xinhui

Inst

The same PPP re-calculation also applied to other economies, current issue of the "Economist" has an good write up on it, you might want to check it out. People lives are the same before the PPP changed, just numbers for planners looked different, as numbers by itself never tells the complete story.

Regarding China, currently issue of the "Foreign Affair" has number of good articles on her, some pro some against. You might want to check it out, it will be hopefully for you to understand some of the debates going around here.


zraver, not sure there is any point of continue going with this as it is way off topic and your stand is clearly shows (so is rest of your posts), lets agree to disagree that we look at things differently.

Officer of Engineers

Z,

Andy has provided you with references and food for thought. The simple fact is that the majority of the Chinese are still worried about day-to-day living to be distracted by Taiwan. The sons may want to volunteer for an invasion force but the father is still worried about getting tomorrow's food on the table.

The PLA is not raising armies for Taiwan nor is there a drive for such.

I am guilty of pushing that view mainly because I am interested in how they think they can do the job.

But the sad fact is that the CCP and the PLA is not ready nor willing to take Taiwan.

__________________
Chimo

Inst

Xinhui, thanks for the suggestion, and I'll take the hint. By the way, FA.org's paywall seems to be down for the moment; perhaps for Christmas? Or are their new articles always free?

Recalculating China's GDP | Clipping the dragon's wings | Economist.com

If I recall, dollar per day is calculated as PPP dollar per day. I agree that no one's standard of living has actually changed, but the known amount of poverty has increased.

Zraver: have you read Michael Pillsbury's "China Debates the Security Environment"

CHINA DEBATES the FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

Note the conspicuous absence of China as America's competitor; from the book, it seems China is planning for a multipolar world, not for switching of superpowers.

WaltzingMatilda

China certainly could and should focus more on internal issues, but its ability to do so—much like any other state—is also affected by its external environment. Consider the problems posed by geography for Chinese defense planners. China’s inland borders are approximately 22,000 kilometers in length, and rest astride fourteen other countries, while its 18,0000-kilometer coastline offers astounding views of an American lake. With such long vulnerable borders, “outward focus” isn’t simply a matter of choice; it’s a necessity. Regional stability via the deterrence of external threats is part and parcel to continued economic growth and—by extension—the preservation of domestic political order. Past Chinese experience has been particularly instructive in this regard…wouldn’t you agree?

zraver

I think me and Andy were talking past each other, but to the same over all ideas. let me see if I can phrase this right.

Elements of the CCP have decided to create the belief in an external threat where none need exist in order to distract domestic attention away from certain failures internally.

Inst,

Will read it here in a minute if it is in English. I will start taking Chinese (4 semester total when I am done) in the fall to meet the foreign language requirement of my degree

WaltzingMatilda,

I think that is only a half truth if you look at credible threats. On the Asian mainland China does not really face a military threat. Its biggest threats are from illegal immigration and smuggling which are best countered by light infantry border forces. The only 2 technological threats China faces are India and Russia, the former lacks the ability to move far or fast and is hamstrung by the pro-Chinese lobby in its own government. The second has no need to expand but may well be worried about Chinese expansion to reclaim historically Chinese territory now filled with Chinese re-immigrants and even new sources of materials.

Now lets compare what China has done with the Siberia problem vs what they have done vs the American lake.

While China has quietly begun building a force that could if it had to move beyond its borders as an instrument of national power. They have kept quiet about it- they have not thrown the ZTZ-99 in Russia's face or made belligerent threats that certain parts of Siberia are really stolen parts of China and that China must be whole. Instead they have lulled the bear to if not sleep then a very relaxed state to the point where immigration now threatens to make Chinese the dominant language once again in certain areas of Russia. They have as it were gotten the cat to eat the pepper.

vs America China seems to make mistake after mistake. China's ultimate rival in the region isn't the US, besides Saipan we don't have a physical stake in the area and trade with everyone. China's real rival is Japan, South Korea and the rest of Asia will favor who ever is dominant and Taiwan is a side show that will be taken care by the economic ties between the 2 China's at some point. But Japan with its location astride trade routes, historical animosity and the ghosts of 35 million plus victims is a real threat. So what based on what China did in Siberia should the PRC have done, they should have lulled the US into complacency. Made us feel that they were on the same page in the region as the US and Japan. Let the US redirect assets away from the region and quietly encouraged a reduced US military presence in Japan. Then quietly built a force that could credibly challenge the JMSDF.

Did they do that? No- instead belligerent statements, brinkmanship and grandstanding have been the order of the day. Has this helped China at all externally? I don't think so the JMSDF is now the second strongest navy in Asia with a massive technology lead, the JSDAF has F-15J's and is pushing for stealth fighters and a building American ABM system that credibly threatens to remove China's nuclear deterrent. Instead of sprinkling the pepper on the cats backs they shoved a bag full of peppers in the cats (who happen to be lions and tigers) faces and yelled we are going to make you eat peppers. The cats of course popped out the claws and said oh yea, try it I dare you.


I do agree which is why I see China's actions along in the region as nonsensical. They have not deterred threats but created them. The only way China's actions make sense is if the powers that be feel the increased regional tension is worth an internal domestic payoff.

zraver

Ok I hae been reading from the link provided and so far it looks like the Chinese have a serious hard on for the Japanese, totally understandable. However (granted its dated) they predict that Japan will seek to drive a wedge between the US and China but it has been the PRC itself driving the wedge. Ramming elint planes and then ignoring international law as it sought a safe landing area, denying US ships refuge when they were fleeing a storm, missile threats vs an entity the US is treaty bound to defend, popping a sub up in the middle of a carrier group, threatening to nuke cites and sink carriers etc. The only thing the China has done is make sure the region remains a top priority to the USN and re-enforced the relationship between the US and Japan. This works counter to China's perceived long term goals at least so far as I can see it.

WaltzingMatilda

Great post with excellent points, some of which I generally agree with and others not at all…which isn’t half bad given my own stubborn, contrarian nature. But in any event…

Much of the pressure on China’s inland borders has indeed subsided, partly due to the post-Cold War configuration of power in the region, but a fair amount of credit is also due to deft Chinese diplomacy. Despite numerous territorial disputes, China hasn’t attempted to forcibly alter its boundaries, or its pattern of relations with others. As you pointed out, just the opposite has been true. In recent years, China has gone to great lengths to either resolve its border disputes and/or place them on the back burner…Russia, Vietnam, India, and Central Asia all come to mind. Nevertheless, China’s conventional military power remains “well behind the times” by hi-tech western standards, and the future is uncertain. If China continues to climb the ladder, will the US attempt to woo China’s neighbors in order to contain it? Will Russia grow weary? What if North Korea implodes? These are possibilities—to name a few—that Chinese defense planners have to consider, and all are drivers of China’s military modernization to a certain extent.

With respect to China’s maritime periphery, the problems are somewhat more complex, because its interests have become all the more important with the expansion of its economy. For reference sake, China's 13 coastal provinces account for 14% of national territory, yet contribute over 60% of GNP. Moreover, China relies heavily on sea-borne freight, which makes up 40% of its overall volume of goods transported. With economic expansion comes a need for increased protection, especially since China’s rise is wholly dependent on continued economic growth. The problem is that China has long been a continental power that lacks the capability to project power beyond its shores, and its defensive depth now feels uncomfortably thin.

Enter the US…come hell or high water, we’re not about to abandon our position in the Asia-Pacific. The US is very much in, looking to keep the Chinese out, and keeping Japan all to itself. We go where we want, when we want, and largely independent of what anyone has to say about it. We’re the proverbial 800-pound gorilla on the block, we’re consolidating our position, looking to prevent the rise of peer competitors, and China is all too well aware. Consequently, the Chinese have been wonderfully well behaved.

Taiwan is a case in point. What most Americans consider to be a tiny, democratic country off China’s coast has long been regarded by the Chinese as a staging area for attacks on the mainland. Again, past Chinese experience instructs. In the last years of the Ming Dynasty, Taiwan was occupied and colonized by the Dutch East India Company. Following the decline of the Ming Dynasty in 1644, Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga), who was loyal to the Ming regime, retreated to Taiwan, where he and his descendants carried out attacks for decades against the Qing Dynasty on the mainland. In 1895, Japan also occupied Taiwan and administered it as a colony until the end of WWII in 1945. And most recently, Cheng Kai-shek and the KMT on Taiwan, with support from the United States, carried out a series of attacks against the PRC from 1949 up until the late 1960’s. Eisenhower even went so far as to threaten the use of nuclear weapons during the offshore-islands crises in the 1950’s. The point, however, is that we’re just one more in a long line of unsavory characters so far as the Chinese are concerned. And yet, they’ve opted to postpone ultimate resolution of the issue. The Chinese are working to bind Taiwan to the mainland economically while preventing independence through recourse to deterrent saber rattling…a strategy that has induced US caution with regard to Taiwanese affairs.

In my view, China is incredibly dependent on regional stability and isn’t about to jeopardize its position in the regional configuration of power unless forced to do so. In addition, the Chinese appear to be cognizant of the fact that their burgeoning power makes others nervous…as you seem to agree, at least in some respects. So as far as I can tell, the main difference between your position and mine is that I don’t expect the Chinese to enjoy their second rate status. All states want self-determination and can only achieve it through military independence. Aggressive intent, however, doesn’t necessarily follow.

zraver

North Korea and Vietnam are interesting case studies. North Korea probably will implode at some point and the refugee crisis is already severe. The post Kim Korea is of great importance to China for obvious reasons. Vietnam is a real potential hot spot and another of the sino mistakes. The Spratly's are not modern Chinese any more than Anatolia is greek today. The gas, oil and fish reserves and transit lanes are not worth pushing Vietnam into the US camp which is what is happening.

So then why antagonize the biggest players in the region? Making the regions powers nervous is hardly getting the cat to eat peppers. From belligerent statements, violations of international law, consorting with pirates, bullying smaller states all draw attention and provoke a response. Even if China could match the spending of Japan or the US it cannot do both- yet. Add in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and the equation becomes never.

If we wanted to keep China out why make them our biggest trading partner? China is only on the American radar screen because of Chinese actions. America has not proven to be a very aggressive mercantile power. Germany, Japan, South Korea, France and others all started in 1946 pretty close to zero and were helped up not held down by the US. same goes for China post Nixon. The idea that Washington wants to keep China out is not supported by the evidence.

To major conclusions I do not see supported by the evidence. I do not see the US holding China down nor do i see Chinese actions as well behaved.

I don't see the need for the saber rattling.

Then what is forcing her to do so? because she is upsetting the balance whether she wants to or not. The provocative list of Chinese actions that force other regional and international powers to respond is long and growing. And so far all it has achieved is growing isolation of China from the major powers.

Enjoy being second rate never came from me. Remember this threat started with a discussion of Chinese strategic brilliance. That brilliance has so far failed to be demonstrated, meanwhile the diplomatic and military blunders burn bright like beacons announcing the return of a China to its imperialist roots. And that is the crux of the problem for Chinese planners. They equate fist tier power with the ability to control 2nd tier and lesser states. They don't like it when the American gorilla thumps its chest, why do they think the other nations in the region will prefer a Chinese gorilla over an American one?

Officer of Engineers

Because all of them were pushing China around. Chinese fishing vessels were routinely boarded and the Captains arrested. The Japanese resorted to force over a civilian protest of the Daiyu Islands. And the Chinese sees the continued EP-3 patrols as a slap to their national prestige.

From the Beijing perspective, it is now time to push back.

zraver

Assuming that states are rational actors at least most of the time, why is it time for China to push back? What benefits to the PRC were achieved by setting the stage for an arms race when massive internal problems still exist that would make far better and longer term strategic sense? The obvious answers that suggest themselves get me told I don't know what I am talking about but no one has yet to offer up the why. You or anyone can talk all day long about Chinese strategy, but where is the proof.

Based on the evidence the PRC like many nations appears content to gain short term domestic political favor at the cost of longer term strategic capability. That or the CCP is schizophrenic and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing much of the time.

Officer of Engineers

Z,

An arms race was inevitable. The PLA branches need modernization unless they were going to keep WWII era weapons. A country like the size of China and a force the size of the PLA needs lots and lots of new weapons just to maintain its defensive needs. However, individually, each country it faces sees an overwhelming threat.

The state actors have accursed the PLAN with cohorting with pirates. Yet, they have not explained that this gave them the excuse to confiscate Chinese vessels and arrest Chinese nationals as well as taking their stocks. What rational is there for the Chinese to continue to allow this to happen?

While Beijing has internal problems galore, they still have to deal with their external problems and the primary function of any state is to defend itself.

I have not gone into explaining Chinese strategy vis-a-vi the current environment. Mainly because that this is a CCP action, not a PLA one and that is a whole another can of worms filled with "And a miracle happens here" explanations. Kissinger once asked Zhou En-Lai what did he think of the French Revolution. Zhou replied that it was too early to tell. I think that it's a cop out answer but most Asians took the view that it's a legitimate answer.

Blademaster

What was so important about the French Revolution that asking about it and answering it was of paramount importance?

Officer of Engineers

It was a casual setting and an informal intellectual exercise.

zraver

Obtaining arms is one thing, that didn't spark the race. Chinese arms are still inferior for the most part. It is the bravado and brinksmanship that sparked the arms race. Remember the article said "get the cat to eat pepper" China has not made the other nations in the region dance to its tune with its actions so no peppers have been eaten-hence a Chinese strategic failure as the cats if not hunting the Chinese mice are at least now counting mouse holes.

The flip side also applies, should the navies of the region continue to allow the PLAN to act like a bully and exert a totally bogus claim on the resource rich Spratlys and harassment in international waters? China is the bully as much as the bullied. Again be it Chinese imperialism or tit for tat diplomacy no cats are eating peppers.

Again I ask where is an example of Chinese strategic success in Asia after 1989. China has made blunder after blunder after the Tienanmen Square debacle. She has formed alliances with the wrong people, broken alliances with the right ones, acted like a bully and claimed a capability she does not have- but she has made sure arms dealers in Asia are enjoying a bull market at her long term expense.

1- the primary job of the state is to provide for the common good of its citizens. Defense is only one part of this.

2- You don't deal with external problems by pouring gasoline on a fire. China was ideally positioned after the Cold War and out side of economics she blew it.

Blademaster

China's situation would be different if two of her main allies were not such so basket cases, i.e., North Korea and Pakistan. If China had somehow kicked Kim's butt and forced him to revitalize N. Korea and force Pakistan leaders to change their feudal system based economy into a more liberal economy, then it would seem that China is being very smart. But then again, China is not responsible for her allies's failures.