China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

escobar

Brigadier
You wrote:
Was there a deal that China broke?
No. I didn't say there is a deal. But Iran was expecting CHina to continue to buy oil openly even with the US sanction.
But CHina didn't do it really because of fear of sanction. CHina oil import reduce a lot officialy even if CHina is still buying Iran oil trough Malaysia.

Anyway, since 2016, there has been quite a hectic new development between China and USA. Did you notice? Trade war leading to the Phase One deal, war on Huawei, US interference on Hong Kong and now Tiktok. Can you see the new calculus for China? Can you see that the past does not apply as much to China now?
All those thing are theatrical. The past will apply until CHina have a good IR policy and strategy.
US have a strategic approach to the PRC write in the NDS document with clear objective.
Where is the China similar doctrine against US? That is what China need firstly.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
I am simply reacting to events. I would love it if there was more good news! Unfortunately there is a trend this year towards the bad. But in reality I hate Gordon Chang! He is a fool.

My view is actually a very simple 4 quadrant system. 3 of the quadrants are positive/good, only one is bad.

1st quadrant: China is technologically ahead, and has good foreign relations. A perfect environment all around! China could be a world #1 superpower in this scenario.

2nd quadrant: China is technologically behind, but has good foreign relations. Still a good situation for China! It can buy the technology/tools it needs.

3rd quadrant: China is technologically ahead, but has bad foreign relations. Still good for China! It doesn't need other countries, because it is the most advanced itself.

4th quadrant: China is technologically behind, and has bad foreign relations. This is the only situation I don't think is so good. China is still behind the West in technology, yet it has bad foreign relations.

Things that I think would be great news:
1. If China's birthrate increased.
2. If China settled any of its foreign disputes.
3. If China leaped ahead of the West in a core technological area like engines, SME, biotech, or space exploration.
4. If China liberalized its domestic political environment.
5. If China's capital markets/stock market became as deep as the US.
6. If China's PC OS had wide adoption replacing MS Windows.
7. If China improved its social welfare system, free housing, reduced healthcare costs, lower childcare costs.
8. If China allowed migrant workers more rights in cities/urban areas.
Your quadrant 2 reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Good foreign relations with the USA requires China not to challenge the USA, and for the US to remain the global hegemon.

But a wealthy China will inevitably be so big that it will challenge the USA in every respect.
A wealthy China would have an economy 4x larger, due to 4x the population.
Therefore good relations with the USA requires China to stay poor.

That is not a good outcome for the Chinese people.

---

On the other hand, you believe that if China becomes a technologically advanced nation (Quadrant 1+3) , then everything turns out fine for China.

I agree with this, because if China becomes hi-tech, it will almost certainly escape the middle income trap, and become a prosperous nation. When you combine this with the size of China's population, that translates into outsized economic/military/political/cultural influence.

---

You need to change your evaluations in this framework.

The conclusion is that China needs to be technologically advanced and therefore prosperous.
And this inevitably means accepting worse relations with the USA.

How far relations decline is up for debate, but this situation will last for another at least another 10 years, until China opens up a commanding lead in terms of GDP/technology. For example, the Australian government white papers project the Chinese economy at 2x the USA in the 2030-2035 timeframe.

In terms of R&D, remember the National Science Foundation reported that in 2019, China likely spent more on R&D than the USA.
The statistics also show that Chinese R&D spending is still increasing sharply.

If you look to the 2030-2035 timeframe, we could expect China to have an economy twice the size of the USA plus a modest increase in R&D intensity to 3% (which is still lower than its close neighbours Japan and Korea).

When you run those numbers, China would be spending more on R&D than the rest of the developed world combined.






Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

t2contra

Major
No. I didn't say there is a deal. But Iran was expecting CHina to continue to buy oil openly even with the US sanction.
But CHina didn't do it really because of fear of sanction. CHina oil import reduce a lot officialy even if CHina is still buying Iran oil trough Malaysia.
Do you have a source stating Iran was expecting China to continue buying?


All those thing are theatrical. The past will apply until CHina have a good IR policy and strategy.
US have a strategic approach to the PRC write in the NDS document with clear objective.
Where is the China similar doctrine against US? That is what China need firstly.
So that is your assessment even after recent developments. I am disappointed. Anyway, time will tell.
 

Gatekeeper

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






I will be criticized, but I think this article is mostly wrong, but partly true, geopolitically China has failed, it has opened too many fronts with too many countries at the same time

No one can face so many countries at the same time, great generals like Napoleon failed because they had too many enemies at the same time, let's be more modest we need allies and more time

Having a front against the USA, ASEAN, Japan, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the EU, India, all at the same time, is not tenable
Come on, you bought that narratives hook, line and sinker. China didn't open all those fronts, neither did they want to.

It was "opened" And forced upon them by western nations wantung and needing to win a trade war and to keep China down.
 

duskseeker

New Member
Registered Member
Come on, you bought that narratives hook, line and sinker. China didn't open all those fronts, neither did they want to.

It was "opened" And forced upon them by western nations wantung and needing to win a trade war and to keep China down.
That I can tell you from this side of the pond. I recall Filipino Fisherman were made to record their confrontation with Chinese Fisherman while using megaphones to provoke the Chinese. Of course it's a direction from our friend, Anders Corr.
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I will be criticized, but I think this article is mostly wrong, but partly true, geopolitically China has failed, it has opened too many fronts with too many countries at the same time
1. That story is bull, only the American chattering class can produce something like that.

2. When the enemy is running away, you chase! Isn't that basic Sun Tzu Bing fa! You know what, I don't even remember.

3. The only new front that was problematic was the incident with the Indians. But, no one should be too concerned about that.

4. The most important next chapter in the story is November this year, and the signing of the RCEP, which was delayed a whole year because of the Indians.

5. That story is bull, because the bottom-line is China decided to press it advantage and not in the ways that mimic what the American chattering classes approve of. What do we have to say to that? We will say something that, but could cause a riot!

:D
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
All those thing are theatrical. The past will apply until CHina have a good IR policy and strategy.
US have a strategic approach to the PRC write in the NDS document with clear objective.
Where is the China similar doctrine against US? That is what China need firstly.
Have you actually read the 2018 National Defence Strategy?
Yes, it contains clear objectives, but these are military-focused.
That does not make it a *good* or *realistic* IR policy and strategy .
The military should NOT be in charge of formulating an overall IR strategy in the first place.

In comparison, you can see China has overall goals for 2035 and 2050 for example.
And the BRI is a example of a grand encompassing strategy for International Relations in the next few decades.
Primary objectives include preventing a strategic encirclement of China AND a boost the economies of China and the other participants.
The military element is barely mentioned or relevant.

The reason you don't see public documents about China's military strategy is that it would be counterproductive to China's overall goals, not because they don't exist. It's exactly the same reason why the USA has a classified secret version of its National Defence Strategy.

---

And if we critique the 2018 National Defence Strategy, there's no point in having a strategy if you can't follow it.

Since it was published, the the US has demonstrated that it doesn't value the "Enduring coalitions and long-term security partnerships" repeatedly mentioned. Every other country has taken note, and recognises they have to be very wary about being entrapped by the USA.
 

davidau

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






I will be criticized, but I think this article is mostly wrong, but partly true, geopolitically China has failed, it has opened too many fronts with too many countries at the same time

No one can face so many countries at the same time, great generals like Napoleon failed because they had too many enemies at the same time, let's be more modest we need allies and more time

Having a front against the USA, ASEAN, Japan, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the EU, India, all at the same time, is not tenable
you just bullsh*t and a load of codswallops, you have no clue about geopolitics, and fake news by trump and his gang who shamefully slander with lies about China and her achievements
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top