China as a Super Power

R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
bladerunner said:
Why the "Yuan Dynasty"and not the "Qin Dynasty" when much of what is China proper was unified?
Click to expand...

Political excuse. The mongol hordes has beat-the-crap-out a biggest empire ever know to men, many try to fit-the-shoes which "Yuan dynasty" is a Chinese dynasty, instead of conqueror. And FYI, NOBODY doubt Qin 秦 dynasty, unified what is called China and the idea of Middle Kingdom.

Personnally, I consider both Yuan 元 and Qing 清 were (one suck, one successeful) usurper of what has been know as the "middle kingdom"... along with many other self-declared emporor (and thus, emiper), during the chaotic times like 南北朝，十六国... like the "reason" mentioned above, many try to fit-the-shoes and claim those were of "Chinese dynasties".

But that's a topic better battled at historical thread, not here. I will stop now.
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Geographer said:
...

The solution to this is dump the One Child Policy ASAP and reverse course to aggressively promote large families. Each generation should be larger than on the one it supports in order to avoid over-burdening the working age population. China reversed course on population policy once before, from promoting large families during the Mao era to discouraging them. Mao got a lot of things wrong but growing the population was one of his better policies.
Click to expand...

I see people have their own solid belief of "I am telling you, this is good for China!"

To be honest, the DOMESTICAL debates of "whether or not, and how to" amend the "FAMILY PLANNING POLICY" has never cease. The points are:

1. "Cheap labor" is never a way out, especially at 21st century.
2. IT SHALL BE those non-cheap-labor sustaining the development of China's social welfare, and indeed sustainable with the size of those non-cheap-labor.
3. While fighting for what ever makes China a non-cheap-labor country, the "transformation phase" can not making the country into chaos, and/or weak, for any reason.
4. It is indeed that "FAMILY PLANNING POLICY" has to be amended, to achieve the above points.
5. To "Dump the policy", is either blind or naive, refer to the abovementioned points of "Chinese-society-need-to-be" criteriaes.

The most funny part, is that the OUTSIDERS, always thinking their "this is good for you!" mouth-cannon advices, is SOMETHING, and would save the day.

"White-knights ruins the history." - an English rough translation of Chinese lore: 书生误国.
 
Last edited:
Geographer

Geographer

Junior Member
Well if they dump the one child policy then wouldn't the investment in one child decrease wouldn't that loose the quality unless they are willing to increase the education spending from 1.9% to like 5%.
Click to expand...
More children would require more education spending, but it's a long-term investment. Those children go on to become workers and taxpayers who more than pay back what is invested in them by their parents and the government. China, of all countries, should be thinking long-term and avoid the mistakes many developed nations made by focusing too much on short-term growth.
Personally I think a smaller population is good thing it may shrink overall GDP, but it allows the living standards to improve by person to person basis. China is despite being larger than USA its not 4x the size of it. Even 2x the size I am sure there will be still a cast pool of labor especially from gender imbalance. True it makes it harder for socialization but its always been akin to a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
Shrinking the population will lower living standards. Imagine China were to eliminate the bottom 10 percent of income earners, just disappear them. Would that improve things? The immediate effect would be that per-capita income would jump. But living conditions and the economy would suffer because those bottom 10 percent of earners did jobs that must now be filled by somebody. Who is going to empty the trash and clean the streets?

Now imagine China got rid of the next 10 percent of income earners, and the next 10 percent, and the next 10 percent, and so on, until there are only a few million super rich in China. Is China really better off? Those super rich must now tend to all the jobs left behind by the disappeared. Those remaining would have to do a lot of things other than what they were doing before. Finally, imagine China eliminated everyone except the wealthiest few people in the entire country, so that the per capita income of China was a billion dollars...for the one moment until everything that made that income possible, and made their lifestyles enviable, disappeared.

The point is that prosperity and economic efficiency flow from greater populations because a complex, interconnected economy requires a huge labor force. A large labor force allows people to specialize in one particular field rather than be knowledgeable of many. For example, actress Zhang Ziyi needs only to be good at acting and staying beautiful in order to enjoy a high quality lifestyle. When she gets up in the morning and turns on the TV, she does not need to know how electronics or radio signals work. When she goes to a French restaurant, she does not need to know how to cook French cuisine. When Zhang flies on a plane, she does not need to know how to fly a plane, design a plane, talk to ATCs, or predict the weather. All because there are other people doing those things, making money, and exchanging that money in a system called an economy. Wealth and prosperity depend on others working, not just one's own work. Population growth is a "plus-sum" system in which the work of others benefit everyone else.

People seem to disregard this important element of economics. The bottom line is people are good, and more people are better! The anti-population ideas of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich have been thoroughly debunked through empirical data. Prosperity and population growth go together. Population growth increases living standards.

Red_Sword, population growth being good for the economy and public finances is a principle applicable to all nations, China is no different. The particulars of how to implement population policy is different from nation to nation, maybe that's what you are trying to say. Public policy always depends on the national circumstances. Knowing China's political, economic, and demographic situation, I feel confident recommending China reverse course and start promoting more children ASAP. If the One Child Policy is not to be "dumped" as you say, how should it be amended?
 
Last edited:
A

airsuperiority

Captain
I don't think urging China to grow its population is a good idea..I can explain that forever...
But anyways in order to offset the balance, I'd rather suggest a different policy where the first born can be kept regardless of gender, and if the second child is of the opposite sex, then they had capped the "quota" that the parents can have. infanticide is strictly illegal and will be met with long prison times. if the first born and the next few consecutive babies are of the same sex, they are allowed to reproduce until a child of the opposite sex is born. This should hopefully mend the gender inbalance
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Geographer said:
Red_Sword, population growth being good for the economy and public finances is a principle applicable to all nations, China is no different. The particulars of how to implement population policy is different from nation to nation, maybe that's what you are trying to say. Public policy always depends on the national circumstances. Knowing China's political, economic, and demographic situation, I feel confident recommending China reverse course and start promoting more children ASAP. If the One Child Policy is not to be "dumped" as you say, how should it be amended?
Click to expand...


@ Geographer, up to #103, I have saw you have made a very good debate, one with certain rational which can not be simply overlooked. The last paragraph of yours at least showed we are able to consider each other's opinon - despite IT IS CHINA, that make the decision, and face the outcome.

However, the same situation can also be argued different way. When you presume that "shrinking the population size" is simply ELIMINATE certain "group of people", or (more as you describe), certain status / life dependecy style / social classes... I think it is too "off" an assumption.

Shrinking the overall population size of China, as we Chinese always keep a lore on such "methods" - it is a process / a way / a method of solving problem. It is NOT the ultimate goal.

The ultimate goal is to raise the overall Chinese living standard, while everything is still sustainable, while "self-sustainable", more precisely.

The shrinking of overall population, as PART OF EFFORTS, in the example you memtioned, "who's gonna do the street cleanning dirty work?" - there SHALL BE always "not that high status" percentage of people, living, and doing these works. The thing I differ yours, is that many efforts to made, that even these group of people, can have certain social welfare that is DIRECTLY benifiting them (like medical care coverage)...

It is impossible for a "World Factory" and cheap labor country, to achieve such goal I just memtioned - Cheap labor means NO welfare concerns them. And make China a non-cheap-labor country, is the whole idea. The FAMILY PLANNING POLICY, is simply one part of the bigger picture.

So you ask, "why shrink the population size can achieve that?" - I am no expert to give graphics and charts on "How poor families REMAIN POOR, generation after generation." to you, but I simply say, cheap labor ain't the way out. Those ALREADY POOR familiese, having more birth than recommended (one Boy, or maximun two child) is simply statistically showing - THEY ARE GETTING POORER, if not remain poor, generation after generation. Cause the extra human power they produce, do not getting their family anywhere, nor getting China anywhere close to "resonable" welfare coverage.

On the contrary, we don't expect "no one do the street cleaning work", or "outsource these works to illegal emigrants like other 'developded freedom country' dose". It is by RAISING THE OVERALL China's national standard, can China makes the "dirty work labors" having diligence yet welfare coverd life.

FYI, historically, Song 宋 dynasty, the gate guards, which are the lowest level of "a job", IS HAVING better medical care coverage, and food, clothsure standard - than many lords at europe, who lives in dark age. - This comparison is no where near the current situation of the world, but this historical FACT, have a point on its own.

Population size dose not (THAT) matters, the living standard dose.
 
Last edited:
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Actually its not about shrinking or growing the population per ce, but controlling population growth while transforming the populace with poorly educated subsistence farmers to a nation of skilled workers and middle calls professionals.

Its about not having teeming masses of very poor people and illiterate people, ie a third world country, but having compact family groups as a developed one.

A developed nation of modern middle class families and a fully modernised agricultural sector, can support more people than a society of impoverished small holders, esp when said small holders are pumping out an extra child each year.
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
airsuperiority said:
I don't think urging China to grow its population is a good idea..I can explain that forever...
But anyways in order to offset the balance, I'd rather suggest a different policy where the first born can be kept regardless of gender, and if the second child is of the opposite sex, then they had capped the "quota" that the parents can have. infanticide is strictly illegal and will be met with long prison times. if the first born and the next few consecutive babies are of the same sex, they are allowed to reproduce until a child of the opposite sex is born. This should hopefully mend the gender inbalance
Click to expand...


Believe me, I GET YOUR POINT. But these suggestions, can only stays on paper.

Law enforcement, is almost A JOKE, in huge part of populated and unpopulated areas of China. If everything can work out like "on paper", China would have teach Marsians on speaking Chinese already. (joke)

When planning China's national policy such as this famous FAMILY PLANNING POLICY, the factor of "shit level nation wide law enforcement" (actually, "law awareness coverage" 法律普及) has also being considered. That's why China NEVER make a policy that is perfectly caculated.

Back to what Geographer argues the most - eliminating certain group of people, as long as Chinese people save money （储蓄）; living a life that is not lazy; - The "ELIMINATIONG" is not going to happen.

Gergrapher, the best social perk Chinese people having, is not (not only) the huge population size, but the 5000 years old HABIT, of SAVING. Save money, save resource, save the better part of today's life to face the unknown potential disater of tomorrow. --- By that, gate guard can live in a country that the living standard puts him in parallel with other country's mere lords and barons.

This discussion of "How China countrols her population", gose nowhere. Nobody makes good things happen or prevents bad things happen - if follows your (either intentionally or not) advices.
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
SampanViking said:
Actually its not about shrinking or growing the population per ce, but controlling population growth while transforming the populace with poorly educated subsistence farmers to a nation of skilled workers and middle calls professionals.

Its about not having teeming masses of very poor people and illiterate people, ie a third world country, but having compact family groups as a developed one.

A developed nation of modern middle class families and a fully modernised agricultural sector, can support more people than a society of impoverished small holders, esp when said small holders are pumping out an extra child each year.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The first thing we should ask when we suggest population growth or changes is why we want to do it. Anyways imo, scratching off all the miracles about PRC's growth, we are still dealing with several realistic, prominent issues; Food scarcity and poverty.

I want to continue on, but I'm too sleepy and my mind's blank right now. I will come back to this later.
 
P

Player 0

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As great powers grow more vocal and responsible for the global community, could this be a sign that China is becoming more in international affairs.

Russia and China challenge NATO
By M K Bhadrakumar

Consultations by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Moscow at the weekend were expected to prepare the ground for the visit by President Hu Jintao to Russia next month. In the event, however, they assumed a character of immense significance to international security.

Sustained Russian-Chinese efforts to "coordinate" their stance on regional and international issues have been taken to a qualitatively new level with regard to the developing Middle East situation.

The official Russian news agency used an unusual expression - "tight cooperation" - to characterize the new template to which their coordination of regional policies had been taken. This is



bound to pose a big challenge to the West to pursue its unilateralist agenda in the Middle East.

Hu's visit to Russia is notionally to attend the showcase event in St Petersburg on June 16-18, which the Kremlin has been carefully choreographing as an annual event in the nature of "Russia's Davos" - titled the International Economic Forum. Much excitement is evident in both countries that Hu's visit will be a turning point in China-Russia energy cooperation.

Russia's energy giant Gazprom hopes to pump 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to China by 2015 and the negotiations over the pricing are at an advanced stage. Chinese officials maintain that the stalled negotiations are finally going to be wrapped up with an agreement by the time Hu arrives in Russia.

Indeed, when the world's fastest-growing major economy and the world's biggest energy exporter come to an agreement, it goes far beyond a matter of bilateral cooperation. There will be uneasiness in Europe, which has been historically Russia's principal market for energy exports, that a "competitor" is appearing in the East and the West's energy business with Russia would have China as a "sleeping partner". This paradigm shift provides a backdrop to the East-West tensions over the Middle East.

Identical position
The Middle East and North Africa turned out to be the leitmotif of Yang's talks in Moscow with his host Sergei Lavrov. Russia and China decided to work together in addressing the issues arising out of the upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa. Lavrov said: "We have agreed to coordinate our actions using the abilities of both states in order to assist the earliest stabilization and prevention of the further negative unpredictable consequences there."

Lavrov said Russia and China had the "identical position" that "every nation should determine its future independently without outside interference". Presumably, the two countries are now agreed on a common position to oppose any move by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to conduct a ground operation in Libya.

So far, the Russian position had been that Moscow wouldn't accept any UN Security Council mandate being given to NATO for a ground operation without a "clearly expressed position" approving it on the part of the Arab League and the African Union (of which Libya is a member).

Evidently, there is a "trust deficit" here, which is becoming unbridgeable by the day unless NATO decides on an immediate ceasefire in Libya. Put simply, Russia no longer trusts the United States or its NATO allies to be transparent about their intentions with regard to Libya and the Middle East. A few days ago, Lavrov spoke at length on Libya in an interview with Russian television channel Tsentr. He expressed great frustration over the West's doublespeak and subterfuges in unilaterally interpreting UN Resolution 1973 to do just about what it pleased.

Lavrov revealed in that interview, "Reports of a ground operation [in Libya] being prepared are coming in and suggest that the appropriate plans are being developed in NATO and the European Union." And he publicly hinted at Moscow's suspicion that the US ploy would be to circumvent the need to approach the Security Council for a proper mandate for NATO ground operations in Libya and to instead arm-twist United secretary general Ban Ki-Moon's secretariat to extract a "request" to the Western alliance to provide escorts to the UN's humanitarian mission and use that as a fig leaf to commence ground operations.

The public stance taken by Russia and China would pre-empt officials in Ban's secretariat from surreptitiously facilitating a NATO ground operation through the back door. Ban visited Moscow recently and Russian reports suggested that he "got an earful" about the fashion in which he headed the world body. A seasoned Moscow commentator Dmirty Kosyrev wrote with biting sarcasm:
There are many ways of politically telling a guest on one's own behalf and on behalf of one's international partners: "We are not very happy with your performance, esteemed Mr Ban." Often words are not even necessary in these cases. It's clear that the secretary general has a thing for the revolutionary romanticism of civil wars and supports freedom fighters in general. As a result, he often sides with arch-liberals from Europe or America.

However, the secretary general of the UN should not take extreme political positions, let alone side with the minority of UN member states on an issue, as he has in the case of Libya and the Ivory Coast. This is not what he was elected for. The point is not to compel Mr. Ban to change his convictions or position, but rather to adjust his vision slightly in favor of greater neutrality.
Moscow and Beijing seem to view the so-called Libya Contact Group (comprising 22 countries and six international organizations) with a high degree of suspicion. Referring to the group's decision at its meeting in Rome last Thursday to make available a temporary fund of US$250 million immediately as assistance to the Libyan rebels, Lavrov said caustically that the group was "increasing its efforts to take on the lead role in determining the policy of the international community in relation to Libya" and warned that it should not "seek to replace the United Nations Security Council, and it should not take sides".

It has become a matter of disquiet for both Moscow and Beijing that the contact group is gradually evolving into a veritable regional process sidestepping the UN for modulating the Arab upheaval to suit Western strategies. The clutch of Gulf Cooperation Council states (and Arab League) that are present in the contact group enables the West to proclaim that the process is a collective voice of regional opinion. (Ironically, France has invited Russia to join the contact group.)

Tip of the iceberg
At the joint press conference with Yang in Moscow on Friday, Lavrov came straight to the point: "The contact group has established itself. And now it is trying to take responsibility on to itself about the policy of the international community toward Libya. And not only Libya, we're hearing voices that are calling for this group to decide what to do in other states in the region." What worries Russia in immediate terms would be that the contact group might be slouching toward Syria to effect a regime change in that country, too.

China has been very diplomatic on the Libya issue so far and has left it to Russia to bell the Western cat, but it is now becoming more and more vocal. Yang was quite forthright at the Moscow press conference in criticizing Western intervention in Libya. Hardly three weeks ago, the People's Daily commented that the war in Libya was at a stalemate; the Muammar Gaddafi regime had proved resilient; and the Libyan opposition was overrated by the West. The daily commented:
Libyan war has become a "hot potato" for the West. First, the West cannot afford the war economically and strategically ... The war is too heavy to afford for the European countries and the United States, which have not completely emerged out of the economic crisis. The longer the war, the more countries in the West will find themselves at a disadvantage.

"Second, the West will encounter many military and legal troubles ... If the West continues to get involved, they will be considered as being partial to one side ... In regards to military actions, Western countries will have to dispatch ground forces in order to depose Gaddafi ... This is totally beyond the scope of the United Nation's authority, and is likely to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War ... In a word, the military solution to the problem in Libya has come to an end and the political solution has been put on the agenda."
Yang's talks in Moscow signify that Beijing senses by now that the West is determined to hold the "hot potato" no matter what it takes, make it "cool down" by hook or by crook and then consume it without sharing with anyone else. Accordingly, a recalibration of the Chinese position and taking it much closer to the Russian stance (which has been far more openly critical of the Western intervention in Libya) is becoming apparent.

Moscow would have encouraged Beijing to see the writing on the wall. But the clincher seems to be their growing sense of unease that Western intervention in Libya is only the tip of the iceberg and what is unfolding could be a geostrategy aimed at the perpetuation of the West's historic dominance of the new Middle East in the post-Cold War era. Woven into it is the extremely worrying precedent of NATO acting militarily without a specific UN mandate.

Lavrov and Yang have since proceeded to Astana for a foreign ministers conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that will negotiate the agenda for a summit meeting of the regional body taking place in the Kazakh capital on June 15. The big question is whether the Russian-Chinese agreement on "tight cooperation" in the Middle Eastern and North African issues will become the common SCO position. The probability seems high.


Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top