China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Bob's World]

Wars are easy to start.

Something the US should keep in mind as we define our relationships with key partners and allies. Currently we have empowered and emboldened far too many foreign "tails" to wag the American dog and drag us into wars we would never start on our own, and that are not in any way in our interests.

It would be an epic tragedy of misplaced loyalties if some day Iran and the US, or China and the US, or North Korea and the US found themselves much like England and Germany in 1914, wondering how things had somehow come to this between them.

We help our longtime allies and partners more when we posture ourself to be an effective mediator of small (but important) points of friction far more than we do when we simply commit to back their every play with a blank check of American influence, blood and treasure.

[carl]

Wars are easy to start.

Something the US should keep in mind as we define our relationships with key partners and allies. Currently we have empowered and emboldened far too many foreign "tails" to wag the American dog and drag us into wars we would never start on our own, and that are not in any way in our interests.

It would be an epic tragedy of misplaced loyalties if some day Iran and the US, or China and the US, or North Korea and the US found themselves much like England and Germany in 1914, wondering how things had somehow come to this between them.

We help our longtime allies and partners more when we posture ourself to be an effective mediator of small (but important) points of friction far more than we do when we simply commit to back their every play with a blank check of American influence, blood and treasure.

So, I got a question. The Red Chinese have been doing their best to shove around Japan at sea for some years now. According to Bill Moore's info above Japan figures things are getting worse. Now say Red China and Japan start shooting at each other. Do we back the Japanese or not?

[Dayuhan]

So, I got a question. The Red Chinese have been doing their best to shove around Japan at sea for some years now. According to Bill Moore's info above Japan figures things are getting worse. Now say Red China and Japan start shooting at each other. Do we back the Japanese or not?

I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Chines have been shoving the Japanese around. There have been provocations, and at an accelerated level, but the Japanese give as good as they get.

Whether we back the Japanese or not would depend on whether we're asked to and whether it's needed. In a full scale war, I would say yes. In a naval skirmish or other shooting short of full scale war, the JMSDF is more than capable of taking care of itself and would probably not need help.

[carl]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Chines have been shoving the Japanese around. There have been provocations, and at an accelerated level, but the Japanese give as good as they get.

Whether we back the Japanese or not would depend on whether we're asked to and whether it's needed. In a full scale war, I would say yes. In a naval skirmish or other shooting short of full scale war, the JMSDF is more than capable of taking care of itself and would probably not need help.

Fair enough.

[Firn]

Stepping away from recent diplomatic issues I recently took a closer look at the recent macroeconomic developments in China:

Macroeconomic Imbalances is a 2 year old video by Barry Naughton, author of the brilliant book The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth which I read earlier.

The end of hypergrowth and China’s Economy: Achievements; Institutional Constraints; and Development are more recent papers of the same author.

It is easy to forget just how (vertically) integrated China is in the world economy, being indeed also the leading trade economy. This should tend to reduce the chances of conflict, but **** can still happen as European countries showed pretty convincingly around 1914. China exports are still dominated by labour-intensive products which add little value and high-tech share is in general a screw-driver (assembly) job. The strength of the increase in government spending/investment as a share of a GDP is a bit of a surprise to me, I imagined it to be more limited in time. But instead of a short Keynesian stimulus to a very dangerous demand-side shock the Chinese leadership seems to want to pull the Chinese economy towards their recent grand strategy.

P.S: A nice breakdown on how the iPhone wides the US trade deficit with China...

[Dayuhan]

More on the economy...

http://news.yahoo.com/china-pmis-hig...023043130.html

China factory activity shrinks, adds to growth fears

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's factory activity shrank for the first time in seven months in May and growth in the services sector cooled, evidence that the world's second-largest economy is losing further momentum in the second quarter.

The HSBC/Markit Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for May dropped to 49.2, the lowest level since October 2012 and down from 50.4 in April, as domestic and overseas demand fell.

The figure was slightly lower than a preliminary reading of 49.6 released on May 23. Fifty divides expansion from contraction compared with the month before...

[Madhu]

Don't know if the following Luttwak book has been discussed in this thread. Don't know this area well, so the following is for discussion. Don't know what to think:

For any country whose rising strength cannot go unnoticed, the universal logic of strategy allows only military or economic growth. But China is pursuing both goals simultaneously. Its military buildup and assertive foreign policy have already stirred up resistance among its neighbors, just three of whom—India, Japan, and Vietnam—together exceed China in population and wealth. Unless China’s leaders check their own ambitions, a host of countries, which are already forming tacit military coalitions, will start to impose economic restrictions as well.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674066427

[Madhu]

I thought the following was funny, given the tendency to romanticize a variety of Western and other texts within the American military context:

Chinese leaders will find it difficult to choose between pursuing economic prosperity and increasing China’s military strength. Such a change would be hard to explain to public opinion. Moreover, Chinese leaders would have to end their reliance on ancient strategic texts such as Sun Tzu’s Art of War. While these guides might have helped in diplomatic and military conflicts within China itself, their tactics—such as deliberately provoking crises to force negotiations—turned China’s neighbors into foes. To avoid arousing the world’s enmity further, Luttwak advises, Chinese leaders would be wise to pursue a more sustainable course of economic growth combined with increasing military and diplomatic restraint.

- from the same link above.

[davidbfpo]

'Is China 'reciprocating' US maritime surveillance?' A fascinating story from the Australian Lowy Institute e-newsletter, that opens with:

Indeed, the most extraordinary thing I heard at the first full day of this year's dialogue here in Singapore came from a PLA senior colonel at a working session on maritime security.

It is common knowledge that China resents the presence of American surveillance ships and aircraft off its coast, in its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). China considers this bad for its national interest. After all, the Americans are presumably collecting data on Chinese military activities, among other things. China also presumably sees the ongoing presence as an insult to its national pride, a reminder of a history of humiliation by foreign powers.

Thus it was striking to hear a Chinese military officer reveal in an open discussion at this conference today that China had 'thought of reciprocating' by 'sending ships and planes to the US EEZ', and had in fact done so 'a few times', although not a daily basis (unlike the US presence off China).

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...veillance.aspx

The venue was the Shangri-La Dialogue, an IISS event:http://www.iiss.org/en/events/shangri-s-la-s-dialogue

There are several threads on China's emerging power and stance on various regional issues, but this comment is so unusual it deserves its own thread, partly as I expect the US media will not mention it.

[AdamG]

As if massive Chinese cyberespionage wasn’t enough, now China is indicating that it will – and already has – send ships and aircraft to spy on U.S. territory. Australian strategic analyst Rory Medcalf says that while attending a session on maritime security at the Shangri-La Asian security conference in Singapore last week, a Chinese People’s Liberation Army senior colonel openly announced that in retaliation for U.S. surveillance patrols off the China coast, “China had ‘thought of reciprocating’ by ‘sending ships and planes to the US EEZ [exclusive economic zone]‘, and had in fact done so ‘a few times’, although not a daily basis.”

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

[carl]

I don't know how big a deal this really is. The Soviets did that kind of thing for decades.

[AdamG]

It's a big deal when you look at Beijing's long range plan and their big picture.

China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.
The strategy is a Chinese version of what Beijing has charged is a U.S. strategy designed to encircle and “contain” China. It is also directed at countering the Obama administration’s new strategy called the pivot to Asia. The pivot calls for closer economic, diplomatic, and military ties to Asian states that are increasingly concerned about Chinese encroachment throughout that region.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ

[Ray]

It appears that China is feeling strangulated with the US policy to strangulate China and curb her imperialist and hegemonic designs.

It is interesting to note that China is playing ball by trying to encircle the United by seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.

The US neighbours, having had regular access to US military hardware for a variety of covert and overt reasons, naturally find the Chinese weaponry as third rate. Nothing unusual since US equipment are known for its cosmetic and sophisticated engineering. It is natural that those South American nations wary of the US will go in for an alternative to the low quality and non functional and even junk Chinese weaponry and Russia is the only alternative for an unhindered supply of fairly good defence weaponry, equipment and platforms.

However, China, flush with funds, will still attempt to garner support with liberal financial loans and to that extent, they will succeed in keeping the South American countries within its influence to the detriment of the US security.

What is however surprising is the defence equation between China and Canada unless, of course, it is the usual cosmetic one that happens around the world.

Why is China is conducting naval operations it considers illegal for its maritime boundaries inside U.S. EEZs is the interesting conundrum?

That Guam will be of Chinese interest, of that there is no doubt. It is from where the US threat to China fructify as has been stated in many defence analyses.

What is of real concern is that China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.

Indeed, this support of émigré Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of China’s new security policy and to the detriment of the host country.

Equally of concern is China's influence on chokepoints around the Caribbean, through its Chinese-run port facilities in Panama, Bahamas, Trinidad, and Venezuela

The Red Star rising over the world?

[Dayuhan]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2VYx8MLeZ

If anyone wondered whether or not hysterical Sinophobia was still with us, that should settle the issue.

It still baffles and amuses me how a certain remote fringe tries to paint, for example, every port or project managed by Hutchison-Whampoa as a Chinese military installation. First time I saw that particular meme was when H-W beat out a US company for a container port management contract in the Bahamas, and the disgruntled American company tried to declare a security threat as a concealed trade restraint. I guess some things persist, no matter how far off the wall they are...

[carl]

It's a big deal when you look at Beijing's long range plan and their big picture.

Ok, I'll buy that. The true importance is as a further indicator of Red China's view of the US's place in the world vs. theirs and they want those places to change.

Adam G., I am starting a hysterics club. Would you like to join? The first few members get a T-shirt printed with the words "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.". I got mine in XXL because it is easier to hide in.

[Backwards Observer]

What is of real concern is that China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.

Indeed, this support of emigre Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of Chinas new security policy and to the detriment of the host country.

Bummer.

The International Jew portrayed Jews as monolithic, malicious schemers plotting to control the planet. "If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power," the book stated. "Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously."

The International Jew blamed nearly all the troubles it saw in American society on Jews. "Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews," it claimed. Even problems with the "national pastime" were attributed to Jewish influence: "If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball, they have it in three words too much Jew."

The International Jew - jewishvirtuallibrary.org

[Backwards Observer]

All prejudices are unpleasantly alike on some level, but the prejudice that China and the Chinese face on a global scale has proven to be exceptionally resistant to change.

***

The first sign of Sinophobia many of us encounter is really its own ideological defenses; phrases which are used to preempt any discussion about it, like "Chinese chauvinism," "Chinese supremacism," "Chinese exceptionalism," "Chinese victimism," or just allegations of childish over-sensitiveness coupled with some sort of vague Eastern cultural fetishism pertaining to notions of honor (I have heard all of these sentiments informally or otherwise in my academic career from grad school until now). If we can get past these, perhaps we can see things more clearly.

***

After a brief decade or so of somewhat unexpected "China Rising" stories, China-bashing is once again becoming fashionable. As a media studies teacher, I always wonder what it means when a particular way of looking at things suddenly becomes prevalent in history. What does it tell us about our times and who we are? In the past Sinophobia was part of a colonial and then cold war mindset. Thinking of China as the very embodiment of wretchedness and poverty fit in with the western self-perception of the time. In recent times, things have improved at some levels. Racism is no longer legal and in many places no longer cool. With globalization and the economic success of China and Chinese abroad, it is no longer possible to deny to China its talent, labor, and its contribution to the world. All should have been well, at least now. But Sinophobia has found new reasons to resurface--and some of these reasons have less to do with China and more to do with where the United States sees itself in the world right now.

Oh wait, the author was writing about Indophobia. Bummer.

Indophobia - The Real Elephant In The Living Room - Vamsee Juluri - huffington post - 1.8.2010

[Dayuhan]

I am starting a hysterics club. Would you like to join? The first few members get a T-shirt printed with the words "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.". I got mine in XXL because it is easier to hide in.

Send an XXXL to this guy. With a rear-view mirror, one of those slanty-eyed demons might sneak up behind him:

http://coupmedia.org/terror-threats/...in-mexico-1703

[Backwards Observer]

Thomas Szasz argued that mental illnesses are (often deceptive) social strategies. Using concepts from evolutionary biology, I investigate whether non-bizarre delusions might be a form of strategic deception. Non-bizarre delusions comprise a small number of themes, including grandiose, paranoid, and somatic. If, hypothetically, delusions were believed by friends and family members, delusional individuals would likely receive important benefits, such as increased social status and respect (in the case of grandiose delusions), increased protection (in the case of paranoid delusions), or increased care and assistance (in the case of somatic delusions).

There is considerable evidence that severe social problems are an important cause of non-bizarre delusions. Moreover, in many cultures and sub-cultures, delusional individuals are believed by friends and family members and, hence, receive many benefits. The possibility therefore exists that delusions evolved to mitigate the dangerous consequences of social failure by serving to unconsciously deceive others into providing social benefits that otherwise would not be forthcoming.

[...]

3.4.2 Defense
Belief that there is an external threat provides a very strong impetus for cooperation among humans [e.g., 72], and it has been argued that external threats were a significant selection pressure for the initial evolution of cooperation among hominids [73]. Because a high level of within-group cooperation among a large number of individuals is essential to successful defense, external threats provide an extremely strong incentive to suppress internal political conflicts. Further, in the face of an external threat, each healthy group member has considerable value to other group members as a defender. Group members should readily cooperate against possible external threats because the costs of responding to a false threat are lower than the costs of not responding to a real threat. Deceptive claims of external threats should therefore elicit social benefits by reducing internal political conflicts that might threaten those with few allies, and by increasing one’s social value as a provider of important information about enemies, and as a defender.

Non-bizarre delusions as strategic deception - Edward H. Hagen - Department of Anthropology Washington State University, Vancouver - Aug 2007

Science, huh? Whatever.

[carl]

Backwards Observer:

Plain speaking is a good thing. What is it you are trying to say?