Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 05/31/2004 View Sun 05/30/2004 View Sat 05/29/2004 View Fri 05/28/2004 View Thu 05/27/2004 View Wed 05/26/2004 View Tue 05/25/2004
1
2004-05-31 China-Japan-Koreas
U.S.: China Rethinking Military Strategy
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.
Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 1:21:57 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Here's the link to the report.

Hoping the French won't sell to China is truly wishful thinking. They have a lot of costs to cover in developing these systems and China will help pay them. France will also be happy to have China be a counter to the hyperpower and rebalance this terible unipolar world we live in.

The assassin's mace is just Burns in his cups.
Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-31 1:50:48 AM||   2004-05-31 1:50:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Party control is everything. Remember that. All else must be subordinated to that. Now, just say they do the Taiwan gambit. All the US has to do, is a hundred percent shut down of commerce between it and China. How long before their economy collapses? There are no other buyers of such volume of their products. How long before the masses who are now enjoying upward mobility and benefits tolerate a return to poverty and mass unemployement? You can't keep them down on the farm after they've seen Parie [Paris]! [old old song] Hard to have control when the people figure out there are not enough of the People's Liberation Army to keep them all down, particularly when the best of the PLA is sitting in Taiwan.
Posted by Don 2004-05-31 9:12:32 AM||   2004-05-31 9:12:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Zenster:

Interesting analysis. While I tend to agree with some of it, my thinking is that capital flight ( as a direct result of Chinese hostile intentions or any economicaly/financially hostile moves ) from China would be far more devastating than anything China could do to us. Granted it would be painful for both sides, but if China wanted to remain in the game, they need to toe the line.

I think fear about capital flight is the most powerful incentive for them to behave.

But you could be right. I just think the outcome would be far less harmful to us than to them.
Posted by badanov  2004-05-31 9:13:16 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-05-31 9:13:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Thank you for the link, Mr. Davis. I'm nearly half-way through and it is some interesting reading. I recommend it to anyone who wishes to formulate some sort of informed opinion about China's current military and political stance.

I just think the outcome [of capital flight] would be far less harmful to us than to them.

I agree completely. There just happens to be far too many of America's politicians (from both sides of the aisle) bought and paid for by China. The same goes for the big industry based campaign contributers. The earnings derived from China's cheap labor pool has blinded American manufacturer's to the fact that Chinese intellectual property theft and product conterfeiting are undermining our nation's new profit centers of innovation and software design.

There is over 10 billion US dollars of China commodities in global Walmart store[s].

At Wal-Mart "we worry about buying enough". "Enough" for him means $12bn (£7.2bn) this year, roughly 10% of the $116bn trade deficit the US clocked up with China in the 12 months to July.

The time to pull China back into line is now and not after they've modernized their army. The politburo needs to be confronted with massive civil unrest before they obtain the means of quelling it. The world simply cannot afford for China to become a functioning superpower while they still maintain such a drastically tilted playing field. We may as well play soccer on a hill with China's goal net at the bottom.

I'll be back in shortly to provide some quotes out of the linked report. None of them are encouraging in the least. Should Europe decide to sell China advanced weapon systems, I would feel obliged to advocate torpedoeing the container ships carrying them.

If France truly thinks that elevating the Chinese military's functionality is a way to offset American might, they need to closely examine China's own effort to do so in North Korea. Pyonyang's proliferation of nuclear and missile technology has resulted in a direct threat increase to France itself and Europe in general.

To mainline potent weapons technology straight to the perpetrator of this global crisis is quite possibly one of the most ill-thought-out strategies of the new millennium. It would certainly make any American blundering in Iraq pale by comparison.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 1:46:25 PM||   2004-05-31 1:46:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Here are two passages that leapt off the page at me while reading this interesting report:

China Report Excerpts

Page 5

Beijing has sought to describe its long-term political goals of developing CNP [CNP=Comprehensive National Power] and ensuring a favorable strategic configuration of power in positive, passive, cooperative, benign, and peaceful themes. These themes include China’s emphasis on “peace and development,” the non- use of force in settling international disputes, non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, the defensive nature of China’s military strategy, its “no- first- use of nuclear weapons” declaration, its support for nuclear-free weapons zones, and claims that China would never deploy its military forces on foreign soil.

These principled themes should not cloak the ambitious nature of China’s national development program and the nature of China’s approach to the use of force, which is contingent on the actions of others, rather than inherently passive or defensive measures. In particular, sovereignty issues that Beijing considers internal and defensive in nature -- most notably Taiwan -- may not be perceived by others as benign and peaceful. In addition, Beijing probably calculates that ambiguity in international discourse helps to buy China time in developing its national power.

---------------------------

As one can see, deception is the foundation of China's current strategy. What other essential elements are being concealed? While any country seeks to hide critical national security assets, China has taken this well beyond the pale, as evidenced in the next passage.

---------------------------

Page 7

Decision making behind China’s military modernization, in large part because of the extensive secrecy surrounding Chinese security affairs and a distinct aversion to real transparency on the part of China’s leaders. Despite some recent improvements--such as publication of official white papers on defense issues every 2 years--China’s leaders continue to closely guard and resist public revelation of basic information, such as the full amount and distribution of government resources dedicated to national defense or, as witnessed in 2003, details on the origin and incidence of infectious disease.
EMPHASIS ADDED
---------------------------

China's lack of candor about SARS virus outbreaks alone caused US$ BILLIONS worth of losses for other countries. The imapct of China's largest medically caused AIDS epidemic in history will only attempt to siphon off more global aid into their illimitless gaping maw.

It is this sort of close-to-the-vest rigged game of China's that they must be punished for. While they openly proclaim peaceful intentions, they nonetheless bear a striking resemblance to the Japanese a few decades back. Deprived of military ascendancy, Japan sought economic supremacy through unethical collusion between their government (MITI) and domestic industry.

Given that China's own industrial base is still inextricably tangled with their military, the similarity to Japan's economic doctrine should come as no surprise. China's state owned industries are estimated to face US$ 200 billion in bad debts.

Does anyone seriously think that China will blanch at excersizing military might if it is needed to overcome economic collapse? Lack of tranparency and outright theft of intellectual property are among the few things currently propping up their corrupt politburo. It is ridiculous to think that China would hesitate for even a moment before appropriating the Spratley Islands or even Siberia's oil resources if their economic viability depended upon it.

This is just one more reason why Europe must be forbidden any sale of advanced weapons platforms to China.
Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 2:59:26 PM||   2004-05-31 2:59:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 France is not the only country lusting after recycled dollars from China. Israel is in the process of selling the Chinese the Phalcon Airborne Early Warning system, a true force multiplier. Russia needs hard currency from whereever she can get it. We should be careful about slamming foreign countries when we have people like Bernie Schwartz of Loral (with the assistance of the Clinton administration) eagerly circumventing the spirit of our laws to advance the Chinese rocket program.
Posted by RWV 2004-05-31 3:09:20 PM||   2004-05-31 3:09:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 It is ridiculous to think that China would hesitate for even a moment before appropriating the Spratley Islands or even Siberia's oil resources if their economic viability depended upon it.

The Spratleys have more going for them than just a potential oil resource. Look at their location on a map and think "control point".
Posted by Pappy 2004-05-31 3:10:28 PM||   2004-05-31 3:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 RVW, in light of how Russia would be one of the first invasion targets for China in an outbreak, their armaments sales make little sense, except for the fact that they're on the verge of total economic collapse. Still, it certainly seems like a case of (as the Taiwanese so succinctly put it), "Feeding the Tiger with your own flesh."

Pappy, thank you for pointing that out. The first link I almost used dealt with precisely this issue instead of the oil situation. The Spratleys are an ideal roost for China to interdict maritime traffic through the Straits of Malacca. This is "one of the busiest waterways in the world." Some excerpts from a recent article:

Malaysia rejects US help to guard Malacca Straits against terrorists

04 April 2004 2041 hrs

KUALA LUMPUR : Malaysia on Sunday rejected military help from the United States to flush out terrorists in the Straits of Malacca, one of the busiest waterways in the world.

The top US military commander in the Asia-Pacific region, Admiral Thomas Fargo said that the US planned to deploy US forces along the narrow straits straddling Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia as part of Washington's new counterterrorism initiative to help Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asian waters, particularly in the Straits of Malacca near the Indonesian side, are the world's most pirate-infested region.

More than a quarter of the world's trade and oil transits the straits.

All the more reason to deprive China of advanced weapons. How in hell China can make a straight-faced claim upon the Spratleys is beyond me. We may well find ourselves supporting Philippine claims upon these geostrategic outposts solely to deprive China of them.

Until China begins to make even a cursory display of complying with global law and human rights, we need to choke off all of their economic and military aspirations. Better to do it now while their military is still vulnerable, as opposed to later. To repeat what I posted above:

In addition, Beijing probably calculates that ambiguity in international discourse helps to buy China time in developing its national power.
Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 4:02:39 PM||   2004-05-31 4:02:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 If bringing China to its knees is the objective, there are tools at hand. What would happen if the US banned the import of all goods from China? We would have to pay more in stores for goods, but not that much. There would still be India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. to provide cheap labor. The impact on China would be catastrophic. The American consumer is irreplaceable. Without the steady influx of US dollars, the Chinese economy would implode.
Posted by RWV 2004-05-31 4:11:53 PM||   2004-05-31 4:11:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Without the steady influx of US dollars, the Chinese economy would implode.

So, why isn't this being done to force China's hand about North Korea? The current administration could score a huge election year coup by making China rein in their pet Rottweiler. I remain unconvinced that Chinese payola (in all its different political and marketing forms) isn't preventing this otherwise vital development from happening.

We hold the precise key to defusing the North Korean nuclear threat and nothing is being done about it. I smell a rat.
Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 4:55:46 PM||   2004-05-31 4:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 RWV, on the Phalcon sale to China. As far as I know it was cancelled and was instead offered to the Indians (at the current moment even THAT particular sale is up in the air I believe). The Chinese have instead opted to pursue Russian AWACS craft or their own indigineous versions.

Zenster, I was just reading about the Chinese banks and their economy. Currently its estimated something like $240 billion in bad loans (mostly to the state) have been given out my the state banks there. However the reason they are staying afloat is that they aren't allowing their depositers to withdraw their funds regularly and those Chinese that DO put their monies into savings rarely withdraw money anyway. This results in a virtual fountain of cash always coming in that the state depends on. My personal bet...expect 2007 to bring some seriously major impacts on the Chinese economy.
Posted by Valentine 2004-05-31 5:45:18 PM||   2004-05-31 5:45:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Problem is; the US lobby for domestic textiles, grain,beef etc, would cry bloody murder! I remember how fast this lobby geared up when anti Chinese sentiment festered in the US during the down surveillance plane incident a few years ago. However, I to agree, with #9's view!
Posted by smn  2004-05-31 10:37:39 PM||   2004-05-31 10:37:39 PM|| Front Page Top

15:05 jules 187
14:23 jules 187
08:56 Anonymous4617
05:58 rkb
05:48 JFM
05:13 Phil B
03:22 Zenster
03:21 Mike Sylwester
03:19 Mike Sylwester
01:15 Tresho
01:11 .com
01:06 Phil B
00:26 Mark Espinola
00:21 Tresho
00:12 Tresho
00:05 Atomic Conspiracy
00:05 Desert Blondie
23:56 Zenster
23:48 Anonymous4617
23:48 Zenster
23:46 Tresho
23:37 Phil B
23:36 The Doctor
23:33 Zenster









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com