zraver

I its not the allies, everyone understands why China does what it does with Pakistan and North Korea. It's the other actions where the Chinese leadership goes collectively brain dead. In the midst of a lead paint/pet food/toothpaste/GHB scandals with the US, China refused the Kitty Hawk entry right before Christmas effectively ripping off the families that flew over seas to see thier loved ones- not good PR to end a bad year on. But then they made it worse by refusing two small American minesweepers refuge from a storm in defiance of international law. With the scandal's China needs good PR- what do they do instead- set out to make themselves look as bad and ugly as any pundit could ever dream of.

Add to this China's blocking relief efforts in Darfour, repression in Tibet and other non-Han areas, support of the Burma regime and other incidents and China looks like a bugbear no better than the US at its worse. Now this is great for the US, China has proven to be the single greatest American tool in the region for maintaining American dominance despite Bush's best attempts to ruin our credibility on the global stage.

Officer of Engineers

Renew confidence is the direct result of modernization. I don't see how that could've been avoided. The PLA got their butts handed to them by the Vietnamese in the 1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War. The PLA returned the favour in the 1984 2nd Sino-VN War. As their modernization proceeds, the PLA would naturally gain more and more confidence (some justified, ie Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, maybe even India, some not justified, ie Japan, US,) against the array of foes they face.

Are you not reading too much into the article? It is about Chinese strategic thought, not about Chinese strategic success. Col Thomas is one of those who wants to know how his subject matters think. If you have not already, I do recommend you read more of his articles. They do dwell into the culture of the militaries he studies.

The Spratley claims dates back a long time and whether you agree with the stance or not, the Chinese had initiated force to claim the area back in the 1970s against at the time South Vietnam. They won that skirmish as well as a latter one against Vietnam in the 80s. So, the claim must be viewed in that context. They've won the right to claim through military victories long before the current challenges.

I would've thought the 4 Party Talks concerning North Korea was a Chinese success. It was the Chinese who forced the North Koreans to come to terms with South Korea and the US.

Was there any other way for an emerging power to behave otherwise? With the collapse of the USSR, China lost the strategic balance that made her so attractive to the US. The same thing happened in Afghanistan when the Mujahadeen was no longer useful to the US. Instead of the US telling her Asian interests to shut the hell up vis-a-vi China (ie, Taiwan independence, the Philipines arresting Chinese fishermen, and Japan keeping her military out of disputed areas), Chinese interests were all of a sudden left to fend for herself.

New player still trying to learn the game.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

Col. Thomas among others makes the claim that the Chinese play thier crds a certain way. I went looking for evidence of that claim only to find zero.



It angered and inflamed the areas other nations- good for arms dealers bad for China, specially as China refuses international arbitration on the issue. if nothing else the Spratly dispute tells everyone in Asia that the Chinese dragon is looking for empire and vassal states once more.

The results could have been much better for China. The US and South Korea got what they wanted- China still has to bear the bulk of the economic burden to keep Kim happy and playing with light sockets.

With thier own papers talking about the danger of a Sino-American rift (attributed to the Japanese) they knew not to take unnecessary action to anger the US. But anger they did and they did so on purpose and no one has supplied the why.

more than offset by the increasing economic ties, if not for the PLAN/PLAAF going bonkers relations between China and the US would be great and the lead paint issue would only be bad PR and not seen as one more reason to not trust China.

Ya, ramming an American EP-3 in international waters, denying ports of call and ports of refuge, issuing inflammatory statements sure did a lot to alleviate China's external pressures.

China has not to the best I can deduce followed a coherent policy aimed at advancing her objectives. Such a scatter plotted and uneven set of actions and policies precludes China having a type of unigue super duper "Chinese" strategem.



Again that precludes the notion of some sort of Chinese master-game.

WaltzingMatilda

Ramming an EP-3, denying port calls, harassing carriers, and issuing inflammatory statements certainly don't do wonders for Chinese relations, but they are hardly the sorts of actions that are going to lead to an erosion of security on a scale your talking about...mere pot shots. A coalition of major and minor powers hasn't emerged in the wake of these incidents, and China's economic growth and military modernization proceed apace.

Inst

I know I annoyed Xinhui out of this conversation, and perhaps also OoE, but mind if I ask a question?

zraver, is what you're asking of China submission? That is, it behaves by international norms and exists solely within the American-lead international system, tooting the American horn when it's asked?

China has a few major territorial disputes. One is on the Sino-Indian border. One is the island of Taiwan. One is the East China Sea natural gas fields. One is the Spratly Islands. If China were to do as you say, how many of these disputes would be resolved agreeably?

Officer of Engineers

I submit that you were looking for successes, not evidence of their thinking. I submit that Pakistan has effectively neutralized India vis-a-vi China. There is no India card for the US to play there.

The clashes happened in the 70s and 80s. I don't see the Philippines nor Indonesia increasing their naval presence to directly challenge the Chinese. In fact, quite the opposite as the Indians will tell you about the String of Pearls.

I don't see how. A collapsed North Korea would hurt both China and South Korea.

I don't think it was a matter of choice. With Tienamen, the Chinese have effectively distant themselves from American thinking as a friend. The Americans were no longer willing to speak up on behalf of a government who was willing to kill their own people.

Even with the best of friends, these things will happen. Mad Cow from Canada is the immediate example. However, I think the more appropriate example is the blind man looking for some light. With the modernization of both the PLAAF and the PLAN, you don't expect them to stay home and out to the world they will go. How they greet the world is another matter altogether but it is for certain that they will venture forth.

It was a shot across the bow for sure but we've had far more serious encounters with the former USSR. Submarine collisions. Planes were shot down. And we've went nose-to-nose daring the other guy to blink.

I thought you yourself have answered that. Chinese strategy is different, not super duper. They are human beings after all and cannot deal with the unknowns better than anyone else.

I don't think there is a Chinese master-game but there is a Chinese approach to the problems that is different than ours.

zraver

I would dissagree, the PRC went from the 3rd most powerful air force in Asia (by dint of size) after the US and Japan to no better than 6th after the US, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. For all her naval building she is falling behind as the other major nations in the area move to match and as the lesser ones are forced into Washington's orbit.

Inst,

Lets for a second pretend that I am a high muckety-muck in the CCP/PLA and I am in charge of engineering China's emergence on the world stage with the end result of being a world power.

The things I have to do

1- Get the arms and technology embargo lifted. France is ready willing just not able to transfer me technology by the boatload.

2- Establish a sound economic and political base

3- Get the population issue under control

4- Build or buy international good will.

5- build up domestic technology invention and innovation capabilities.

6- Keep the US and Japan in the dark about my real goals until I catch up and its to late for them to rebuild thier military and technology lead.

From 1989-2007 was plenty of time to achieve all of these. China has managed just 1/2 of two of them (economy and technology). 1-2-4 all benefit from "submission" to Washington. Things that really wouldn't hurt China an din fact would advance her cause. Moratorium on executions, more liberal policies for Tibetans, Uzbeks, Christians, and Falon Guang members. seeking UN resolution of the Spratly's issue. Anti-piracy patrols, backing the US in the UN (for other concessions from the US), talk about the possibility of non-reunification with Taiwan and the need for every people to have self determination (within limits that shield possessions in Tibet and central Asia), not even one provocation of the US military. Invite the US military in to observe and even give pointers on the right way to do things. None of this says I have to stop building my military after all to the south I have to worry about a "rouge" nuclear state in India, I do have a huge coast line to guard etc. I make China the model nation and damn the short term costs the only goal is to keep America fooled and actually doing what I want (dropping the embargo, WTO membership, favored nation trade status, reduced American military presence in Japan etc) until I can deliver a fait accompli where the US and Japan have no choice but to step aside as China emerges as the "power player" in the region.

In other words get the cat to eat the peppers.

OoE,

I don't see the difference between thier thinking from 89 onward and our own.

The string of pearls like Prestor John, and the Holy Grail is more myth than fact and it is not a serious challenge to the Indian navy. India's counter stroke is far more effective. Increasing ties with the US and de-facto US acceptance of India as a nuclear weapon state.

Inst

Also, zraver, please read the article. It has a completely theoretical focus; when it says that the Chinese are more strategically advanced than the United States, they refer to the sophistication of its theory, not the effectiveness of its action. I wanted to attack the article, so I asked for its application in reality, and OoE kindly provided an example.

WaltzingMatilda

Would that I could measure military capability as effeciently and effectively as you seem to...I won't even ask you to spell out the direct causal chain, as its grown repetitious...and repetitious.

zraver

I don't think the evidence supports the articles claims.

Officer of Engineers

I submit that it was the 3rd largest but nowhere near the 3rd most powerful. The PLAAF had a life expectancy of 30 minutes against the USSR.

I take it then you agree with Deng Xia Peng's policies.

I admit that I don't know how they think. All I can see is the results, not at how they were thought out.

For minimal investment, the Chinese have politically constrained the Indians. The String of Pearls is a political/diplomatic stroke, not military.

Blademaster

Those ground realities can be changed at a moment's notice. That is the extent of Chinese's strength, power and influence. How long would China enjoy these advantages? I think that is the big question.

Officer of Engineers

I think Pakistan would be a Chinese advantage for a long time to come if for nothing else, Pakistan represents the China's North Korean nightmare for India. I think Dehli is having nightmares about a collapsed Pakistan at the moment.

The String of Pearls is a money issue. I'm sure that if someone with big enough purse comes along, it would go away. However, two issues here. The one player with the purse ain't interested and the other don't want to spend what the Chinese are spending.

Blademaster

Personally I think a collapsed Pakistan is the best thing for India. It permanently removes a enemy state actor from the stage and allows India greater freedom. Besides, Baluchistan and Sindh are more favorable towards India than Punjab and it completely resolves the Kashmir issue.

Yes it is a money thing. However with respect to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, in the case of Sri Lanka, if India resolves the religion question of Ram's bridge and build the land bridge to Sri Lanka, it would completely take away the pearl from China's String of Pearls. As for Bangladesh, she is completely surrounded by India except for a narrow strip connecting to Burma. If India completely walls Bangladesh off, it is a lot more manaeagble.

Officer of Engineers

You're thinking transition. Not a collapse. Czechoslovakia was a transition. Yugoslavia was a collapse.