China's Chance

from the end of the same essay








"China's global rise is a bad thing, and must be combated."


Agree? Disagree?
Can it still be combated? Should it be?

I seem to have some kind of genetic agreement with this article, but I'm not sure what I think about it.

I think a world citizen, living inside or outside of the current hegemon, would answer that question by looking at how the up and coming power treats its' citizens---adding to that their view of the possibility that the challenger will treat them as well, or worse if they assume world domination.

The Chinese culture--as far as I know--has chosen to be isolated. From what I have read, they prefer to be unmolested by outside influences--and it would seem that they would be satisfied in ruling the world economically--rather than shipping over here, and about, and occupying other countries.

But, I imagine they are threatened by the US' erupting beachheads of democracy, and global influence in their region--and everywhere, actually.

They, as we have done in Iraq, may see a pre-emptive "defense" as necessary to protect their autonomy. I think this is more likely than the continuing sleeping giant. They have aligned with Russia--which may not bring them much cash--but it does bring them a huge block of the world--and more importantly, it takes assistance from us.

They are also very chummy with the EU. Their chess pieces are all lined up for a checkmate.

If there was a safe multipolar world, it is possible we could all live in an interdependent fashion. But, if Russia, China and the EU are aligned--the US will see this as a threat of epic proportions--and the results could be catastrophic.

This, coupled with the human rights sensibilities of a regressing Russia, and a notorious China, cannot be seen as anything but ominous to citizens of North America, Oz, possibly Britain--who I think is iffy with such a prospect, EU or no.

It is not difficult to relate this to the history of the Slavs--their closer interaction with the ancient Oriental peoples of the central Asian plains and steppes. They seem more alike, and we seem more different. Not that we aren't capable of torture, barbaric behavior, ...any society has elements that practice these things. But, our society has chosen to outlaw it, condemn it and punish people for it. China mowed students down for asserting their personal rights. Russia still has secret police.

Maybe because they are from such huge, and isolated locations--and because they are ancient societies--they have not stepped as far away from these 'barbaric' activities. I think this is one huge difference in a newer society.

China and Russia are planning War Games this year.

Because they don't like the US' current position in the world.

They are planning war with us.

I think a world controlled by these people is to be feared by everyone who cherishes self-determination.

China and Russia--War Games.

I'll bring a couple of articles on China's current moves.

excerpt--

Russia and China plan war games

Ivanov (right) has just returned from defence talks in China
Russia and China - former Cold War foes - will hold an unprecedented military exercise in the second half of 2005.
The war game, involving naval ships and aircraft, will take place on Chinese territory, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said.

China has become a major market for Russian weapons. In the past five years these exports have risen to $5bn.

Russia and China have developed what they call a strategic partnership since the end of the Cold War.

Russia will not bring large numbers of servicemen to the exercises, but mostly state-of-the art weapons, including submarines and probably strategic bombers, Mr Ivanov was quoted as saying.

Main supplier
Russian observers say that China gets half of Russia's weapons exports.

Mr Ivanov visited China earlier and described his discussions on Russian weapons deliveries as "record-breaking"....

Interesting, since the focus of the original article was on China not having an interest in, or resources for, war.

There was something on the news here last night more along the lines of that original article. Will try and track down something online. Something about strategic alliances, cultural affiliations ...

ehBeth--

I'm glad you started the topic. It is really fluid, and (I believe) we should all try to keep up with it as it develops. I'll be watching here.


How the EU's Greed Can Set Off WW3.

Congress, fearing an end to the embargo could put U.S. forces in Asia at risk, has threatened unspecified restrictions on defense cooperation with Europe should it lift the ban.

"European arms technology will only enhance the complexity, reliability and lethality of China's growing arsenal," Hyde writes.
"They will also increase the likelihood that Beijing will acquire growing confidence in resolving the status of Taiwan and countering America's security posture in Asia elsewhere with the threat or use of force," he wrote.

The U.S. House of Representatives called on the European Union last month to maintain the embargo and expressed strong objections to continued European arms sales to China.

"This is a moment when the voices of thoughtful Europeans need to be heard above those who are easily seduced by lucrative Chinese contracts. The choice for Europe could not be clearer: it is between policies that promote the development of democracy in China or those that support China's military buildup and threaten U.S. security interests," he wrote...

Ahh, it had to do with the current China/Taiwan weirdnesses.






link

at the same time that





link

See-- agreeing to the One China policy is against everything the US stands for. If I'm not mistaken, we have since vowed to protect Taiwan if China aggresses--and they are quite likely to aggress when Taiwan breaks away.

So, we already have a ticket to that fandango-- If the EU supplies China with arms--seems they have bought their ticket, too---on the opposing side.

It is tantamount to an act of war for the EU to arm China in this scenario.

Fluid.

Great word, Lash.


The Canadian media and academics have been extremely interested in the Chinese "situation", and the Chinese and Indian economies for several years (that I've noticed - maybe earlier, but I wasn't tuned in to it).

I thought the first article in this thread really reflected nicely what I'd posted elsewhere about how we don't see the little Chinese exporters desperate to get contracts anymore. Used to be a standard feature of our annual national exhibition about 20 years ago.

Based on that article, I'm trying to recall what country the smaller exporters were from last August. < Will have to check the labels in the collection of sequined evening bags I bought. > I'm watching another global economic trend, and not paying attention. Or, wasn't paying attention.

Given the U.S. deficit situation, I know I'm more concerned about the economics of the situation (living next door to the elephant) than anything else. While our economy is doing very well right now, I expect the elephant to roll over on us eventually.

My understanding is that the One China policy is the current U.S. admin position.

I wonder why OUR media hasn't had much to say about this...

Everything I've gotten so far is from the BBC. Ah well. Will be checking in...

link

link

Anybody.

Isn't what is described here--realpolitik? You are against Chinese oppression of Taiwan--but instead of addressing the issue head-on with China--we go through the backdoor with building them up economically--to try to turn them toward capitalism---and democracy.

But, what if you just wind up with a very economically powerful China--who prefers to blow Taiwan into submissive bits--and has some ammo left over for you, too?

C'Mon somebody.

I'm glad I'm not the only one out here getting hives.

reading various business magazines (mainly the american "business week" , but also forbes and canadian and european mags - not in full of course, simply not enough time), i get the impression that the U.S. and china depend on each other economically. the "taiwan" question seems to be a minor point (of irritation ?). particularly since there are now direct flights between china and taiwan, it all seems like a lot of strutting. on the one hand everyone wants to show independence and strenght(strutting); in the other hand all parties want to make as much money in the process(realpolitik). so as long as no one pushes the other party in this game of chicken hard, things should work out allright, but ... there are always the unknown factors (what was it that rummy said : "there are known unknowns, and then there are the unknown unknowns' - or something like it, i believe). there is no doubt in my mind that at this time the economies of both the U.S. and china benefit (to various degrees) from good trade relationships, all one has to do is visit the nearest walmart store (or here in canada "canadian tire" stores) to see the benefits of this trade relationship. if there would be a major disruption in the trade between these two countries, both would suffer economically.i just read recently that the ports on the U.S. and canadian westcoast can hardly handle the incoming goods from asia (mainly china) any more, and that the canadian port of halifax will receive a multi-million dollar face lift to take some pressure of the westcoast ports (and also to have containerships unload closer to the consumer-market in the eastern U.S.). politics are largely driven by economics. hbg

I really, really enjoyed reading these articles. This is the first of 3 and links to the other 2 are found at the bottom.
_____________________________________________________________

Posted on Sun, Feb. 20, 2005
http://www.broward.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/10946074.htm

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT :China's development dwarfs Latin America's

BEIJING -- I came to the People's Republic of China for a 10-day visit to find out how Latin America could best compete with this economically booming country. It took me about 30 seconds to know the answer: Unless it undertakes dramatic reforms, it can't.

From the minute one lands in Beijing, even before one has a chance to be stunned by the capitalist fever that is gripping this country, the monumental dimensions of Beijing's newly remodeled, 38-million-passengers-a-year airport shocks even the most skeptical visitor.

My plane pulled in at Gate 305 -- an eye-opener for someone used to arriving at Gate B-7 of Miami International Airport, which has only 107 gates. But that was only the first surprise.

On the way to my hotel, I saw more high-rise construction cranes than I've ever seen anywhere, let alone in Latin America. There are 5,000 high-rise construction sites in the Chinese capital today -- so many, that the latest joke making the rounds here says you should never blink while in this city, because you could miss a new building's inauguration.

PRESTIGIOUS NAMES

At street level of some of the ultra-modern skyscrapers, there are dealerships of Rolls Royce, Maseratti, Lamborghini, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi, next to Rolex, Armani and Louis Vuitton stores.

I asked my taxi driver to stop in front of some of these car dealerships, convinced that they were representative offices to sell jet engines or tractors to the Chinese government. But no: They were selling luxury cars to rich Chinese. Last year, Mercedes-Benz sold 12,000 cars in China, BMW 16,000 and Audi about 70,000, the government-run China Daily reported recently, with obvious pride.

China's average 9 percent a year economic growth since it began its economic opening 25 years ago is producing a rapidly growing wealthy elite and an expanding middle class, lifting about 250 million people from poverty. If economic growth continues, China's middle class will double by the year 2020, to about 40 percent of the population.

And it shows on the streets, from the glitzy Changan Boulevard to working-class districts.

While 80 percent of China's 1.3 billion population lives in misery in the countryside, city-dwellers in Beijing, Shanghai and other big cities are better dressed than in most world capitals, thanks in part to a thriving black market of pirated brand goods. The Chinese have replaced the Mao uniform with the imitation Armani suit.

What is China doing that Latin America has failed to do? I asked every Chinese official and foreign diplomat or businessperson I met here. I heard many answers, but they all boiled down to one thing: China has become competitive in the world race for investments and exports, while Latin America has not.

One striking example: I read in Asian newspapers that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's government had closed down that country's 80 McDonald's restaurants for three days because of alleged tax law violations, while Chávez was denouncing ''savage [U.S.] imperialism'' during a visit to Argentina. Just shortly before, China's official media had triumphantly announced that the board of directors of McDonald's would visit Beijing, meet with top government officials and announce that the company would expand its current 600 stores in China to 1,000 by next year.

In a world where developing countries compete for a limited pool of private investments, China is clobbering Latin America: The $54 billion in foreign direct investments it got last year amounted to about $5 billion more than what all 32 Latin American countries got together, according to United Nations figures. Less than a decade ago, Latin America was way ahead.

While Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela are benefiting from soaring raw material exports to China, companies here are displacing Latin American exporters from the much more lucrative global market of finished goods. Mexico, for instance, has lost significant market share in the United States to China.

Contrary to the generalized belief that multinationals are descending on China just to benefit from its cheap labor -- the often slavelike conditions condoned by the Communist Party in the name of economic progress -- several U.S. business people told me that they had moved here instead because of China's production quality.

One U.S. executive I met in Beijing told me his company had moved from Mexico because its Chinese partners, unlike the Mexicans, reinvested most of their profits in their companies and produced increasingly better goods. Another one I met in Shanghai told me this country's love affair with the market economy is making people work harder, and better.

The fact is, multinational companies are bullish about China because -- ironically -- this communist country is embracing capitalism with a passion. To an outsider, the Chinese government's proclaimed ''socialist market economy'' is a face-saving rhetorical gimmick, or a good way of justifying an economic opening without giving up its one-party totalitarian rule.

In an interview at his office, Zhou Xi-an, deputy director of China's powerful National Development and Reform Commission, told me that 30 percent of China's economy is still in state hands, 10 percent is in collective hands and 60 percent is in ''nonpublic'' hands, China's euphemism for the private sector.

''The private sector has become the main driving force for economic development, and the major source of employment,'' Zhou told me.

Recalling a figure I had read recently, I asked, is it true that you will privatize another 100,000 state-owned companies within the next five years? ''No. The figure will be much higher,'' the official responded, matter-of-factly.

DIFFERENT MODELS

Jiang Shixue, a top academic of the Institute of Latin American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a think tank for the Chinese government, told me he has recently completed a book comparing the development of East Asia and Latin America, and concluded, among other things, that ''the outward model'' pursued by East Asia for the past several decades ``is superior to the inward-looking model.''

''Theories should be updated from time to time,'' Jiang told me. ``The dependency theory [of blaming U.S. imperialism] was very popular in the 1960s, but now we can see that it has become outdated.''

My conclusions: China is in the midst of a capitalist revolution. Granted, many things could go bad in China. The country's 800 million poverty-ridden peasants may rise up in anger over the growing gap between rich and poor, or the fragile Chinese banking system may collapse, taking the country down with it.

And even if there is no such calamity, it's dubious that the second generation of today's Chinese capitalists will be as willing to work as hard as their parents. But in the short term, unless Latin America takes drastic steps to open up its economy and become more competitive, China will widen its lead.

COMING THURSDAY: What is China after in Latin America? Several things: access to raw materials to reduce its dependency on the United States and the Middle East; South-South political alliances to counter U.S. influence, and a backup route to export duty-free to the United States if Washington puts restrictions on Chinese goods.

China's foray into Latin America may be mixed blessing for region
http://www.broward.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/10976464.htm

China's success could misguide region's leaders
http://www.broward.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/11003398.htm

Relax ladies. China is becoming an economic giant because we buy their goods and then they invest in our country. If we went to war, we would;
A. Not buy their goods and the surplus would be instant and economically devastating to them. We'd have poorly stocked Wal-Mart's and higher prices.
B. We'd label them terrorists and seize their investments in this country (which are nothing shy of astronomical, btw).
C. Their military manpower is certainly impressive but too far away to ever be an issue. They would never make it here against our forces, however depleted you may think they are. Also, they have no nuclear option compared to ours so they would NEVER go there.

Any one of the above is sufficient to deter them from ever attacking us. Any war games they're playing is about others or in fear of needing to defend themselves against an attack by us. Our trade deficit with China is enormous as well. Rest assured; they depend on our buyers 10 times as much as we depend on their goods. No worries.

Good stuff, JW.

It's not about war games, O'Bill.

It's bigger than that.

But, I'm not here to convince you of anything. Doing my own research - reading what economists around the world are thinking/writing. Making my own decisions.

Thanks for dropping by.

OB--hi.

Don't you think since Russia and China have been plotting together against the US--that Russia has already shared or sold their nuclear plans.

China is so huge. They could have reactors and stuff all over the place...

I bet we hear about their nuclear capability within the next six months.

And. The war scenario you describe doesn't sound like War 2005.

I don't think it would last long enough for our shopping habits to impact.

Could be wrong, though.