China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[carl]

There are a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. I think it useful nonetheless for the same reason that playing the "what if" game is useful for individuals. If you look far ahead at what may happen you might be more inclined to do the little things now that might keep what may happen from happening.

One of those little things is sailing around with the Filipinos and rattling sabres. If we were to let fear of empowering aggressive Chinese elements keep us from doing that, that would be the greater danger. They are acting quite aggressive on their own hook now. Looks like probing for weakness to me. If they find it, maybe they go further.

It is true that it would be economically foolish for China to attack Taiwan and it will get increasingly so as the years pass. But how many wars have been started in the face of economic ruin? Lots. That doesn't seem to matter much when emotions run high. In that case, the only thing that keeps Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP is us.

I do agree with you that continued Chinese prosperity is the best thing for all in the long run. Our problem, I think, is keeping the those who want a conquest on their cv down until that dawns on all the senior Chinese leadership.

I think one reason nobody comments on Chinese internal politics is that no one knows what the heck they are. Bob Woodward isn't invited in and the CCP pr dept isn't a big help. Who actually has any idea what transpires?

[Backwards Observer]

A view from an Indian analyst:

It is extremely unlikely, but let’s say the fragrance of Jasmine flowers wafts across the Great Wall and perfumes China’s Han heartlands. A post-revolution China could take many forms, but let’s say that it turns into a democracy while retaining its existing international boundaries. Let’s set aside these two big “if's” for a moment and ask what such a scenario would mean for India.

Nitin Pai: What if China becomes a democracy? - Business Standard (India) - March 21, 2011.

(hat tip to the men from the intrepid Interpreter)

[Ray]

But why are we having the discussion in the first place? Does anyone really think a Chinese attack on Taiwan is imminent or probable? Given the double hypothetical involved - assume a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assume a US abandonment - the discussion honestly seems too abstract to mean much.

May have been true at points past, but at this point the huge risks to China of upsetting an economic applecart that has done them rather well is at least as great a restraining factor as any threat of US military action.

This entire discussion seems characterized by an assumption that "the Chinese" are some sort of monolithic and inherently aggressive mass, and that they are only the immediate threat of American force restrains from boiling forth and conquering all around them. I've seen no mention at all of China's internal political dynamics, which are at least as important to this equation as anything the US does, and very little effort to actually understand what goes on out in this part of the world. Are we assuming an "enemy" that must be "contained" and "deterred"? If so, why?

The short answer is that if the 'enemy' is not 'contained' or 'deterred', there will come a time when the 'enemy' will become too powerful to handle and then it will be a case of crying over spilt milk.

China is still a closed society and hence open sources have very little to educate one on the internal political dynamics of China (and even that could be biased) and hence there is hardly any scope for debate.

For perspective, these guys are from the knee-jerk anti-American left side of the fence and would seize on any excuse to scream for withdrawal from security arrangements with the US, or from any arrangements with the US.

Maybe true.

Yet, it could be a gentle reminder that the US must honour its commitments because if they don't, then nations will have to find new 'friends' and that may not be to the US interests in this region.

Let's not exaggerate, please. Nobody is under attack and there is no "time of need" at hand. This jockeying and jostling has been going on for years, and the US position has always been that it can exert influence most effectively by not directly taking sides. The US line is and has always been "the concerned parties need to resolve this through negotiations", not "the Spratlys belong to the Philippines". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It is not exaggeration at all.

One does not wait till one is under attack to be 'saved'. For if that were to be the case, it would be real unwise in my opinion.

Foreign Policy and Strategy and activities thereof of the present is not a knee jerk reaction. It is well thought out and with an eye on the future.

Negotiations are undertaken from a position of strength and not from a position of weakness. For if it were to be from a position of weakness, then one would have to succumb to whatever is being dictated. Therefore, steaming of a few warship does have its effect. Remember the USS George Washington and it effect?

USS George Washington: What message does it send to North Korea?

USS George Washington is being sent to the Yellow Sea after North Korea attacked South Korea's Yeonpyeong island.

By dispatching the USS George Washington, Obama is telling North Korea and its ally China that belligerent behavior will bring consequences.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign...to-North-Korea

And for this very reason, the US has agreed to hold naval exercises with the Philippines.

It is being done to send a message. I am not too sure if this was done before or after the Philippines claimed that the Mutual Pact was merely becoming a piece of paper!

I don't think anyone in the Third World has any illusions about China being a reliable ally or China acting in any way other than that which advances their immediate perceived interests. They do see advantage in being able to play the Chinese off against the Americans and vice versa. There's no loyalty or friendship in any of these relationships, just mutual utility... and everyone involved knows it.

Pakistan is in the Third World. They have no illusion that China has stood by Pakistan even when morally it was incorrect to do. The two new nuclear plants for Pakistan is a case in point which has not gone totally as per the protocol necessary for establishment of nuclear plants and non proliferation IIRC.

There is no permanent friends or enemies, but there is permanent interests. The interest of the countries on the rim of China is that it maintain status quo. What options do these countries have? It is a question of the US or China.

Observe Myanmar. They have found China to be a reliable ally, who has stood by its side through thick and thin, as has Pakistan. Therefore, it would be incorrect a surmise that none in the Third World finds China not a reliable ally. And neither is playing America against China!

Nobody knows if the cat will jump at all, or if it will need to. The Taiwanese don't really seem all that insecure, nor do I think they should be.

I would not speculate on that.

However, as an average man, I can say that I would be highly uncomfortable if I know that there is another nation which is very powerful that claims my land and my sole support is acting very 'iffy'.

The Philippines has not been left on a limb. The defense pact requires the US to defend the Philippines if the Philippines is attacked. It does not require the US to side with the Philippines in territorial disputes. Since the Philippines has not been attacked, there's nobody out on a limb.

Territorial disputes lead to acrimony and acrimony leads to wars.

I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.

The US troops, missiles etc were positioned all around Europe during the Cold War. By the logic given, the US should have waited for a War with the USSR before putting its Pact to test.

One has to understand what is meant by 'a threat in being'.

Very unlikely that any blowing will come out of a US/Philippine naval exercise, unless of course some of the US sailors get ashore. There will be ritual protests from the Chinese, they may sail around a bit themselves, everyone will wave their flags and rattle their sabers, then they will all go home and in a while they will do it all over again.

That is just what it intends it to be.

Sabre rattling and each goes back to their own corners.

My own concern over China revolves not around the threat of a continued Chinese economic rise and subsequent aggression, but around the very real possibility of a significant economic collapse, which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. It sounds strange, but in many ways US and regional interests are best served by a prosperous, growing China that grows ever more dependent on a globally interlinked economy than by a constrained, contained, and likely rather angry China.

How does a prosperous, growing China help?

Already China is already rocking the US boat.

Check this thread
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=13525

Again, without looking at China's internal politics there's really not much point in trying to look at China's external policies. If US military posturing and aggressive comments end up empowering the Chinese factions we least want to see empowered, they really aren't doing any good.

It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.

We maybe underestimating the US. I maybe wrong, but the encouragement being given to China to convert rapidly to capitalism is a good ploy to encourage a greater divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the 'rural' and 'urban' divide. It is already creating problems in China. Recently we had the riots in Inner Mongolia and now the latest being the unrest in Zengcheng in Guangdong province.

Underlying frustrations at social pressures including rampant food prices, house price inflation and corruption among local officials have also stoked the outburst of anger.

China has about 145m rural migrant workers. Though many of them have gained better wages and treatment in recent years, the gap between them and established urban residents remains stark, feeding anger at discrimination and ill-treatment. A pregnant stallholder assaulted by guards would embody that resentment in the eyes of many migrants.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25370...#axzz1PDbIgN30

Further, one is well aware of the CCP's hatred towards 'foreign' religions and yet Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter's veteran correspondent John Allen

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IH07Ad03.html

One is well aware of Pope John Paul II's work in the defeat of Communism. When 'Solidarity' was underground in the 1980s, it was in churches, in the basement of churches that you could buy or get underground newspapers, have free discussions, meet artists who were not approved by the government and then came the deluge!

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

And China has 'house' Churches that are beyond the CCP control.

[Backwards Observer]

Further, one is well aware of the CCP's hatred towards 'foreign' religions and yet Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Ray, if I've read your comments correctly, you seem to feel that the West behaves somewhat 'arrogantly' towards the so-called third world. Do you think a democratic, Christian mainland China (Taiwan is predominantly Chinese Folk Religion/Buddhist/Taoist) would conduct itself in a less 'arrogant' manner than they do at present, or than the West in general for that matter? Personally, from a simplified historical perspective, I don't think the West behaves any more arrogantly than any other culture that might find itself standing on top of the corpse heap when the hurlyburly's done. A case could probably be made that the US is by comparison one of the least arrogant in a long line of such 'victors'.

Also, since we're talking hypotheticals, if internecine religious conflict broke out between mainland Chinese Catholics and Protestants, who would the US support? Or would they just bomb all of them and let God sort them out?

[Ray]

Ray, if I've read your comments correctly, you seem to feel that the West behaves somewhat 'arrogantly' towards the so-called third world. Do you think a democratic, Christian mainland China (Taiwan is predominantly Chinese Folk Religion/Buddhist/Taoist) would conduct itself in a less 'arrogant' manner than they do at present, or than the West in general for that matter? Personally, from a simplified historical perspective, I don't think the West behaves any more arrogantly than any other culture that might find itself standing on top of the corpse heap when the hurlyburly's done. A case could probably be made that the US is by comparison one of the least arrogant in a long line of such 'victors'.

Also, since we're talking hypotheticals, if internecine religious conflict broke out between mainland Chinese Catholics and Protestants, who would the US support? Or would they just bomb all of them and let God sort them out?

Do my posts appear that I find the West 'arrogant'? If that is the impression, then I apologise since that was not the intention.

My posts were merely to indicate the events as seen from the non Western perspective since most of the views here are from the western perspective. The non western perspective is important since the 'hot spots' of the world are in areas having different cultures than what is there in the West.

Even my views may not entirely be the same as what the reality is since I am looking at issues through the subcontinental lens. But hopefully it would be closer than the western view.

Further, most of us are keen that the US does not lose out in this race. Not that there is some serious dislike for China, it is just that China's imperialist past does make one uncomfortable, more so, as they tend to twist history to suit their ends as in Tibet or even Shaksgam, the area in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir which was ceded by Pakistan to China.

US is not 'arrogant'. It is just that the US wants to impose its will forgetting the sensitivity to local realities. In the long run, it puts those in government in a tight spot as they are seen to be always giving way to the US perspectives at the cost of the local requirements.

I don't think that even in the middle future the control by the CCP will be lost. Since not much is known about the actual situation in China, I would not like to second guess beyond that. There are troubles brewing, but it could be mere local discontent and more on the lines of the discontent because of the economic divides.

The rapid growth of Christianity has got China worried and of that there is no doubt. They are afraid that it would pollute the Han culture and the Theory of Legalism, which has held China in good stead so far.

[Backwards Observer]

Does my post appear that I find the West 'arrogant'? If that is the impression, then I apologise since that was not the intention.

[...]

US is not 'arrogant'. It is just that the US wants to impose its will forgetting the sensitivity to local realities. In the long run, it puts those in government in a tight spot as they are seen to be always giving way to the US perspectives at the cost of the local requirements.

Ray, thanks. Sorry if I misunderstood your original comments about the West. What you say makes sense. Do you think China is arrogant? If my questions are becoming wearisome, please don't hesitate to not reply.

[Ray]

Ray, thanks. Sorry if I misunderstood your original comments about the West. What you say makes sense. Do you think China is arrogant? If my questions are becoming wearisome, please don't hesitate to not reply.

Are you a Chinese or a Tibetan?

Your earlier avatar was Tara as is portrayed by Tibetans.

Hans have always been historically arrogant.

Han Chinese culturalism arose to distinguish between the culture of the Han, or inner people (nei ren) and the ‘barbarians’, the outer people (wei ren).......

The Chinese distinguished between ‘raw barbarians’ (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the ‘cooked barbarians’ (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the ‘cooked’ Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild ‘uncooked’ Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.......

Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages. To be labelled a barbarian was a cultural rather than racial distinction.......

Han Culturism

And therefore, is it a surprise that China claims that it has 92% of its population as Hans?

Most of the so called Hans are assimilated people by coercion, humiliation, inter marriage and so on that occurred when the people of the Middle Kingdom (zhong guo), which began by ruling the Central Plain (zhongyang) invaded the South, West and so on and converted them as Hanhua.

[Backwards Observer]

Are you a Chinese or a Tibetan?

Your earlier avatar was Tara as is portrayed by Tibetans.

Hans have always been historically arrogant.

Check this out:

Han Culturism

My ethnic background is Hakka Chinese and Anglo-Australian. Both are known throughout the world for their superlative humility. As a so-called 'half-breed', my personal humility is of the most profound order.

My experience with the Han people suggests that what may be construed as arrogance is perhaps a woefully misinterpreted joie de vivre.

My use of the avatar function may be charitably described as loosely contextual.

Thanks for asking.

[Backwards Observer]

One is well aware of Pope John Paul II's work in the defeat of Communism. When 'Solidarity' was underground in the 1980s, it was in churches, in the basement of churches that you could buy or get underground newspapers, have free discussions, meet artists who were not approved by the government and then came the deluge!

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

And China has 'house' Churches that are beyond the CCP control.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Taiwanese religious statistics are as follows:

mixture of Buddhist and Taoist 93%, Christian 4.5%, other 2.5%

Would anyone care to speculate why Taiwan, free for decades, and as some might have it, the Asian country most reflective of US/Western values, has not experienced a 'deluge' of conversions to Christianity?

CIA World Factbook - Taiwan

[Dayuhan]

There are a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. I think it useful nonetheless for the same reason that playing the "what if" game is useful for individuals. If you look far ahead at what may happen you might be more inclined to do the little things now that might keep what may happen from happening.

Basing your actions on assumptions about other people's intentions or motivations may not always accomplish that, especially if those assumptions are invalid. Make the wrong assumptions and you can encourage, rather than avoid, the things you don't want to see happen.

One of those little things is sailing around with the Filipinos and rattling sabres. If we were to let fear of empowering aggressive Chinese elements keep us from doing that, that would be the greater danger. They are acting quite aggressive on their own hook now. Looks like probing for weakness to me. If they find it, maybe they go further.

Are they really acting so aggressive? How aggressively did the US act in Iraq, just for comparison? Bit of the pot calling the kettle black going on here?

I actually don't think that our exercises with the Filipinos will matter much in longer-term Chinese calculations. They still have to ensure that they cannot be closed out of the South China Sea and the associated straits, which are more important to them economically than the Gulf of Mexico is to the US. They'll still feel the need to rally some nationalism among the populace when the economy fluffs a bit, which it will. They still aren't going to upset the applecart from whence they eat, unless there's a significant economic upheaval and associated unrest, which could easily empower the most aggressive and reactionary factions... probably the single event the US, SEA, and the Taiwanese would most want to avoid.

It is true that it would be economically foolish for China to attack Taiwan and it will get increasingly so as the years pass. But how many wars have been started in the face of economic ruin? Lots. That doesn't seem to matter much when emotions run high. In that case, the only thing that keeps Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP is us.

Do you assume that efforts to fire up emotion among the populace necessarily reflect the sentiments of the leadership, on either side? I see no reason to assume that Chinese leaders are going to risk provoking what they most fear - internal unrest - by potentially upsetting an economy that's a lot more fragile than most Americans realize.

I once discussed this with a Taiwanese engineer who was working for the Acer plant in Subic. His prescription was to ignore the loud talk, let the status quo go on, and then in 20 years when the old guys who grew up on violence die off, let the young guys who grew up on business sort out accommodations.

I really don't thunk a full on mainland invasion of Taiwan is at all likely, and the cost and risk to the mainland of such a venture would be huge. You're looking at an amphibious operation on the scale of the Normandy landings, in the age of satellite surveillance and surface-to-surface missiles. You'd need some really good reasons to bite that one off.

I do agree with you that continued Chinese prosperity is the best thing for all in the long run. Our problem, I think, is keeping the those who want a conquest on their cv down until that dawns on all the senior Chinese leadership.

You don't think it's dawned on them already? Do you really see them conquering anything? Don't get me wrong, even the business-oriented factions in China, who at the moment hold the balance of power (being the ones who generate the money) see military force as an essential element in protecting China's commerce. Like senior leaders elsewhere, they are also under pressure to show that they're tough, and they cannot allow anyone to think they are afraid of the US, though they are. Does that mean they're on the verge of conquering someone?

I think one reason nobody comments on Chinese internal politics is that no one knows what the heck they are. Bob Woodward isn't invited in and the CCP pr dept isn't a big help. Who actually has any idea what transpires?

Not the US, certainly, but not as opaque as, say, North Korea. If you follow it you learn some things.

The short answer is that if the 'enemy' is not 'contained' or 'deterred', there will come a time when the 'enemy' will become too powerful to handle and then it will be a case of crying over spilt milk.

Why do you assume an "enemy", rather than another nation whose interests at times diverge from yours, though at times those interests are very similar.

Yet, it could be a gentle reminder that the US must honour its commitments because if they don't, then nations will have to find new 'friends' and that may not be to the US interests in this region.

What commitments are we talking about here? The US has never committed itself to defend the Philippine claim to the Spratly islands. I also wouldn't worry at all about these countries finding other friends. The more they look to the rest of Asia for support and alliance, the better.

We assume way too much. Too often we assume, say, that a Chinese aircraft carrier is aimed at the US, or conquering Taiwan. I think it's far more likely to be deployed someday in support of some Chinese-supported government in Africa that's threatened by insurgents with nationalization in mind... don't you see that coming in the Chinese future? I suspect, in short, that the Chinese would employ such gear in much the same way the Americans have, though the Americans of course have far more of it. Isn't there something a bit odd about Americans stressing over the prospect of 1 Chinese carrier, given the size of the US force?

One does not wait till one is under attack to be 'saved'. For if that were to be the case, it would be real unwise in my opinion.

And for this very reason, the US has agreed to hold naval exercises with the Philippines.

It is being done to send a message. I am not too sure if this was done before or after the Philippines claimed that the Mutual Pact was merely becoming a piece of paper!

The exercises are held on a regular basis and were scheduled long before any of this broke out. If none of this had started, of course, nobody would notice the exercises.

[Dayuhan]

Pakistan is in the Third World. They have no illusion that China has stood by Pakistan even when morally it was incorrect to do. The two new nuclear plants for Pakistan is a case in point which has not gone totally as per the protocol necessary for establishment of nuclear plants and non proliferation IIRC.

Observe Myanmar. They have found China to be a reliable ally, who has stood by its side through thick and thin, as has Pakistan. Therefore, it would be incorrect a surmise that none in the Third World finds China not a reliable ally. And neither is playing America against China!

Myanmar hasn't the option of playing the US against China, but I don't think anyone in Myanmar is foolish enough to think China will be at their side "through thick and thin". China will support them as long as and to the extent that they perceive that support to be in their interest. They will dump Myanmar like a hot potato if they see it as in their interest to do so... and everyone knows it. Not like the regime in Myanmar has a lot of options for foreign support.

Pakistan certainly plays the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and anyone else they can off against each other. They've done it for a long time.

I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.

I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.

A defense pact by definition can't be put to the test unless there's something to defend against. Since the pact does not obligate the US to support the Philippines in fights over disputed territory (the Philippines has long-running disputes with China and Malaysia), any such support would be unrelated to that pact in any event.

The US troops, missiles etc were positioned all around Europe during the Cold War. By the logic given, the US should have waited for a War with the USSR before putting its Pact to test.

One has to understand what is meant by 'a threat in being'.

I understand that some are assuming a "threat in being". I'm less convinced that the assumption is valid. Piling troops and missiles into SE Asia would I think be completely counterproductive, even if you could find SEA countries willing to host them, which is most unlikely.

How does a prosperous, growing China help?

Already China is already rocking the US boat.

I don't see any US boats being rocked. Little ripples in a very big pond, yes, but no US boats rocking. A prosperous, growing China, economically integrated with the world and dependent on trade, has a lot more to lose than an isolated, "contained" China.

If the US, or for that matter ASEAN, really wanted to show anger at Chinese aggressiveness economic moves aimed at China's exports would be way more effective than saber-rattling that everyone knows will go nowhere.

It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.

Are you so sure of that? Even oppressed people will rally behind their government if they perceive disrespect or bullying or threat from the outside, and nationalism is strong in China even among those who detest their government. Has it not always been so? Have not governments threatened with domestic discontent always tried to direct that outside, even if an "enemy" has to be fabricated? Why make that easier for them?

I maybe wrong, but the encouragement being given to China to convert rapidly to capitalism is a good ploy to encourage a greater divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the 'rural' and 'urban' divide. It is already creating problems in China. Recently we had the riots in Inner Mongolia and now the latest being the unrest in Zengcheng in Guangdong province.

I don't think US encouragement was a significant driver of China's conversion to capitalism... but yes, they are well and truly riding the dragon now, and it's going to be an interesting ride. Never forget that the greatest concerns of China's leaders, and the threats they most fear, are internal, not external. Americans sailing carriers around is a lot less scary to them than the prospect of losing a major export market, having to shut down factories, and suddenly seeing a bunch of angry citizens in the streets... not out in the rural fringe but in the coastal heartland. They know exactly how fast that can spiral out of control.

The Chinese leaders know very well that they sit on a huge real estate bubble. They know their banks are carrying gargantuan amounts of crony loans backed by vaporous assets, if they are backed by anything. Americans may not ask how fast the percentage of Chinese growth driven by speculative, rather than productive, activity has grown, but Chinese leaders know.

Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

Who exactly is supposed to "ensure a "healthy" balance"? I don't think the US is in a position to do so, or to complain that China should not be in a position to threaten anyone. Should the US surrender their capacity to threaten? If they do not, why should they complain about others having a small fraction of that capacity?

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Basing actions upon your read of somebody else's intentions or motivations lacking any evidence is unwise. That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment. The Chinese are building a big navy that will be capable of doing a lot. They are currently acting aggressively toward several nations that really pose no threat at all to them. From that evidence, I believe it is wise to conclude they are up to something. They are building a big navy and they have been shoving others around, those are facts not assumptions.

They really have been acting that aggressively. The "yea, but what about what we did in (select the historical event you like the most)" argument is a distraction. It has nothing to do with what the Chinese naval forces are doing now and what it might mean in the future. Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black it is black and you should note that when planning your kitchen decor.

You mention the Chinese have to keep themselves from being closed out of the South China sea. When have they EVER been threatened with being closed out of the South China sea? There is no threat there. If they aren't responding to a threat, and they're not, it is logical to assume they are building up to make a threat.

It is no comfort to me when you say they will gin up something abroad to distract the people from troubles at home. That is a scary thing to contemplate when they are building up the navy and air force and shoving around little countries. That kind of thing tends to get out of hand, because of...emotions, which was the point I made many posts ago. Any conflict in the western Pacific makes no economic sense for anybody, but emotions tend to drive things where they shouldn't go, as I said before. There is no rational, externally driven reason for the Chinese to be doing what they are doing now and it concerns me.

Me and that Taiwnese engineer think the same. Note my posts #49 and #95.

There is no need for the mainland to make an opposed landing on Taiwan to take the island. If we cut the Taiwanese loose they would have to capitulate.

I think personal ambition can trump actions that are good for the country, and a conquest or two is really good for a guy's cv, especially if it helps distract the populace from internal woes. Chasing the Viets and the Filipinos out of the South China sea and having the U.S. Navy stand idly by while they did it would be quite a feather in somebody's cap. I believe, judging by their actions, that has dawned on some of them and they are willing to chance it for personal gain. If they were able to pull it off, it is that much more likely they would try it again.

I think we have something to be concerned about.

[Backwards Observer]

The Murdoch hath spoken:

Hoping the record-breaking Chinese revenues from "Avatar" can be replicated many times over, Rupert Murdoch urged China on Sunday to further open up its movie market.
On Saturday, Murdoch and his Chinese-born wife, Wendi Deng, walked the red carpet at the Shanghai International Film Festival's opening ceremony alongside Hollywood stars including Susan Sarandon and Matt Dillon. A day later, pageantry gave away to tough talk.
Speaking before a panel discussion on film finance attended by a top Chinese film regulator, the Australian-born media mogul said despite rapid growth, the Chinese cinematic market was still underdeveloped.
Murdoch said the numbers were breathtaking: Chinese box office revenues surged from just $150 million in 2005 to $1.5 billion last year, and a theater-building rush is expected to raise the number of movie screens in China from the current 6,200 to 20,000 in five years. Most of the new screens use 3-D compatible digital projectors.
"The truth is there is no more exciting market in the world than this one," he said.

Murdoch urges China to open up its film market - Jakarta Post (AP article) - June 12, 2011.

***

Brief article on China's party structure:

In theory, institutions like the party's central committee and the politburo are forums where compromises are reached. Yet these institutions have adapted to different purposes. They were originally designed to send down the orders of one autocrat and a small group of his assistants, as it was with Joseph Stalin in Russia or Mao, or to call on a collective responsibility with unanimous consensus over single decisions, as occurred with Deng Xiaoping.

Many roads, and no collective mind - Asia Times - June 16, 2011.

[Dayuhan]

Basing actions upon your read of somebody else's intentions or motivations lacking any evidence is unwise. That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment. The Chinese are building a big navy that will be capable of doing a lot. They are currently acting aggressively toward several nations that really pose no threat at all to them. From that evidence, I believe it is wise to conclude they are up to something. They are building a big navy and they have been shoving others around, those are facts not assumptions.

They really have been acting that aggressively. The "yea, but what about what we did in (select the historical event you like the most)" argument is a distraction. It has nothing to do with what the Chinese naval forces are doing now and what it might mean in the future. Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black it is black and you should note that when planning your kitchen decor.

You mention the Chinese have to keep themselves from being closed out of the South China sea. When have they EVER been threatened with being closed out of the South China sea? There is no threat there. If they aren't responding to a threat, and they're not, it is logical to assume they are building up to make a threat.

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

It is no comfort to me when you say they will gin up something abroad to distract the people from troubles at home. That is a scary thing to contemplate when they are building up the navy and air force and shoving around little countries. That kind of thing tends to get out of hand, because of...emotions, which was the point I made many posts ago. Any conflict in the western Pacific makes no economic sense for anybody, but emotions tend to drive things where they shouldn't go, as I said before. There is no rational, externally driven reason for the Chinese to be doing what they are doing now and it concerns me.

You seem to be treating the current developments as something new. They aren't. This has been going on periodically for decades, and I see now reason to treat it any differently now than we have before. Ignoring it is a mistake, but blowing it out of proportion and treating it as a sign of imminent aggression is an equal mistake. Taking it too seriously, and showing too much concern, is as big a mistake as showing too little.

Again, we have to recall that what the primary disincentive to actual Chinese aggression (as opposed to jockeying for position on the periphery) is not US military force, but the likelihood that conflict would bring significant economic disruption, which the Chinese regime would probably not survive. Of course if that disruption occurs anyway, which is likely, a lot of things could happen, including an anti-capitalist backlash and a takeover by much more aggressive factions. Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

There is no need for the mainland to make an opposed landing on Taiwan to take the island. If we cut the Taiwanese loose they would have to capitulate.

Why?

Nobody's talking about "cutting the Taiwanese loose" anyway, so I don't see much point in hypothesizing over it. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, and shouldn't be; the degree of commitment and the level of visible action that's required or useful at any given point has to be assessed as the situation evolves.

I think personal ambition can trump actions that are good for the country, and a conquest or two is really good for a guy's cv, especially if it helps distract the populace from internal woes. Chasing the Viets and the Filipinos out of the South China sea and having the U.S. Navy stand idly by while they did it would be quite a feather in somebody's cap. I believe, judging by their actions, that has dawned on some of them and they are willing to chance it for personal gain. If they were able to pull it off, it is that much more likely they would try it again.

Again, I think you're overstating what's going on. It's nothing new, it's usually followed by rounds of negotiation and a whole lot of statements, then everyone goes home and stays clam a while until the whole thing flares again. Nobody's achieved a conquest or a great victory; it's just one more step in the process of jockeying around the periphery and seeing what can be gotten away with without significant economic repercussions.

I think we have something to be concerned about.

We always have something to be concerned about. That's cause for concern, not panic or hysteria, and responses have to be based on realistic assessments of problems and goals.

[Backwards Observer]

Economist Book review of, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy by David M. Malone:

ONE day India will be a great power. Its demography, nukes and growing economy make that almost inevitable. Outsiders, especially in the West, promote its heft so it can serve as an emerging rival to China.

[...]

Yet, as David Malone clearly sets out in his brisk survey of its foreign policy, there is a long way to go before the Indian elephant is really dancing. Its international policy is still mostly reactive, incremental and without any grand vision. Its few diplomats are good, but terribly overstretched. The world’s biggest democracy is coy to the point of feebleness in promoting its values abroad. And its big but ill-equipped armed forces, perhaps the navy aside, trouble no military planners outside of South Asia.

It is easy to see why. India’s long history of being invaded, and its preoccupation with holding itself together as a viable, democratic state, have left it little scope for acting overseas. Indians, like Americans, can be insular, believing that their huge country is the centre of the world. Its few leaders who bothered seriously with foreign matters, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, the brilliant and charismatic first prime minister, fell into moralising about others’ wicked deeds and tried to avoid being embroiled in the cold war, but he did little to promote national interests.

Indian Foreign Policy: Hard Questions - The Economist - June 9, 2011.

[JMA]

Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

The likely alternative? You have provided no evidence that what you state is the likely alternative. Can you?

[carl]

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

Nope. I don't buy it. As I have said before, we have never threatened to blockade or deny access to any sea to the Chinese, even when they were shooting at us. That has not happened and will not happen, unless, unless the Chinese were to try something hard on another country in the area. Then we would. So why would they be concerned about maintaining access to the sea in the face of the U.S. Navy unless they wanted to maintain access if they did try something hard. There is no extant threat to them. I am concerned they are thinking there will be in a few years because of what they might be planning to do.

The reason the Taiwanese would have to capitulate if we cut them loose is apparent with just a quick glance at the map and a thought to the relative size of the PRC and Taiwan economies. Taiwan's independence is entirely dependent on sea power. If you ain't got it, the island is untenable. Without us, there is not sufficient sea power to counter that of the mainland, hence Taiwan would have to surrender. If they resisted, it would be suicide. They could be blockaded unto starvation and that would be it.

More later. Must go now.

[Ray]

Myanmar hasn't the option of playing the US against China, but I don't think anyone in Myanmar is foolish enough to think China will be at their side "through thick and thin". China will support them as long as and to the extent that they perceive that support to be in their interest. They will dump Myanmar like a hot potato if they see it as in their interest to do so... and everyone knows it. Not like the regime in Myanmar has a lot of options for foreign support.

Myanmar has been supported for a real real long long time by China.

Do show one instance, China has dropped a 'friend' like a hot potato! They have not even dropped such a rogue state as North Korea!

Pakistan certainly plays the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and anyone else they can off against each other. They've done it for a long time.

Pakistan does not play anyone one against anyone.

They merely squeeze all with good blackmail!

I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.

You don't?

Circumventing Nuclear non Proliferation is correct, right?

A defense pact by definition can't be put to the test unless there's something to defend against. Since the pact does not obligate the US to support the Philippines in fights over disputed territory (the Philippines has long-running disputes with China and Malaysia), any such support would be unrelated to that pact in any event.

A defence pact is not merely activated when attacked.

It is activated when there is a 'threat in being'.

I understand that some are assuming a "threat in being". I'm less convinced that the assumption is valid. Piling troops and missiles into SE Asia would I think be completely counterproductive, even if you could find SEA countries willing to host them, which is most unlikely.

I presume the US was spooked with the Russian missiles in Cuba and they overreacted to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war?!!

I don't see any US boats being rocked. Little ripples in a very big pond, yes, but no US boats rocking. A prosperous, growing China, economically integrated with the world and dependent on trade, has a lot more to lose than an isolated, "contained" China.

Oceans have their origin in small springs!

Little ripples cause tsunamis.

The world has little too lose except shoddy cheap products.

If the US, or for that matter ASEAN, really wanted to show anger at Chinese aggressiveness economic moves aimed at China's exports would be way more effective than saber-rattling that everyone knows will go nowhere.

Since when has economic moves been productive.

How many economic sanctions have worked.

How come Myanmar still survives?

The real world is much different from the emotional one!

Are you so sure of that? Even oppressed people will rally behind their government if they perceive disrespect or bullying or threat from the outside, and nationalism is strong in China even among those who detest their government. Has it not always been so? Have not governments threatened with domestic discontent always tried to direct that outside, even if an "enemy" has to be fabricated? Why make that easier for them?

Ask Poland.

I don't think US encouragement was a significant driver of China's conversion to capitalism... but yes, they are well and truly riding the dragon now, and it's going to be an interesting ride. Never forget that the greatest concerns of China's leaders, and the threats they most fear, are internal, not external. Americans sailing carriers around is a lot less scary to them than the prospect of losing a major export market, having to shut down factories, and suddenly seeing a bunch of angry citizens in the streets... not out in the rural fringe but in the coastal heartland. They know exactly how fast that can spiral out of control.

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

The Chinese leaders know very well that they sit on a huge real estate bubble. They know their banks are carrying gargantuan amounts of crony loans backed by vaporous assets, if they are backed by anything. Americans may not ask how fast the percentage of Chinese growth driven by speculative, rather than productive, activity has grown, but Chinese leaders know.

The Chinese leaders know so much that there is desertification, droughts, starvation and now diverting waters up North without it being thought through!

Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.

Hardly a reason to lose one's balance.

I would be surprised if one does not fear the US military might.

Who exactly is supposed to "ensure a "healthy" balance"? I don't think the US is in a position to do so, or to complain that China should not be in a position to threaten anyone. Should the US surrender their capacity to threaten? If they do not, why should they complain about others having a small fraction of that capacity?

Healthy balance means allow prosperity, but contain military aggressiveness.

[slapout9]

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

Ray, I am not sure they have chosen Capitalism, other than the the fact we(USA) are just useful idiots to them. Their economy is organized much more along the lines Marxism(not Communism there is a differance) than it is Capitalism.

[Backwards Observer]

Interesting opinion on Marx by Erich Fromm:

It is hardly possible to talk about Marx's attitude toward religion without mentioning the connection between his philosophy of history, and of socialism, with the Messianic hope of the Old Testament prophets and the spiritual roots of humanism in Greek and Roman thinking. The Messianic hope is, indeed, a feature unique in Occidental thought. The prophets of the Old Testament are not only, like Lao Tzu or Buddha, spiritual leaders; they are also political leaders. They show man a vision of how he ought to be, and confront him with the alternatives between which he must choose. Most of the Old Testament prophets share the idea that history has a meaning, that man perfects himself in the process of history, and that he will eventually create a social order of peace and justice. But peace and justice for the prophets do not mean the absence of war and the absence of injustice. Peace and justice are concepts which are rooted in the whole of the Old Testament concept of man. Man, before he has consciousness of himself, that is, before he is human, lives in unity with nature ( Adam and Eve in Paradise). The first act of Freedom, which is the capacity to say "no," opens his eyes, and he sees himself as a stranger in the world, beset by conflicts with nature, between man and man, between man and woman.

Marx's Concept of Socialism (1961) - marxists.org

***

Erich Seligmann[1] Fromm (March 23, 1900 – March 18, 1980) was a German-American Jewish social psychologist, psychoanalyst, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was associated with what became known as the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

[...]

The cornerstone of Fromm's humanistic philosophy is his interpretation of the biblical story of Adam and Eve's exile from the Garden of Eden. Drawing on his knowledge of the Talmud, Fromm pointed out that being able to distinguish between good and evil is generally considered to be a virtue, and that biblical scholars generally consider Adam and Eve to have sinned by disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However, departing from traditional religious orthodoxy, Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values.

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason. However, Fromm distinguished his concept of love from unreflective popular notions as well as Freudian paradoxical love (see criticism by Marcuse below).

Erich Fromm - Wikipedia