool around too much.

[jmm99]

Taiwan, the Philippines or Vietnam within, say, my lifetime - which may or may not be a short guarantee.

As to planning, I'd expect that the PLA planning folks are war gaming all three scenarios. E.g., we might expect something similar to this 2009 RAND report, A Question of Balance: Political Context and Military Aspects of the China-Taiwan Dispute - 180+ pages of NOT a "slam dunk" for the US vs PRC.

But, on the whole, I'm a gullible sort and accept that, like their peace-loving agrarian reformer ancestors of 1948, the present PRC folks are peace-loving cultural reformers in the mold of Zheng He.

How do I know that to be true ? The People's Daily, Zheng He: Master explorer (April 6, 2011), tells me so:

China's motives were not conquest but expanding influence and knowledge of its culture. China had been richer and more cosmopolitan than any country in Europe for thousands of years. Already in the 1400's China and India represented more than half of the world's GDP together. A paragon of fair trade practices with conflicts internal rather than international. Then, like now, China supported stability over change domestically and abroad.

Zheng He's China wanted global prominence and respect matching its superiority. His mission: a charm offensive without historical precedent. He was the face of expansionist friendly China. People's Daily described him as an "Ambassador of Peace." For the most part he was, unless provoked to defend national interests for which he is credited with masterful genius. Not until World War I would the world see the naval might Zheng He mobilized for his journeys as he single-handedly revolutionized navigation.

China was ahead of the world in most areas of development. He's fleet was larger than anything the world had known, with expeditions of up to 317 ships and around 28,000 men aboard — experts calculate 20,000 of them were military men. Crews with interpreters of many languages, astrologers, astronomers, doctors, pharmacists, entertainers, diplomatic and protocol experts to coordinate official receptions with dignitaries in the more than 35 countries visited.

The intent of the voyages was to create a showcase of the splendor and strength of the Ming dynasty not trade, conquer or as a crusade to promote China's religions.

"These were friendly diplomatic activities. During the overall course of the seven voyages to the Western Ocean, Zheng He did not occupy a single piece of land, establish any fortress or seize any wealth from other countries. In the commercial and trade activities, he adopted the practice of giving more than he received, and thus he was welcomed and lauded by the people of the various countries along his routes,"

stated Xu Zu-yuan, PRC Vice Minister of Communications, on July 2004.

A goal was to bring foreign VIPs to China's imperial court. It was a Noah's ark gathering of top diplomats to introduce them to its sphere of influence. It was not hard to convince key foreign figures to accompany Zheng He in an all-expense-paid trip to China's to meet the emperor.

I'm sure the current PLAN would be happy to offer Ray and his fellow Indian flag officers a luxury trip to the nearest Chinese port.

Besides, so long as its trade routes are open, why should China take the risks of a blockade and of a nuclear war easily mounted from US Micronesia ?

US Blockade.jpg

Of course, the PLA and the PLA Navy (the oddest thing, an army's navy) may miscalculate, etc.

And, there is that troublesome Geoff Wade again, who just refuses to see Zheng He as an "Ambassador of Peace" - Power grew out of Zheng He's gunboats (Asia Times Online, Jan 26, 2012).

BTW: The Singapore E-Press and the Asia Research Institute (Geoff Wade is POC) have assembled all of the references to Southeast Asia contained within the MSL (the Ming Shi-lu, aka Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty) and provides them to readers in English-language translation. Each of the shi-lu comprises an account of one emperor's reign, for each of the emperors of Ming China (1368-1644). See, Wade, The Ming Shi-lu as a source for Southeast Asian History (2005).

Regards

Mike

[Backwards Observer]

Speaking of the Merlion City, from a couple months ago:

Singapore's Foreign Minister K Shanmugam has warned the United States against anti-China rhetoric:

[...]

There is also a tendency, he added, in the media, to portray politics in ''win-lose sporting terms'' and the US engagement in Asia ''as a means to contain China''.

''Such rhetoric is a mistake on many levels,'' he said. ''The world and Asia are big enough to accommodate a rising China and a reinvigorated US.''

Singapore warns US against anti-China election rhetoric - BBC - Feb 9, 2012.

Not sure what he's worried about here, as the dialogue is generously populated with China sympathisers, camp followers and those who paint China as pure as the driven snow. More to the point, it's probably a given that no commenter on SWC, in attempting to put forth an argument, would wittingly stoop to a continuous loop of goalpost-shifting nincompoopery and specious exaggeration, periodically laced with vapid expressions of soft bigotry and overly-biased ignorance.

[Ray]

Speaking of the Merlion City, from a couple months ago:



Singapore warns US against anti-China election rhetoric - BBC - Feb 9, 2012.

Not sure what he's worried about here, as the dialogue is generously populated with China sympathisers, camp followers and those who paint China as pure as the driven snow. More to the point, it's probably a given that no commenter on SWC, in attempting to put forth an argument, would wittingly stoop to a continuous loop of goalpost-shifting nincompoopery and specious exaggeration, periodically laced with vapid expressions of soft bigotry and overly-biased ignorance.

Nice adjectives, adverbs and whole lot of English grammar thrown in to say a simple point!

Good to see you angry and not with smart innuendos for a change.

Thank Heavens you are now talking turkey!

Learn to take the thick with the thin.

No goal post have been shifted. The goalpost are where they are. Hallucination or effect of depressants may make one feel so!

Han cultural supremacy has been seen through.

Manchus may have succumbed but not all are Manchus, what ho?

Ignorance?

Speaking to yourself?

The facts are on the table.

No peripheral state will accept Chinese hegemony on fake maps or show of muscle!

Is that too hard to understand?

[carl]

Forget about the West, does anyone here really think the Chinese are planning to invade and Conquer the Philippines or Vietnam?

The Vietnamese are worried about something or other. They haven't ordered six Kilo class subs for nothing.

[Ray]

Dayuhan,

Are people turning away from communism because of "US influence" or because communism is a failed ideology that clearly has nothing to offer. Certainly capitalism prevailed over communism in the global ideas race (communism couldn't even finish the race) but I don't see that as "US influence", just as the collapse of an idea that basically sucked from the start.

In India, Communism is not a failed ideology. It is not thought to ‘suck from the start’ or else, though under decline, it is still alive and kicking.

Where there is inequality in income and opportunities, it becomes the breeding ground for Communism.

Of course, Communism being a banned political force in Philippines, does leave you ill equipped to comment. Understandable.

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.

It was only two days ago, Hillary Clinton visited my city, the bastion of Communism. She was the toast of the town and the State Govt (now not Communist, but fervently socialist). A year ago, Ms Clinton would not have ventured here because the Communist Govt would not have played host and she would have faced black flags and slogans like ‘Down with Dollar Imperialism’ and the like!

It is your guess as to whose influence plays a role. I am quite clear on that and have already mentioned as to whose influence it is.

Again, that's less a question of US influence than of Vietnam emerging from its postwar shell and engaging more with other nations across the board, not just with the US. The US and Vietnam may both see it as in their mutual interest to cooperate to some extent on some issues, but that's less the US influencing Vietnam than a simple convergence of perceived interest.

To expect a nation that was engaged in a prolonged and exhausting war with the US and totally inimical to the US and the US’ system of governance to show gushing bonhomie towards an erstwhile enemy will be a pipedream.

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 naïve.

US, on her part, does not wish to be seen as ‘overdoing’ it since that would give signals that the US is ‘ganging up’ against China. Instead, US is played her diplomatic card of undertaking the naval manoeuvres only in the interest of keeping international shipping lanes open!

It is also interesting to note that the US has no comments on Vietnam increasing her naval might by adding six submarines (from a zero submarine fleet) or to the fact that India will be training the Vietnamese submariners! In this context, it would be worth noting that the US is objecting to India drawing oil from Iran – a dire necessity for India!!

True enough, but again, I don't see any evidence that the US is causing anyone in SEA to alter policy in any way. Just because someone doesn't oppose something you want doesn't mean you caused them to take that position, it may simply mean that they see a convergence of interests. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don't think it's valid to assume that such a convergence is orchestrated by the US or is a consequence of US influence.

US Sphere of influence does not mean a mandatory requirement for Nations to alter their policies and follow the US as vassal states. One does not have convergence of interest without reasons. Just an example - Do you think that Pakistan allows Drone strikes on its territory merely because of US financial and military aid? It is because it serves Pakistan to blame some other nation for doing what she wants to do, but cannot do, owing to public pressure. Convergence of interests. The fact that inspite of growing anti US sentiments in Pakistan it is still being done indicates the influence US has on the Pakistan administration and it’s military.

Who's racing? If modernization "automatically leads to an arms race", then the entire world is in an arms race.

No the entire world is not in an arms race. Britain has cut down defence expenditure as so has Greece to name a few.

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.

They modernise to keep pace with the international and regional geopolitical pressures and the pressure are mutual amongst the neighbourhood. If one arms, then the other has to arm to maintain the balance – thus, the arms race.