China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[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.

[Backwards Observer]

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.

Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?

[Ray]

Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?

India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.

[Backwards Observer]

India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.

Ray, thanks for replying. Do you think a military alliance between the US and India would be a potent enough deterrent to China? What are your feelings on the likelihood of such an alliance/pact from the Indian side?

[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.

[Backwards Observer]

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.

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

Assuming she ever gets operational, using what you know of US tactics and capabilities...if you wanted to sink the Chinese aircraft carrier, how would you do it and what would you use? [...] Obviously a nuke could also do it.

How Would You Sink The Shi Lang? - Information Dissemination - April 15, 2011.

[carl]

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

[Backwards Observer]

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

People may roll their eyes at my cynicism, but if human nature is anything to go by, the charade will drag on until mainland China becomes a democracy. Then the mainlanders will vote some guy in who promises to reunify Taiwan by force.

[LawVol]

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.

I do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings. Again, I would do what is best for America just like the Lincoln you invoke. Below is a quote demonstrating his realist thinking given his desire to do what was in the interests of preserving the Union. He also demonstrates a difference in his personal thinking and his realist thinking.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

[Ray]

So what's Vietnam, the Philippines,Taiwan,and Malaysia done for the United States lately? I just saw on the news that some Congressman went to Iraq and told their president that since things are going so well over there now they can start paying us back for the war like President Bush said they would. He was asked to leave Iraq! Point being we don't get any respect in the world because we are willing to fight and pay for others people's problems. If China wants to drill of the coast of VIETNAM for oil....hey good for them!

Though dated, may help:

U.S. Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
January 22, 2007
Bruce Vaughn
Analyst in Southeast and South Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

East Asia is rapidly changing, largely due to the rise of China which is fueled
by China’s impressive economic growth. China’s new economic clout is giving it new power and influence in the region. Many Asia-Pacific analysts and observers, both in the region and in the United States, feel that the United States is preoccupied in the Middle East and as a result is not sufficiently focused on the Asia-Pacific at a critical point in the evolution of what may prove to be a new era in Asia.

China is the only power that is presently thought capable of becoming a peer competitor of the United States. To many the overwhelming challenge is the need to try to shape the global and regional geo-strategic and economic environments to encourage and facilitate China’s peaceful and constructive evolution as a great power.

There is concern by some that a policy towards China that assumes China will become a threat to the United States and its interests in Asia will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

That said, many feel that a strategy that hedges against the possibility that China’s rise is less than peaceful and cooperative is a prudent course of action.....

Some alliances have proven to be more resilient and adaptable in adjusting to evolving challenges than others. Several factors appear to be linked to the durability of America’s alliances in Asia, including common perceptions of threat, shared strategic objectives, diplomatic attention, shared values, and common history.

A better understanding of the disposition of America’s forward deployed force structure, alliance ties, defense partners, and working relationships in Asia in the context of U.S. strategic priorities and shifting geopolitical realities can inform
assessments of the future direction of American strategic posture in the region.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33821.pdf

[Ray]

do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

[Backwards Observer]

Jaw jaw better than war war (for now):

Given China's increasing power and economic security, dealing with the Communist nation poses a "big challenge" for the United States, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.

Kissinger: China poses 'big challenge' for U.S. - CNN - June 12, 2011.

***

US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned China not to interfere in Taiwan’s presidential election and promised to support Taiwan’s democracy in every way she can.

US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan - Taipei Times - June 13, 2011.

***

BEIJING - A deadly killer jet that can take on the most advanced miliary fighters of the world's sole superpower. A behemoth "ship" under construction that will project the military power of the "Middle Kingdom" further off its coast. An army of cyber hackers ready to do all the havoc on the Internet.

These days, news stories by some Western media about China's military strength tend to play up its increasing size and menacing potential. Some Western observers have tried to hint to readers that something "big and evil" is fast evolving in China.

Crunch myth about China's military threat - China Daily - June 13, 2011.

[Ray]

China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.

That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.

Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!

War is not the answer. Containment is!

[LawVol]

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

True enough. However, remember that if the US can break alliances, so can other nations. Nations do what they believe to be in their own interests. Iraq is a perfect example. Despite feeding off the American defense department for their security needs for over half a century, and thereby supporting their social programs, some EU nations chose to oppose American intervention in Iraq. Although they certainly made a legal argument (a correct one IMO) to support their opposition, they acted in their interests and used law as a tool for justification. Kosovo shows a willingness to ignore international law when it serves their interests, so we know this opposition wasn't a stand on principle.

Backing out of an alliance or not giving the full measure certainly involves many considerations. The long term ramifications are part of that calculation. However, even considering the fallout, it may still be in our interests to do our own thing. BTW, I never expressed umbrage at what Iraq did in Slapout's reference. However, even if I did it would still be consistent with my argument. I can understand the rationale for another country breaking an "agreement" or acting in contravention to our interests, but I don't have to like it.

[Ray]

Check how Russia and China managed/ manages their unofficial alliances.

You will note the difference and to which side the not powerful Third World would like to align with.

Right now, they want to align with the West. However, if the West is unreliable, then why not seek a reliable friend?

And if they move there, where will the US be?

That is why the US has to ensure that they are reliable.

Who loses most? The US or the Third World countries?

US has missed out on rock solid alliances, inspite of great assistance, because they appear arrogant and they mix with the elite and abandon at the earliest compared to the other so called superpowers.

China's 'friendship' is without strings attached. They make friends with the Devil itself. The US acts pious and behaves otherwise with not only string attached, but slowly push countries into vassalage.

Check out Pakistan, notwithstanding big talk of Pakistan.

[Backwards Observer]

It is not what those countries have done for us lately, it is what they can do for us in the future. Take a look at the map, if we told those countries to go pound sand, they would be forced to make an accommodation with China, most certainly including basing rights for them and none for us. That would make it impossible, impossible to prevail in any kind of conflict with China. That being the case, Japan and South Korea would be forced to go over and the Aussies would mandate Mandarin studies from the second grade onward. And that would just be the beginning.

Two views from Austria, dang, I mean Australia:

THERE is an almost mathematical elegance to Ross Babbage's vitally important new paper, Australia's Strategic Edge in 2030, to be published on Monday.

The veteran defence analyst wants Australia to do to China what China is doing to the US. China recognises that it could never defeat the US in a full-on, force-on-force conflict. But it can make it incredibly costly and dangerous for the US to operate its military in the western Pacific.

China achieves this by adopting "asymmetric" warfare. Asymmetry simply means big versus small. Asymmetric warfare is a way for the weaker party in a conflict to inflict crippling costs on the strong party.

China is doing this to the US through cyber warfare, space warfare, submarines and missiles. The Chinese strategy is called anti-access area denial. It is aimed at destroying US computer-based capabilities through cyber warfare. It is aimed at destroying US satellites through space warfare.

[...]

Already, Australia is in direct range of many Chinese weapons, so the PLA's expansion directly affects the defence of continental Australia.

While Babbage's report is very sobering, it is hardly as if the Americans are asleep while all this Chinese military activity is going on.

The Americans are developing their own air-sea battle plan that would seek to wipe out many of China's capabilities at the start of a conflict.

Time to beat China at its own game - The Australian - Feb 5, 2011.

***

It makes sense for Australia to develop constructive defence engagement with China, as I have long argued. Australian forces are less likely to find themselves confronting Chinese forces (whatever opinion polls might imply) than working alongside them, for instance in counter-piracy or disaster relief operations. So it makes sense for each side to forge a practical understanding of how the other operates.

It is also precisely because of the anxieties about how China will use its power that we ought to get to know the PLA up close. Channels of communication and so-called 'confidence building' measures (CBMs) between the Chinese military and their counterparts in the US, Japan and India are weak to non-existent.

Australia-China Defence ties: Beyond the hype - The Interpreter - April 29, 2011.