Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 That means ASAP we should counter China forcefully and decisively.
If If we had a leader
with the balls to do it.
Posted by Mikey Hunt 2012-08-09 00:11||
#2 WORLD NEWS > [Nippon FM]GENBA STANDS FIRM ON SENKAKUS, as per Japan and only Japan having sovereignty over same.
* TOPIX > STUDY: NORTH KOREA [technically] ABLE TO TEST NUCLEAR BOMB IN TWO WEEKS.
* PACIFIC NEWS CENTER [Guam K-57 News] > YOMIURI: JAPAN-US CONSIDER DEPLOYMENT OF AAFB'S [Andersen AFB] GLOBAL HAWKS TO SURVEY CHINESE MILITARY ACTIVITY AROUND SENKAKUS, + also to bolster US-Japan military exercises.
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > A BILL [covertly = PCorrectly] REQUIRING US INTERVENTION IN SOUTH CHINA SEA SETTLEMENT IS INTRODUCED, before the US Congress.
* SAME > JAPANESE ANGRY AT CHINESE BUYOUT OF JAPANESE ASSETS | [WSJ.com] FRICTION AS CHINA CLOUT [investments] GROW IN JAPAN.
* SAME > [Poster Thread] CHINA BYPASSES USN STRAIT OF MALACCAS BLOCKADE: MYANMAR PIPELINE ONLINE IN 2013?
China = Iran; Strait of Hormuz = South China Sea = looks like China doing the blocking, not the USN = US-Allies.
OTOH, will the Philippines = Vietnam = invite RUSSIA, INDIA, JAPAN, + ISRAEL, ETC. TO SET UP AT SUBIC FREEPORT ANDOR MANILA BAY???
China has to know that the only thing Russia + Vladvedev are going to do wid the new SCS Sansha is blow it up into coral-weenies.
* CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > [Pan-Mongol, Chinese] OUTRAGE AS CHINA LAYS CLAIM TO GENGHIS KHAN.
> Mongols, both in + outside of China = GENGHIS IS OUR SYMBOL/ICON, NOT YOURS.
> Many Chinese = GENGHIS was an uncivilized, uncouth, bloody Barbarian Warlord not worthy to be called "Chinese".
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-08-09 00:55||
#3 This is the great weakness of China. They really have no allies. They are surrounded by a great wall. China is everything and all others are a lower class of people. Just a bully in the world. Some very intelligent people exist in powerful positions but they are not able to overcome the thirst for money and power of others about them.
Natural to rewrite history also. The game is played by their rules and they must always win.
Posted by Dale 2012-08-09 07:23||
#4 Someone should politely remind them of a similar attitude of the Japanese concerning events in China from 1936 on. It was the actions of another American administration concerned with the integrity and sovereignty of China that provoke the Japanese response of Dec '41. Maybe they need to contemplate what their world would look like today if America had just looked the other way to those events in the Far East.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-08-09 09:11||
#5 Someone should politely remind them of a similar attitude of the Japanese concerning events in China from 1936 on. It was the actions of another American administration concerned with the integrity and sovereignty of China that provoke the Japanese response of Dec '41. Maybe they need to contemplate what their world would look like today if America had just looked the other way to those events in the Far East.
They're in the catbird seat. Europe is disarmed and not particularly interested in fighting a war in Asia. Asian countries are feckless - the reason China is so big in the first place is because it has always been able to divide and conquer the states on its borders. Because Mongolia aside, throughout history, the standard posture of the states on China's borders has been to hope that the dragon eats them last. They have always preferred to fight each other, alone or with Chinese help, than band together against China. Genghis Khan and Nurhaci were the two exceptional non-Chinese leaders who managed to tame China. But their avarice led them to bite off more than their descendants could effectively rule. Neither was able to bend China to their will for posterity.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-08-09 10:48||
#6 As a China-watcher who's read a fair amount of Chinese history, what sticks out is China's grabbiness with respect to territorial issues. The amusing thing is that it was a Chinese grad student who disabused me of the notion that China is a peaceful country. In a moment of candor, he said, quite logically, that big countries like China don't get that way by peaceful means. The National Review's John Derbyshire had this to say about China:
The Chinese people respond eagerly to these ultra-nationalist appeals: That is precisely why the leadership makes them. Resentment of the U.S., and a determination to enforce Chinese hegemony in Asia, are well-nigh universal among modern mainland Chinese. These emotions trump any desire for constitutional government, however much people dislike the current regime for its corruption and incompetence. Find a mainlander, preferably one under the age of thirty, and ask him which of the following he would prefer: for the Communists to stay in power indefinitely, unreformed, but in full control of the "three T's" (Tibet, Turkestan, Taiwan); or a democratic, constitutional government without the three T's. His answer will depress you. You can even try this unhappy little experiment with dissidents: same answer.
Is there anything we can do about all this? One thing only. We must understand clearly that there will be lasting peace in East Asia when, and only when, China abandons her atavistic fantasies of imperial hegemony, withdraws her armies from the two million square miles of other people's territory they currently occupy, and gets herself a democratic government under a rule of law. Until that day comes, if it ever does, the danger of war will be a constant in relations between China and the world beyond the Wall, as recent events in the South China Sea have illustrated. Free nations, under the indispensable leadership of the United States, must in the meantime struggle to maintain peace, using the one, single, and only method that wretched humanity, in all its millennia of experience, has so far been able to devise for that purpose: Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Every culture has a religion. The Chinese are remarkably irreligious in the conventional sense, except for a cargo cult version of paganism that should be familiar to anyone who's heard of the prosperity gospel. What passes in China for religion is a cult of national greatness - the model for Imperial Japan's world tour in the 1930's and 1940's. I believe China's neighbors are about to discover anew what their ancestors had to put up with on a routine basis before European adventurers set firm boundaries on Chinese territorial expansion 200 years ago. Our interest in the matter is the same as our interest in preventing Japan from annexing China during the pre-war era - it's never a good idea to allow an aggressive and ideologically hostile power to grow too big. More security for them means less security for us.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-08-09 10:49||
#7 Trade-wise, I think we need to treat China the way we treated the Soviet Union. However, the problem with trying to enact a trade embargo on China is that nobody else will go along. Chinese exports to the US, at $400b, are only 7% of its $5.7t economy. And that $400b number exaggerates the value added, given that perhaps 10% of the $250 wholesale price of an iPad is composed of value added by Chinese labor, the rest being materials cost (of commodities imported from the rest of the world).
There are also factors beyond our control. The big change in China's economy occurred not in 1973, with Nixon's opening to China, but in 1979, when Deng Xiaoping, China's leader at the time, started dismantling China's centrally-planned economy. Every year after 1979 has featured high single-digit or low double-digit economic growth. The Chinese will eventually present a much more serious security problem than the Soviets because their economy is now capitalist in all but name, and they have 1.2b productive people, compared to the Soviet Union's 200m people at its peak.
As a long-time amateur China-watcher (and former Soviet-watcher), my contention is that the problem with China isn't Communism - it's the Chinese (much as the problem with the Soviet Union wasn't Communism - it was Russians who viewed themselves as world conquerors). When Imperial Japan went on its world tour, its model was Imperial China during its moments of martial vigor. The Chinese put on a mask of amity during their period of weakness, but now that China has grown strong, that mask is slipping. I suspect that future historians will look back upon the Maoist era, when China closed itself off from the world, as a period of respite for China's neighbors - a time for them to prepare for a revived China red in in tooth and claw. However, historians may also record China's feckless neighbors (aka future provinces, in the Chinese mind) as having wasted the breathing space afforded them - all you have to do is look at their minuscule defense budgets. With the exception of Vietnam and India, China's neighbors appear to have settled upon a common policy based on (1) Uncle Sam providing for their defense and (2) fighting China to the last dead American.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-08-09 10:52||