China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[LawVol]

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.

[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. 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.

[slapout9]

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.

[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.

[slapout9]

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?

[carl]

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.

[slapout9]

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?

[LawVol]

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.

[slapout9]

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?

[carl]

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.

[Backwards Observer]

More from the Dalai guy:

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:

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':

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.

[Ray]

This is nothing at all new... the dispute is old and the US position is as well. The US considers the Spratlys to be disputed territory, not an integral part of the Philippines... which makes sense, because deciding these disputes is not in any way up to the US. Given this, Chinese military action in the Spratlys is not regarded as an attack on the Philippines and would not trigger the mutual defense pact. Again, this has been the US position for ages, and comes out every time the issue comes up, as it has done periodically for decades.

There's a big difference between being willing to protect allies from actual attack on their territory and taking a blanket position of support that actually encourages allies to take an unnecessarily bellicose stance that could provoke a conflict that would benefit nobody. I don't see that kind of common sense as a disincentive to anyone who wants a mutual defense relationship with the US.

The armed forces of the Asia Pacific countries can only offer token resistance to China, hence China’s writ will run with Asia Pacific countries merely as bystanders. In short, they have no options. At best, they can sue for Peace on China’s terms.

The US on the other hand, has her national interests in the Asia Pacific region. In this connection this thread is pertinent:

Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners – in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...429#post122429

If Alliance and Pact Partners of the US, who have no military clout, find the US allowing them to succumb to China’s pressure tactics, then the Alliance and Pact becomes redundant and useless.

If in their time of need, the US does not show some sort of solidarity with them, then such Pacts with the US would remain suspect and it would not be surprising if such countries wonder if there is any guarantee that the US will honour its commitment or fight shy that it would go against US' interests.

If one observes the US Pacts from the Third World perspective and not from the US perspective, Pakistan, which was in the CENTO and SEATO, has felt let down by the US when the push came to shove. Even now, when Pakistan’s very existence depends on US finance and military assistance, they are very wary of the US. On the other hand, China, without doing as much as the US, is assisting Pakistan in key areas of concerns, riding at times against the tide of international opinion. It is obvious, that China is being perceived as 'a friend in need, is a friend indeed'. This is not lost of the Third World countries.

Observe the situation of Taiwan. One never knows when, where and which side the cat will jump. A sense of deep insecurity. It is not material whether there is One China policy or Two China policy. The US had always charged itself with the defence of Taiwan, come what may. Now, it is ‘iffy’.

Philippines has been left on the limb. I am not too sure if they have a Defence Pact with the US or not. It is obvious they feel that they have been let down if one goes by statement of its government.

What may appear as common sense to the US wherein US interest overrides Pact/ Alliance obligations, such common sense remains obviously a disincentive for Third World countries to enter into Pacts and Agreements.

It would not be a strange if one is wary of ‘fair weather friends’, more so, when faced with a totally disproportionately strong adversary breathing down the neck.

[LawVol]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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 might be wise to recall that the discussion is assuming a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assuming that the US will abandon Taiwan. That's a rather hypothetical discussion on multiple levels.

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

Why would anyone assume that what the US "allows" or doesn't allow will determine what state of affairs emerges between China and Taiwan?

[carl]

Lawvol & Dayuhan:

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

The implicit and explicit backing of the US is the only thing that has kept Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP, the only thing. The attitude of the US is the critical factor in the state of affairs between the two states. As it changes, so does that state of affairs.