China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[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.

[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!

[Ray]

That all countries around the periphery of China are warming up with defence preparedness indicates that they are not comfortable with the hegemonic pursuits of China.

Or else, why would they squander their wealth on such unproductive issue as defence, when the funds can be better utilised for uplifting of the people?!

Chinese sympathisers and camp followers can say anything, but the events do indicate that nations are worried about China's hegemonic and imperialist designs!

[Backwards Observer]

Chinese sympathisers and camp followers can say anything, but the events do indicate that nations are worried about China's hegemonic and imperialist designs!

Speaking of which...

The U.S. saw China's rise “as an opportunity, not a threat.” “We believe that neither of us can afford to keep looking at the world through old lenses, whether it's the legacy of imperialism, the Cold War, or balance-of-power politics. Zero sum thinking will lead to negative sum results,” Ms. Clinton said.

“And so instead, what we are trying to do is to build a resilient relationship that allows both of our nations to thrive without unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict while meeting our national, regional, and global responsibilities.”

U.S., China to hold consultations on South Asia - The Hindu - May 6, 2012.

[Fuchs]

Maybe it would be best to address all lingering conflicts soon, instead of waiting till the PRC is stronger and its extremists got more agitated.

There could also be a new Washington Naval Treaty which acknowledges Chinese naval power, but also limits the same.

[Backwards Observer]

Maybe it would be best to address all lingering conflicts soon, instead of waiting till the PRC is stronger and its extremists got more agitated.

It could be argued that there's more than one way to skin that cat, regardless of whether it's black or white.

I'd like to see a more aggressive attitude on the part of the United States. That doesn't mean launching an immediate preventive war. ... Native analysts may look sadly back from the future on that period when we had the atomic bomb and the Russians didn't... That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.... China has the bomb... Sometime in the future--25, 50, 75 years hence--what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too... That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now. - General Curtis LeMay

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

[Bob's World]

US influence rises on the tide of Chinese power.

A rebalancing in the SEA region helps the US far more than it hurts us, as it makes our allies a lot more willing to lend us access for things that we see in our interest as well.

Change is happening. China is growing more powerful. Those are facts. But the immediate response should be that we evolve to more sophisticated forms of diplomacy and foreign policy, not scramble to double down on old schemes of containment. This is a new China, and they will not tolerate the containment of their economy or their influence. The fact that both of those are pushing against our old containment scheme in no way means that China believes it is in there interests to physically colonize their neighbors. Why do that when they can make more money at lower cost by not doing it?

It is a sad statement on how US foreign policy has drifted over the years, that a call by the President to "pivot" our focus from Europe to the East has largely been interpreted as a call to escalate military activities, rather than a call to redefine our diplomacy and policies to better address that region in a manner most appropriate for the world we live in today.

[Fuchs]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s). The Soviet Union was shattered economically and bled white during the late 40's. It didn't take "the bomb" to extort East Europe from Stalin, Truman could have done it easily with a delayed demob of the army (including U.S.A.A.F.) in Europe.

[Backwards Observer]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s).

The age old question: bomb or bombshell?

(images from Beneath the Planet of the Apes)

[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...

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan

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.

I think we (collectively) over play the existential threat card. I assume that means we're talking about a threat that can physically destroy us and/or replace our government when we refer to this type of threat? In that case Russia and China with their nuclear weapons (assuming they can actually deliver them) are the only existential threats we face from nation-states at this time, but other existential threats would include infectious disease, and perhaps some environmental disasters. Did I capture your intent of existential correctly?

There is another level of threats that defy easy categorization, so we just label them threats to our national interests (as do other other nations). These include economic, social, political, legal, etc. I'm making an argument that China is an economic threat to the South East Asian nations, and economic interests throughout history have generally been worth going to war over, so I think the risk of conflict in the region is increasing.

The argument that some have proposed is that everyone's economic interests are so interdependent that war is highly unlikely, but this was the same argument made in 1913 before WWI broke out. I'm not dismissing the argument entirely, war does seem irrational, but states do make irrational decisions, especially when their war ships are playing an increasingly aggressive game of chicken.

I also think China's internal instability and its growing nationalism with many of its citizens demanding their state teach countries like Vietnam and the Philippines a lesson is of concern. Increasing nationalism almost always seems to lead to irrational decisions (in hindsight), whether those countries were Germany, Japan, Russia, or the U.S..

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.

When you what do we fear, I assume you mean the U.S.? In that case I think we fear losing the peace in the region, which in turn would have a significant impact on our economy. I think we also are concerned about losing influence in the region, which again could have a severe impact on our economy. In short, I think we fear losing the peace, because China is pushing a lot of nation's red lines regarding territorial claims, and that risks dragging us into a conflict or sitting out of one and influencing influence in the region, neither of which is in our interests. I don't think that is in China's interests either, but that doesn't mean their actions won't trigger an incident that leads to larger conflict. On the other hand, North Korea sank a South Korean Naval vessel last year and somehow the cease-fire was maintained, so we don't know how these things will ultimately play out, we can only point out it is getting increasingly dangerous.

Illegal according to who? Actually the right phrase is outside of international norms for territorial claims and dispute resolution.

To specifically address your question, do I think China will invade or conquer Vietnam or the Philippines? Actually those are two questions, the potential for a punative invasion exists (especially for Vietnam), on the other hand I don't think they desire to conquer either country. Last time they invaded Vietnam the Chinese took heavy casualties, but this isn't 1978/1979, a lot has changed in both nations since then.

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.

Fair point, and I would add that Secretary Clinton and other national leaders said our pivot to the Asia-Pacific is not just about the military, it is more about a strategic political and economic pivot, but in that part of the world political and economic pivots have to be underwritten by a credible defense capability. To be clear I don't think anyone is itching for a fight, but I do think the brinksmanship games being played out in the South China Sea can lead us into an undesired fight.

[Ray]

All I know is that China has spooked all its neighbours with its hegemonic pursuit based on various maps of disputable origin.

And like it or not, all are entering into the warm embrace of the US since they are aware that the US has no hegemonic pursuits and is merely ensuring her supremacy, which none bothers so long as they are not threatened by an all gobbling monster of a nation in the neighbourhood i.e. China!

China invaded and captured the territories of the 100 Yues and called them barbarians.

None wants that repeat!

Even Tibetans and Uighurs are trying their best to remain what they are and not get assimilated as Hans as the 100 Yue!

[Fuchs]

Those disputed maps are not official government stuff, we should discern sharply between private jingoism and the regime's policy.

My impression of the post-'79 "Let first a few get rich" era PRC is that the regime is primarily focused on (its own) stability and secondarily focused on the development of the nation.

They may very well crack down on irrational jingoists if they begin to restrict the regime's freedom of action or degrade its stability.

-----

India has rabid and delusional jingoists as well, and doesn't appear to transfer this into actual foreign policy either.

[Ray]

They may very well crack down on irrational jingoists if they begin to restrict the regime's freedom of action or degrade its stability.

That is the crux.

CCP über alles!

[Backwards Observer]

CCP uber alles!

Oh, the irony.

Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsfuhrer of the SS), the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the Final Solution, or The Holocaust, told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad Gita because it relieved him of guilt about what he was doing - he felt that like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna

[Surferbeetle]

That is the crux.

CCP uber alles!

Tut, tut Sir!

Surely the world's largest, most well trained, and best staffed armed forces can thread the needle and find the path to harmony and world peace that has eluded all others?

Armied to the hilt, Jul 19th 2011, 11:19 by The Economist online

In absolute numbers, rich and populous countries such as America, China and India keep the biggest militaries. Countries that have seen war (Iran, Vietnam) or are situated in strife-torn regions such as the Middle East also feature prominently.

[Dayuhan]

I think we (collectively) over play the existential threat card. I assume that means we're talking about a threat that can physically destroy us and/or replace our government when we refer to this type of threat? In that case Russia and China with their nuclear weapons (assuming they can actually deliver them) are the only existential threats we face from nation-states at this time, but other existential threats would include infectious disease, and perhaps some environmental disasters. Did I capture your intent of existential correctly?

To an extent yes, but it's also worth asking if China is an existential threat to anyone else.

I wouldn't say there's no reason for concern over China's emergence, but pushing concern to the level of fear, panic, or howls of impending doom is not beneficial and is not going to be a basis for sound decisions. China's emergence is a fact of life, it involves risks and opportunities, and it's not something that can be prevented. As always the world changes, as always the changes have to be managed. Excessive focus on presumed threat can lead to overreactive policy and do more harm than good. A little perspective and a good deal of calm are called for.

I'm making an argument that China is an economic threat to the South East Asian nations, and economic interests throughout history have generally been worth going to war over, so I think the risk of conflict in the region is increasing.

To some extent yes, but the level and potential impact of that threat have to be realistically assessed, and the tendency toward hysteria needs to be repressed. There may be an increased risk of conflict. Certainly there's a real risk of an incident, but none of the parties involved have shown any sign of interest in escalating an incident into war.

I also think China's internal instability and its growing nationalism with many of its citizens demanding their state teach countries like Vietnam and the Philippines a lesson is of concern. Increasing nationalism almost always seems to lead to irrational decisions (in hindsight), whether those countries were Germany, Japan, Russia, or the U.S..

Certainly the Chinese government is trying to foster some nationalism... that's a course governments often take when they see domestic problems looming on the horizon.

I'm not convinced that "many of their citizens" are actually calling for anyone to be taught a lesson. Certainly there are well publicized comments to that effect, but whether it's indicative of popular demand or simply an orchestrated good cop/bad cop game is another question.

Overall, certainly there are grouinds for concern, but overreaction will do more harm than good. At any given point what's needed is not threat-centered hysteria and vast plans for containment, but a focus on what specific actions we want to deter or control and what can reasonably be done to achieve that goal. That's opinion, of course.

I also suspect that if ASEAN wants to "counter" China they should try a little economic clout. ASEAN combined would be the 9th largest economy in the world, with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of India. They do a lot of business with China, and if they acted coherently could provide substantial incentives and disincentives.

When you what do we fear, I assume you mean the U.S.? In that case I think we fear losing the peace in the region, which in turn would have a significant impact on our economy. I think we also are concerned about losing influence in the region, which again could have a severe impact on our economy.

These are very generic fears. I was thinking more in terms of what specific actions we're afraid of. What do we not want the Chinese to do, specifically, and what can we do to deter or respond to those undesired actions?

"Influence is a fairly nebulous word with a great deal of definitional variation, but if we say influence is the ability to persuade others to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, how much influence do we have in SE Asia now? The extent to which beneficial economic relations require influence is greatly debatable: many countries enjoy profitable trading relations in areas where they have nbo special influence and certainly no military capability (e.g. trade between the EU and East Asia). The idea that we have to have military supremacy n order to maintain mutually profitable economic relations needs to be reassessed.

Yes, there's tension over territorial claims in the SCS. There's a good possibility of a shooting incident, a much lower possibility of escalation. That's a concern, but really, how much of a threat is involved, to anyone in the picture? Wouldn't the possibility of US overreaction be among the potential triggers for wider conflict?

It's tense. It's been that way a while, and it will be that way for a while yet, no matter what we do. There's no easy or obvious way to change that. The question is what exactly is the nature of the threat and what reasonable steps can be taken to manage it. I don't think anyone has an easy or good answer to that question, but Sinophobic hysteria, though it may be politically advantageous in some quarters, is not likely to help.

To be clear I don't think anyone is itching for a fight, but I do think the brinksmanship games being played out in the South China Sea can lead us into an undesired fight.

Only if we let it. Our choice.

And like it or not, all are entering into the warm embrace of the US since they are aware that the US has no hegemonic pursuits and is merely ensuring her supremacy, which none bothers so long as they are not threatened by an all gobbling monster of a nation in the neighbourhood i.e. China!

The juxtaposition of hegemony and supremacy is amusing, might want to look up some definitions there.

I don't see anyone "entering into the warm embrace of the US", that's a huge exaggeration. The Vietnamese have been thawing out with the US for a while; certainly they're playing a balance but they aren't only playing with the Us, they're also involved with Russia, India, and others. They aren't taking the US side, they're taking their own side.

The Philippines has tried to work the situation in a couple of ways. They've tried to get the US to back them up in territorial disputes, but failed. They've tried to get the US to promise cut-rate military equipment, and also failed: despite all the rhetoric, the only approved deal is one that's been on the cards a long time.

Of course the nations in the region are playing the big powers off against each other, and of course the balance of that game changes according to the interests of the moment. To suggest that they are running under the skirts of the US in squealing panic is a huge exaggerstion.

[carl]

LeMay was too much focused on the bomb(s). The Soviet Union was shattered economically and bled white during the late 40's. It didn't take "the bomb" to extort East Europe from Stalin, Truman could have done it easily with a delayed demob of the army (including U.S.A.A.F.) in Europe.

The country would not have stood for that. Truman or anybody else had no choice. Saying we have to keep everybody in uniform to threaten the Russkis after we had just spent the past 4 years saying what wonderful fellows they were would not have gone over at all.