A Growing Chinese Confidence

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Why do Australian politicians take the trouble to present a very different picture to the world?

Firstly they have to pander to the electorate, and also don't want to be seen as a soft touch.

As I suggested earlier, many of these could be economic refugees rather than political, because all ones papers are burn't it would be hard to disprove anything.

According to this source, Surprisingly Chinese Nationals form the largest group of asylum seekers

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

solarz

Brigadier
Here's the original article text, for those who have trouble reading it on FT.com:

The defining geopolitical drama of the next century will be the battle for power and influence between China and America. That emerging struggle is already posing awkward choices for Asian countries, caught between the two global giants.
On Monday the US senate pressed forward with a bill allowing for the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods. Even if the protectionist drive in America now pauses for a while, this confrontational mood in the US poses a dilemma for China’s neighbours. China is now the largest trading partner for Japan, India, Australia, South Korea and most of the nations of south-east Asia. But these countries still have their most important military relationship with the US. How long can their economic and strategic interests point in different directions?
More

Not for long, if one is to judge by an editorial in the People’s Daily last week. The official newspaper of the Chinese Communist party took aim at “certain countries” who “think as long as they can balance China with the help of US military power, they are free to do whatever they want”.
The article was probably provoked by a statement from Japan and the Philippines, the previous day, in which the two countries promised to boost naval co-operation and implicitly disputed China’s extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea. But China’s warning could equally have been aimed at Vietnam, India, South Korea, Australia or Taiwan – all of whom have moved over the past year to strengthen military ties with America.
The irony, of course, is that it is precisely Chinese sabre-rattling, exemplified by that article in the People’s Daily, that is sending its neighbours running screaming into the arms of Uncle Sam. Until recently China seemed to be playing an intelligent waiting game – relying on its growing economic strength to draw its neighbours inexorably into a Chinese sphere of influence. Now the People’s Republic risks overplaying its hand – and so creating the anti-Chinese alliance that it both fears and denounces.
A more patient policy would make sense for China because it is likely to be the world’s largest economy by 2020. The US remains the world’s dominant military power – and is even the pre-eminent military force in China’s own Pacific backyard. But since political and military power usually track economic power, American hegemony in the Pacific Ocean may ultimately be unsustainable. It is this point that the People’s Daily was alluding to, when it warned – “No country wants to give back their ticket for the high-speed train of China’s economic development.”
With the US government borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that it spends – and China the largest foreign buyer of US debt – the Chinese are indirectly funding American military dominance of the Pacific. Even as America’s allies in the region move to strengthen ties with the US, they worry that America’s money problems will force the country to scale back in the Pacific. At the same time, China is building up its own military. American planners point to the development of a new range of Chinese missiles that directly threaten the airbases and aircraft carriers on which America bases its military dominance in the Pacific.
China’s neighbours are also worried by the country’s growing muscle – and its willingness to flex it. Over the past couple of years, China’s maritime disputes with Vietnam and Japan have taken on a new bitterness – with clashes on the high seas followed by bitter diplomatic exchanges. The Indians say that China is becoming more assertive about its claims to parts of Indian territory. The South Koreans are also jumpy about China’s relationship with the North.
The dark interpretation of China’s actions is that nationalist forces and the country’s military are becoming more influential in Beijing. A younger generation is coming to power, schooled to believe that China has been victimised by the outside world because it has been weak. The current contrast in the economic fortunes of China and America has also increased China’s confidence and assertiveness.
A more benign interpretation of Chinese actions is that the country now has a growing range of economic interests around the world – which makes it all but inevitable that it will spend a lot more on its military and will be tougher in asserting its interests. The hungry Chinese economy is dependent on imported energy – and would be vulnerable to a naval blockade. Building a few aircraft carriers and submarines, and pushing China’s claims to the energy riches of the South China Sea, might seem like a sensible precaution for the Chinese government – rather than the aggressive claim to regional dominance that its neighbours fear.
Yet even this relatively benign interpretation of China’s actions is not entirely reassuring. It suggests that China and the US are increasingly likely to interpret each other’s actions and alliances as threatening – and to respond in ways that then feed the other side’s perception of aggression. This is a pattern of great power behaviour that might ring a bell for students of 20th century history.
Yet amid all these tensions, diplomatic exchanges across the Pacific continue. Next month Barack Obama will host all the major powers of the region, including China, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit that will be held in the president’s native Hawaii. Perhaps Mr Obama should arrange a trip to Pearl Harbor to remind everybody of the dangers of strategic miscalculation in the Pacific.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Now here's my critique: this article is written with a typical American viewpoint and projects much of the US's attitudes on China.

The defining geopolitical drama of the next century will be the battle for power and influence between China and America.

I highly doubt that. While it might seem like great fictional fodder, history simply does not support the whole "two great empires at war" scenario. Great empires are established powers. Though they may compete with each other for resources and influence, they simply have too much to lose with open war. Instead, history has many more examples of small, swiftly rising nations waging war upon established but failing larger nations, or larger nations waging wars against smaller, weaker nations.

On the contrary, the most defining geopolitical drama of 21st century will be the struggle between US and Muslim nations. The rivalries of US and China pales in comparison to that bitter struggle.

Unless the author actually means the 22nd century when he says "next century", in which case all bets are off.

The dark interpretation of China’s actions is that nationalist forces and the country’s military are becoming more influential in Beijing. A younger generation is coming to power, schooled to believe that China has been victimised by the outside world because it has been weak.

That's just ridiculous. China's victimization by foreign nations had been well known by every Chinese since the first Opium War in 1839. Every Chinese alive believes this, and not just the latest generation of leaders. If anything, this feeling of victimization has been slowly falling away.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
One could argue that China IS the rapidly raising 'upstart'.

At the end of the day, despite how American and Western commentators always want to make it seem as if it is up to China if there will be a military clash between China and America, the simple fact of the matter is that if war does break out between China and America, it will almost certainly be America that starts it.

The biggest fundamental problem between China and America is not democracy, human rights or even trade and economics, as these shallow thinking commentators like to propagate. The biggest problem in Sino-US relations, from which all other problems ultimately originate, is the simple fact that America cannot, and will not accept China as an equal.

As long as America thinks and behaves as if it is somehow superior to China, the Chinese will always have a problem with America, and Americans will have a problem with China for having the audacity to dare to think themselves as equals and demand fair treatment.

As China develops and modernizes, the balances of power will continue to shift in one direction, but America is unwilling or unable to face up to that simple fact. Instead of accepting it with good grace and trying to negotiate an orderly transition of power and embracing Chinese ascendency in order to guide it as a mentor, America is doing all it can to resist the trend, and most Chinese would suspect, trying to thwart and set-back China wherever possible. In doing so, it is making itself the enemy in the eyes of many Chinese people.

That creates hostility and in a way, perpetuates the whole process as Americans sense the growing dislike. But instead of examining the true source of the Chinese sense of grievance, lazy commentators like the one who wrote that FT article simply shifts all the blame onto the Chinese by insisting it's Chinese nationalism that is to blame, and advocates a tougher stance against China, because they insist, appeasement is wrong.

It is the exact same mistake that America is continuing to make in its understanding and attitude towards the Arab and Muslim worlds. American commentators overwhelmingly maintain that America has done nothing wrong, and that people in the Arab and muslim worlds hate them because they are extremists and terrorists, and has nothing to do with what America itself has done and is continuing to do.

I maintain the the only thing worse than someone who is ignorant of historical lessons is someone who wrongly interpret those historical lessons.

China is not Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan despite how much certain wester commentators wishes it was, it is as complex as it is unique. If one insists on drawing a historical parallel, the only appropriate one would be the rise of America itself. But Americans hate that idea because they see themselves of unique and superior to everyone else, and cannot tolerate an equal.

Unless America can face up to, and accept the fact that they are not masters of this planet, and practice the tolerance and understanding they claim to value so highly instead of just using them to hector others with, in a case of do as I say, not as I do, I see an armed clash as very likely between China and America.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Good argument plawolf. I think you're right on in your assessment in regards to Sino-US relations.
It's almost always the intangibles that is the true cause of tensions.
Everyone in China can suddenly turn into mother theresa, unpeg the Yuan and have free elections and the US will still not view the Chinese as equals or partners.
 

Red___Sword

Junior Member
If one insists on drawing a historical parallel, the only appropriate one would be the rise of America itself. But Americans hate that idea because they see themselves of unique and superior to everyone else, and cannot tolerate an equal.

That's the "eye of dragon" of the whole post, SO PRECISE!

Globle domination is a temptation, empires die for it, and if everyone plays the jungle rule, old wolf-chieftain always getting killed or exiled by new player; so current old wolf always picky on young ones.

The thing is, China, in its long lasting history, never ever once, achieved "world domination", and do not "pick a fight" with its equals at the time; in its forseeable future, China do not have the taste to make a "globle domination" either.

China is one that at least do not actively plays the jungle rules, that's how China survived the last 5000 years. If "EQUALS" is going to co-exist, they must be equally mature on Weltanschauung (get it from dictionary, "view of world" 世界观). While China, or more precisely, PRC mainland (also) pays insurrance premium that buys US debt, US need to take this time to mature itself that do not arrogantly place itself at the position which all the old wolves did.

What "equal" so bad for? You got equal respect instead of hostile cabal.
 

solarz

Brigadier
One could argue that China IS the rapidly raising 'upstart'.
...
China is not Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan despite how much certain wester commentators wishes it was, it is as complex as it is unique.

And that's exactly why I'm not losing any sleep over a potential conflict between the US and China.

China is not an "upstart". Imperial Japan, Genghis Khan's Mongolia, Alexander the Great's Macedonia, those are upstarts. China is a nation far more concerned with its domestic matters than it is with foreign influence.

As for the US precipitating a war against China, I don't think it will happen, no matter how vitriolic the rhetoric becomes in the Western propaganda machines. The United States simply does not have the stomach for a war with a near-equal opponent. In fact, the very notion that China might start a war with them is what's keeping the US from using its military force to bully China.

Remember that the primary goal of the US is to remain a world hegemon. Throwing their resources into a pyrrhic war against the worlds most populous nation and second-largest economy is entirely counter-productive to that goal. Remember that the world does not consist only of US and China, and China is not the only, or even the greatest, threat to the US right now.

What do you think would happen to American interests in the Middle East, including Israel, if the US had to devote its resources to a war with China? Do you think Russia is just going to sit back and keep doing its own thing? A war between US and China would be the perfect opportunity for Russia to move against US spheres of influence. Washington knows this perfectly well, and that's why we will never see open confrontation between the 3 empires.
 

delft

Brigadier
Just to extent the history back:
In the 17th century the Netherlands was the strongest naval power in the world. In 1688 the stadhouder ("hereditary president") Willem III overthrew his father-in-law and, in 1689, he and his wife became king and queen of England. In the same year 1689 the town council of Amsterdam, the largest town in the Netherlands and with a big voice in national politics, concluded that England would now develop to be a stronger power than the Netherlands. The next war between both countries was nearly a century later when the Netherlands had become one of the smaller countries in Europe.

I hope that in future the influence of China will cause other countries to desist from wantonly attacking other countries as exemplified by the removal of the elected president of Guatemala in 1954, the first I remember, and in many interventions since. And I expect China will not develop a tendency to intervene militarily all over the world, not only because the tradition of China differs from that of Europe and the US but also because, all to slowly, many countries are now becoming richer and better able to defend themselves. The recent complaint by the secretary-general of NATO that the organisation is not really strong enough to defend itself in Africa and Asia makes me hopeful.
 
Last edited:

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Just to extent the history back:
I

And I expect China will not develop a tendency to intervene militarily all over the world, not only because the tradition of China differs from that of Europe and the US

Hmmmmm..

I think the problems/circumstance China may encounter in the current millenium are totally different to what she has experienced during her period of greatness in previous mellinnia, so who knows how she will react.

Some people use the Voyages of Zheng He as example of how different the Chinese attitude was to their Western counterparts , that is , there was no attempt to colonise or plunder the New World.But they could'nt even if they wanted to after the political turmoil in the Ming dynasty was over, because all that knowledge about bluewater shipbuilding and sailing was lost.
 
Last edited:
Top