China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Ya they do. Entire US is basically concentration camp. The US is not of A. The word immigration can't be used for US in same meaning as it is used for other countries.
No country should tolerate illegal immigration.
That's why US can't exist.
We made a mistake.
Stop with the exagerration
 

Wangxi

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

China Has Squandered Its First Great Opportunity
The world has experienced a six-month geopolitical vacuum, and China has filled it poorly.
JULY 30, 2020

Foreign-policy observers have long debated: What if Beijing were handed a golden opportunity to strut on the world stage, absent a more powerful United States? Would it seize the opportunity, acting for the good of all and convincing the globe of its peaceful intentions? Or would it pursue a cramped vision of national interest? The world has inadvertently run that very experiment since January.

The combination of China’s early coronavirus recovery, the catastrophic health and economic situation in the United States, an administration whose “America First” instincts have turned the country inward, and a mostly every-country-for-itself response to the global pandemic has put China in the geopolitical driver’s seat. So far, Beijing has squandered the opportunity in dramatic fashion.

The news of Chinese diplomats
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Houston represents just the latest, most dramatic development in Washington’s quickly deteriorating relationship with Beijing. The United States is not the only country with worsening ties. In the first half of 2020, Beijing has been ecumenical in its assertiveness: Britain, Japan, Australia, India, Canada, and others have been on the receiving end of China’s so-called wolf-warrior diplomacy

The list of what China has done to raise doubts and suspicions is long. Last month, Beijing pursued a deadly border standoff with India, crossing the Line of Actual Control and killing some 20 Indian soldiers. It passed a national-security law that effectively ended Hong Kong’s political freedom, violating internationally agreed-upon commitments. When the Australian government expressed mild support for an international inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, China barred and taxed key agricultural imports. Tokyo says that armed Chinese coast-guard vessels have sailed near the Senkaku Islands every day since April, and Beijing warned its citizens against travel to Canada, citing “frequent violent actions” purportedly carried out by law enforcement. Taiwanese Foreign Minister Joseph Wu recently reported an “unprecedented” number of sea and air exercises near the island, and the Chinese air force this month conducted live-fire drills in the South China Sea. No perceived transgression seems too small to elicit a hostile Chinese response: When the Dutch renamed its representative office in Taiwan—from the Netherlands Trade and Investment Office to the Netherlands Office Taipei—China threatened to stop sending medical supplies and to boycott Dutch goods.

If this is what Chinese global leadership looks like, many governments are quickly concluding, count us out.

They are not just worrying and complaining, but acting—and risking Beijing’s further wrath. Britain has offered a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents and suspended its extradition treaty. London reversed itself on Huawei’s role in building the British 5G network by barring the Chinese company entirely. After the border skirmish, India—one of the most important markets for Chinese tech companies—banned 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok and WeChat. Calls in New Delhi are rising to deny China key infrastructure contracts and even to boycott Chinese products. Japan established a $2.2 billion fund to help manufacturers shift production out of China, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe faces diminishing resistance to his efforts at strengthening Japan’s military posture. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, saying that his region is now facing the “most consequential strategic realignment since the Second World War,” announced nearly $190 billion in defense spending over the next decade, focused on high-tech programs that can counter Chinese capabilities. The Trump administration has been busy not just closing consulates but announcing its formal opposition to Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea, rescinding Hong Kong’s special economic status, and sanctioning Chinese companies over human-rights abuses in Xinjiang.

Former Indian National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this month that “it is hard to think of a time since the Cultural Revolution when China’s international prestige and reputation have been lower.” That’s a remarkable statement, given the advantages Beijing possessed just a few months ago. Machiavelli said that it’s better to be feared than loved. He didn’t say hated.

Understanding why the Chinese Communist Party is acting in such a seemingly self-defeating fashion is now a top question on foreign-policy minds. But perhaps there’s no single right answer. Early this year, as the virus spread from China around the world, leaders clearly worried about the threat to their international standing and sought to recast the narrative. Information operations and threats against those who might blame Beijing followed. In other cases, China has prioritized facts on the ground over fickle sentiment. The world might react with horror at Chinese actions in Hong Kong, for instance, but Beijing assumes that emotions will cool and that it will retain control—an approach reminiscent of Russia’s single-mindedness on Crimea a few years ago. Yet other instances seem better explained by hubris: The time has come, Chinese propagandists argue, for the world to accommodate itself to China’s power rather than the reverse.

Together, these varying motives suggest that the cliché—offered as recently as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by Attorney General William Barr—that Beijing thinks in decades and centuries, whereas the West can’t focus beyond the next quarter, is often wrong. Its leaders can be just as daft as anyone else.

The United States, however, should take small comfort in that realization. The underlying dynamics remain: China is pulling out of recession faster than North America and Europe, its military grows stronger each year, and countries in economic doldrums may exit the pandemic more reliant on Chinese capital and markets rather than less so. Chinese leaders believe that the future is theirs, as they pass fractious and declining democracies like the United States on the way up.


America has been lucky that Beijing hasn’t acted with more deftness this time around. The world has experienced a six-month geopolitical vacuum, and China has filled it poorly. What happens next may have less to do with Chinese than American policy. An active, revitalized United States can once again compete effectively with China and resume its role as a global leader. If it does, the past six months could look more like an aberration than a prologue.



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
 

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

Captain
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

Captain
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top