China's Emergence as a Superpower

[Ray]

China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries

Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire.

Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China’s claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable. Despite the fact that the Chinese are very pleased to partner with Russia and have always supported Russia in the UN Security Council, in person, on the sidelines, its diplomats supposedly jokingly hint to their Russian colleagues: you must understand that soon you will have to share the Far East?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/...rial_claims-0/

[carl]

one of those things that make for good neighbors...or is that fences?

[Dayuhan]

On information flow in China:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....edibility-gap/

On China and Russia:

http://thediplomat.com/2011/06/22/ch...ssia-far-east/

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/a...ance-continues

[Ray]

China accuses West of hindering Syria peace efforts, repeats call for non-military solution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...f71_story.html

China is ballistics over the West's attempt to what it feels 'regime change'.

Is what is happening in Syria a West sponsored activity or is it a genuine uprising?

It is understandable that China would be against all uprisings since it has two troubled regions in its own country that are also tinderboxes requiring a mere spark.

However, China should not forget that before accusing the West, it needs to ponder about the assistance given to uprising elsewhere, even if they pretend to be holier than thou!

[Bill Moore]

Although the Chinese officials didn’t mention the United States by name, their charges apparently targeted Washington, which has openly said Assad needs to go.

Ray,

I think the Chinese may be half right when we make statements like this, but of course the Chinese aren't saying this for altruistic reasons. There can't be settlement when an ultimatum is presented, so a peaceful resolution (assuming it ever was possible) is definitely out of reach now.

I find it odd the Chinese would think we would support something like this, it is a no win situation for anyone, but then again I guess we have set a precedent for acting irrationally in the region.

None the less the Chinese continue to demonstrate to the world they are out of step with the general political and social trends, so they simply isolate themselves further and become less effective on the global stage.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I find it odd the Chinese would think we would support something like this, it is a no win situation for anyone, but then again I guess we have set a precedent for acting irrationally in the region.

I don't think the Chinese really believe that, but they know that given our reputation for meddling, that message will seem credible in a lot of places.

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

None the less the Chinese continue to demonstrate to the world they are out of step with the general political and social trends, so they simply isolate themselves further and become less effective on the global stage.

We've also seemd out of step on many occasions... and much of the world views the Chinese as less inclined to meddle and intervene in support of their own interest than the US. I'm not sure the balance of perception is altogether in our favor.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I don't think the Chinese really believe that, but they know that given our reputation for meddling, that message will seem credible in a lot of places.

You are right.

It is an ideal opportunity for the Chinese to show that they are the champions of the underdogs and can be the bulwark against the US.

Does marvels for the morale of the third world countries!

We've also seemd out of step on many occasions... and much of the world views the Chinese as less inclined to meddle and intervene in support of their own interest than the US. I'm not sure the balance of perception is altogether in our favor.

It is conceded that the US is a bit 'gung ho' about issues and that attitude does upset many.

But, even third world and small countries realise that the US is, like the Chinese, are at preserving their own interests, even if it is done in a rather ham handed manner.

China, on the other hand, attempts to do the same in a more subtle way.

However, with China getting stronger by the day, they not only are doing things in a ham handed manner and more outrageously than the US, but adding insult to injury, the act coy by quoting fables as history. (Sima Qian Records of the Grand Historian).

[davidbfpo]

A short article on this expanding relationship, without mentioning the consequent vulnerabilities and no map!

Link:http://www.jamestown.org/programs/ed...bd8596982eb3e6

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

It is an ideal opportunity for the Chinese to show that they are the champions of the underdogs and can be the bulwark against the US.

This is more or less the case, though I'd say it gives them the chance to claim they are the champions of the underdog, and to present themselves less as a bulwark against the West than as an alternative. Chinese investments and loans have eased them in a number of doors, especially in places where the conditions and demands associated with western investment have been irritants.

Even in ASEAN there are mixed opinions. Vietnam and the Philippines have a somewhat adversarial relationship with China, but Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore are trying to stay out of it and Thailand, Laos and Cambodia are close to being on China's side, consequence of who they see filling the rice bowl.

Originally Posted by Ray

It is conceded that the US is a bit 'gung ho' about issues and that attitude does upset many.

The US has a difficult legacy in a lot of places. The left hates us because of a long history of supporting right-wing dictators and intrusive corporations, the right is suspicious over our demands on human rights, gay rights, women's rights, environmental issues, etc. We have big feet and we manage to step on practically everybody's toes at the same time. Still we have some utility, but there's not a lot of trust in many places.

Originally Posted by Ray

But, even third world and small countries realise that the US is, like the Chinese, are at preserving their own interests, even if it is done in a rather ham handed manner.

Absolutely, and I suspect that as the Chinese go on they will wear out their welcome in many places. Many of the deals that seem very wonderful now may seem less wonderful as time goes on; the Chinese aren't giving anything away. When the Chinese offer to build highways for no money up front and take cotton or copper or oil as payment down the line, that sounds great. In 10 years when the highway is already crumbling and the bribes are spent and the cotton or copper or oil is being shipped out and no cash is coming in... well, the deal may seem less good.

As I've said elsewhere, I do not buy the idea that China's strength and international influence will inexorably grow for all eternity and continue on the trend of the last 10 years until they swallow the world, and that this can only be prevented by military force. Too much of what China is doing, domestically and internationally, rests on foundations of questionable sustainability, and the cracks will inevitably show.

[Firn]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Absolutely, and I suspect that as the Chinese go on they will wear out their welcome in many places. Many of the deals that seem very wonderful now may seem less wonderful as time goes on; the Chinese aren't giving anything away. When the Chinese offer to build highways for no money up front and take cotton or copper or oil as payment down the line, that sounds great. In 10 years when the highway is already crumbling and the bribes are spent and the cotton or copper or oil is being shipped out and no cash is coming in... well, the deal may seem less good.

As I've said elsewhere, I do not buy the idea that China's strength and international influence will inexorably grow for all eternity and continue on the trend of the last 10 years until they swallow the world, and that this can only be prevented by military force. Too much of what China is doing, domestically and internationally, rests on foundations of questionable sustainability, and the cracks will inevitably show.

I do agree with you. In this case many have still more or less fresh bad memories of US behaviour. In many other countries China is still the new guy in town. The had and will have their fair share of upsetting others. In Europe I do hear some who are happy by a more multipolar world and sometimes I'm also thinking that some humble lessons might serve the USA well but I think it is very important to keep things in a sensible perspective.

The Chinese government may be wise and crafty but it is also all too human and has to deal with a strong nationalistic current. It has blundered already, blunders and will blunder in the future.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Firn

The Chinese government may be wise and crafty but it is also all too human and has to deal with a strong nationalistic current.

I suppose that's no current, but their replacement ideology for communism, which they obviously discarded in practice.

Their communist party transformed into a nationalistic unity party. Their best claim for power is that China did not fare well with decentralisation in the past and that their rule is what keeps China united, strong and civil war away.

[Fuchs]

Sometimes I wonder why humans have not developed well enough to get rid of territorial disputes through negotiations. There's a surprisingly long list of territorial disputes, some of which are much more serious than others.

Even Germany has two harmless ones.

[Ray]

Could it be prompted by Lebensraum (One word than many to put it across) or mere desire to expand the hegemony?

[Dayuhan]

Most of today's disputes (with exceptions, of course) involve areas with little advantage in the lebensraum sense... certainly there's not a lot of raum for leben in the the Senkaku Islands, the South China Sea, the Falklands, or many others.

Resources are often an issue, but people tend to underrate the importance of pride, ego, and the desire of governments to rally support or deflect criticism on domestic issues by waving flags and appealing to nationalist emotions.

[Fuchs]

To give way in territorial disputes rarely offers any advantage, so governments maintain the claim. To do otherwise for no substantial gain would invite jingoists at home and look bad in history books.

[Bob's World]

I suspect that mostly China wants respect.

Someday that may morph to wanting to exact a little payback for what was put upon them, but for now I think respect is #1.

[Firn]

Over the last months I read The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth from Barry J. Naughton.

A brilliant book which does full justice to the description, which I think can be fairly quoted here:

This comprehensive overview of the modern Chinese economy by a noted expert on China's economic development offers a quality and breadth of coverage not found in any other English-language text. In The Chinese Economy, Barry Naughton provides both an engaging, broadly focused introduction to China's economy since 1949 and original insights based on his own extensive research. The book will be an essential resource for students, teachers, scholars, business people, and policymakers. It is suitable for classroom use for undergraduate or graduate courses.

After presenting background material on the pre-1949 economy and the industrialization, reform, and market transition that have taken place since, the book examines different aspects of the modern Chinese economy. It analyzes patterns of growth and development, including population growth and the one-child family policy; the rural economy, including agriculture and rural industrialization; industrial and technological development in urban areas; international trade and foreign investment; macroeconomic trends and cycles and the financial system; and the largely unaddressed problems of environmental quality and the sustainability of growth.

The text is notable also for placing China's economy in interesting comparative contexts, discussing it in relation to other transitional or developing economies and to such advanced industrial countries as the United States and Japan. It provides both a broad historical and macro perspective as well as a focused examination of the actual workings of China's complex and dynamic economic development. Interest in the Chinese economy will only grow as China becomes an increasingly important player on the world's stage. This book will be the standard reference for understanding and teaching about the next economic superpower.

Note it is from 2006 and China has undergone a great deal of changes in the meantime. Anyway I think it is a great way to take a closer look at the fundamentals of a country which has been often in the news but mostly discussed without deep knowledge and the proper focus on the key economic issues. A good refresher for my old Macro mind, too.

[Ray]

CHINA CAN NOW DESTROY MAJOR US PACIFIC BASES

A congressional report released days ago acknowledges that China can now destroy five of the six large American military bases in the Western Pacific region.

http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=3370

[AdamG]

China is on course to becoming a superpower - but not in the way many expect, writes economist Martin Jacques.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19995218

[jmm99]

Prophecy Updates and Commentary, and the three reports cited:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...vage-us-bases/

http://nation.foxnews.com/chinese-mi...avage-us-bases

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...keon-says.html

are from Nov 2010.

Regards

Mike