Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 224

Thread: China threatens U.S. Congress for crossing its ‘red line’ on Taiwan

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The concept is deterrence; not implementation. It's not whether China can absorb the hit. They can. And they let it be known that they're perfectly willing to take the hit. The question is just how determine would a Taiwanese Independence be willing to take that hit. If the Taiwanese have nothing to lose or everything to gain from Independence, then military action would be the only way to prevent it. However, what China is showing is that the Taiwanese have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they go independent.

    It's not about the Chinese Mainland taking Taiwan by military conquest. It's about Taiwan not declaring that it is no longer part of China.
    Economy, which is why I was wondering why Taiwan did not declare independence earlier. Not much to gain unless China begins to assert control.

    Btw, what's going on your mind when you say China can absorb the hit? If the western world, Japan, pacific rim countries, India stops buying and puts sanctions, how many years can China absorb the shock. Won't the oridinary Chinese hunt CPC with pitchforks?

    I understand your admiration for Sunderji and deterrance, however I think it's a bit over-rated. It might have worked during the cold war, and to an extent even now, but it won't last forever. This is a 70s ideology that needs to be replaced to suit todays' realities. If the US wants to initiate a nuclear war, I don't think any country has the means to stop it. Deterrance fails then.

  2. #17
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Btw, what's going on your mind when you say China can absorb the hit? If the western world, Japan, pacific rim countries, India stops buying and puts sanctions, how many years can China absorb the shock. Won't the oridinary Chinese hunt CPC with pitchforks?
    China's growth rate dropped from 10.8 to 6.1 over the last few years

    Every 1% drop puts 20 million peple out of work.

    So as a result of the drop there should be 80 million plus out of work now.

    Xi's moves to consolidate are to preempt any problems that may arise.

    As far as protests go in China, they are as lively as they've always been, to the tune of 200k per year but the CCP isn't threatened yet
    Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Nov 17, at 14:45.

  3. #18
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    China's growth rate dropped from 10.8 to 6.1 over the last few years

    Every 1% drop puts 20 million peple out of work.

    So as a result of the drop there should be 80 million plus out of work now.

    Xi's moves to consolidate are to preempt any problems that may arise.

    As far as protests go in China, they are as lively as they've always been, to the tune of 200k per year but the CCP isn't threatened yet
    The IMF has Chinas projected growth rate this year at 6.7% which is the same they have for India.

  4. #19
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The question is will China let its economy take a hit because of an island. If they have learnt their lesson during the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, CPC would be foolish to pursue hegemonic expansion policies. The other thing is how long can China absorb the hit, a year, two, three, then what? China is losing favour with the western world, can China sustain its economy selling dirt cheap goods to Pak, NK and poor African countries.
    I suggest you take a look at this Pew study which has the U.S. with the biggest drop off in popularity.
    Meanwhile Australia maintains a very high positive outlook on China.
    In South America all bar one country views china more positively than they do the U.S.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...vie-for-first/

  5. #20
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    The IMF has Chinas projected growth rate this year at 6.7% which is the same they have for India.
    You still got millions out of work

    4 x 20 million yes ?

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    China's growth rate dropped from 10.8 to 6.1 over the last few years

    Every 1% drop puts 20 million peple out of work.

    So as a result of the drop there should be 80 million plus out of work now.

    Xi's moves to consolidate are to preempt any problems that may arise.

    As far as protests go in China, they are as lively as they've always been, to the tune of 200k per year but the CCP isn't threatened yet
    I don't know how this is an answer to my post.

    But 200K protests per year? WTH! What kind of protests? And for all the dictum that gets thrown around in foreign boards about poverty/illiteracy in other countries, there still are poor in China. The millions of factory workers are not rich by any measure.



    In any case, what Dengs' policies did was to lift 700+ million Chinese out of poverty, yes, out of poverty, did not make them all dollar millionaires. Which in itself is a feat that is unparalleled in human history. But every high has a low. No country can sustain a growth of 10% decades after decades, why is why the BRI a.k.a debt trap to gain geo-strategic upper hand and maintain the economic hustle.

    Every 1% drop puts 20 million peple out of work.
    I remember reading this figure some years back from a piece by S.A. Aiyer about Indias' GDP. Considering both direct and indirect jobs, and scale of Chinas' economy, shouldn't the figures be more?
    Last edited by Oracle; 08 Nov 17, at 03:58.

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I don't know how this is an answer to my post.
    You said ..

    If the western world, Japan, pacific rim countries, India stops buying and puts sanctions, how many years can China absorb the shock. Won't the oridinary Chinese hunt CPC with pitchforks?
    if presumably they were put out of work by sanctions.



    I pointed out as a result of a 4% drop in growth rate that theoretically around 80 million are out of work and then asked whether the CPC is threatened right now.

    Does not seem like it. Though Xi's consolidation pf power can be seen as an attempt to avert just that. Make it harder for any political opponents to create trouble in the years ahead

    So they can handle more of a hit, question is how much more
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 17, at 11:02.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You said ..



    if presumably they were put out of work by sanctions.



    I pointed out as a result of a 4% drop in growth rate that theoretically around 80 million are out of work and then asked whether the CPC is threatened right now.

    Does not seem like it. Though Xi's consolidation pf power can be seen as an attempt to avert just that. Make it harder for any political opponents to create trouble in the years ahead

    So they can handle more of a hit, question is how much more
    Ah! Got it.

    You calculated it based on GDP figures, which isn't likely to touch 10% anytime soon or maybe never. 80 million unemployed means 400 (family consisting of parents, wife and 1 child, with the man) million eat less. Jobs that are lost ain't coming back. They are moving to cheaper destinations like Vietnam, Bangladesh. Then there is automation which will wipe away millions of jobs. And, if sanctions were to come, it would be a disaster, though it might require barbarism of an unseen level. The question that I asked is, how long can China sustain itself?

  9. #24
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The question that I asked is, how long can China sustain itself?
    to which OOE said

    It's not whether China can absorb the hit. They can. And they let it be known that they're perfectly willing to take the hit.
    So the sanctions are on, jobs are down. Now what

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    What? Where do you see sanctions against China? Who sanctioned and why?

  11. #26
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    Hypothetical

    Now what

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Hypothetical

    Now what
    I don't think comparing sanctions to a 4% fall in GDP serves the purpose. The GDP fall and the resulting jobs losses are because of increasing wages (jobs moving to cheaper destinations like Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh) and some due to automation, but the fire in the factories are still burning. Sanctions will hit Chinas' ability to do business. Millions will go jobless overnight. And I don't think bargain basement prices or any amount of lobbying would work for China when the shit hits the fan. US sees China as a rival both economically and militarily. This is not the 90s.

  13. #28
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,878
    China wants the US out of its backyard and is building up the requisite force to eject it when the time is right. Question is will force be necessary or not. Can't see the US leaving otherwise. And so we have the second coming of the quad, Abe's diamond of security

    An Indo-Pacific quad is the right response to Beijing | AFR | Nov 7 2017

    by Rory Medcalf
    Whatever the political confusion at home, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will today fly into Asian summit season with a chart for Australia to navigate a troubled region.

    Through word and deed, the government is defining a policy to manage uncertainties about China and America by embedding these relationships in a larger Indo-Pacific region that suits our interests and geography.

    Hints have been dropped in the Prime Minister's recent words in Perth and his speech at the Shangri-La security dialogue in Singapore in June – an enduring statement of what Australia stands for – as well as in strong remarks by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

    In short, Australia is serving itself as a country that values a regional and global system in which might is not right and in which the interests of all nations are acknowledged.

    Calling this a rules-based order may be too neat a shorthand. Power matters too, and our policymakers know it – how else to explain the build-up of our defence force and cyber assets?

    Australia's approach is to fuse respect for rules and norms with a healthy strategy of balancing against China's over-reaching ambitions and capabilities.

    Some critics fret this does not simply involve loosening the US alliance and hewing to a China-centric order. Thankfully, the leadership in both major political parties recognises the need for a more sophisticated approach, especially now they are mindful of efforts to erode Australian sovereignty from within.

    Australia under Turnbull is recognising – in quiet continuity with Abbott, Gillard, Rudd, Howard and every other Prime Minister before – that China is not the only Asian country that matters.

    Others, not least India, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam and South Korea, warrant large measures of partnership and respect in a multipolar Indo-Pacific. They do not want Beijing's interests privileged at their expense. And China has sought to coerce all of them in recent years.

    Deep down, no substantial Asian country, other than perhaps Pakistan and North Korea, wants China strategically dominant.

    Hence the logic that Australia is calmly propounding in its creative regional diplomacy.

    We will use inclusive forums such as the East Asia Summit – which China tried in 2005 to keep us out of – to ensure that big nations are called to account when they challenge the rights and interests of others.

    But this is supplemented by a new networked approach that flexibly engages capable Asian partners such as India, Japan, Singapore and Vietnam and does not rely solely on the US alliance.

    This explains low-key achievements like deepened defence ties with Japan and India, and a trilateral strategic dialogue with them, where we get to talk candidly about America as well as about China.

    At the same time, and despite the crude unpredictability of Trump, the US alliance remains an irreplaceable advantage for Australia, in technology, intelligence, strategic weight and deterrence.

    Strikingly, the United States now embraces the Indo-Pacific concept that Australian policy has patiently promoted since the Gillard government introduced it in 2013.

    This is a recognition that India and the Indian Ocean are vital parts of our region, partly in response to the fact that China is expanding its interests, power and naval presence so far afield.

    Japan and India too are now active proponents of this wider regional approach. Indeed, Tokyo, New Delhi and Washington see a "free and open Indo-Pacific" as a direct answer to the geo-economic and strategic leverage Beijing is seeking through the maritime part of its One Belt One Road Initiative, an Indo-Pacific with Chinese characteristics.

    All this means there is sense in reserving the right to pursue novel strategic dialogues that would involve the United States alongside emerging Asian partners such as India and Japan.

    Another commentator for The Australian Financial Review, Beijing-based business adviser and former ambassador Geoff Raby, claims the mere act of bringing together officials from these four countries to talk about issues would be "potentially dangerous".

    Presumably the contention is that this would fuel undesirable phenomena like assertiveness, paranoia, mistrust, foreign interference and military modernisation on China's part.

    Yet similar arguments were made 10 years ago when the four nations briefly held their first dreaded "quadrilateral" – a conversation about disaster relief, based on the experience of the four democracies as the core group of responders to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

    The dialogue was then abandoned under Chinese pressure. Yet rather than placate Beijing, such acquiescence only encourages it. The region has seen increasingly unsettling Chinese strategic behaviour for most of the decade since. All the bad things the quad would supposedly provoke have occurred in its absence.

    The fact that China and those who seem to privilege its perspective are allergic to the idea of the quad confirms that it is an option worth keeping in mind for balancing Chinese influence.

    This is not about that much-abused word "containment". That was a Cold War strategy to isolate the Soviet Union in every way, including economically. No government advocates containment of China.

    Instead, Australia is right to craft a healthy diversity of diplomatic dialogues, some including China, some including America, some including neither.

    Australia would not dare censor any other nation's choice of diplomatic dialogues. It would be an affront to an independent foreign policy to allow another country to veto ours.

    Professor Rory Medcalf is Head of the National Security College at the Australian National University and a Nonresident Fellow at the Lowy Institute.
    That is provided, in the future, the Aussies do not elect another mandarin speaking Lay-bor PM who will back scuttle it like Rudd did back in 2008

    Or the Americans do not elect a president that is the Champ at the art of back slide or us getting cold feet or the militarist pacifist Japanese.

    Those are the inherent weaknesses in a coalition of democracies against an autocrat who can play one off the other, with ease

    Just how troubling will this so called quad be to China anyway ? These countries want to contain China but the container has holes.

    History has shown the best way to motivate Americans is to bomb them. Japanese at pearl harbour or OBL for 9/11. Then they put things in place and end up writing history.

    But China won't do that

    Key american goal is to ensure no power can dominate either end of the Eurasian landmass. Soviets threatened to do that once, no WW3 ensued. Now it is China

    Have to maintain a cold peace
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Nov 17, at 14:26.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Economy, which is why I was wondering why Taiwan did not declare independence earlier. Not much to gain unless China begins to assert control.
    There's a lot of history here. Up until Chiang Kei Shek's death, the Taipei Government had dreams of reconquering China. Considering the upheaval of GPCR and the mini Civil War that Zhou En-Lai fought to disband the Red Guards, it was not unrealistic.

    However, declaring independence would be for nothing if no major power backs you. The US was counting on China against Moscow. Britian and France was not keen to protect Taiwan. The USSR would never recognize a KMT government over a Communist One.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Btw, what's going on your mind when you say China can absorb the hit? If the western world, Japan, pacific rim countries, India stops buying and puts sanctions, how many years can China absorb the shock. Won't the oridinary Chinese hunt CPC with pitchforks?
    There would be no such sanctions. What? India is going to sanction China over Beijing's sanctioning of Taiwan? We're not talking military actions here. We're talking one government deciding not to do business with another. How on earth would you put trade sanctions on that? You're going to boycott Android phones because Beijing refuses to lend Taiwan money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I understand your admiration for Sunderji and deterrance, however I think it's a bit over-rated. It might have worked during the cold war, and to an extent even now, but it won't last forever. This is a 70s ideology that needs to be replaced to suit todays' realities. If the US wants to initiate a nuclear war, I don't think any country has the means to stop it. Deterrance fails then.
    It's far older than the 70s. The sayings, kill the chickens in front of the monkeys, a donkey loaded with gold is the best way to take a castle. It is this kind of mindset that allowed Sundarji and Nie to prosper. And this kind of mindset will continue to dominate Chinese and Indian military thinking for the foreseeable future.

    Asia reads Sun Tzu far more than Carl von Clausewitz.

    BTW, Russia didn't need nukes to destroy Grozny. Nor did the Americans to Baghdad.

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    China wants the US out of its backyard and is building up the requisite force to eject it when the time is right. Question is will force be necessary or not. Can't see the US leaving otherwise. And so we have the second coming of the quad, Abe's diamond of security

    An Indo-Pacific quad is the right response to Beijing | AFR | Nov 7 2017
    Chinese force building to eject American presence in Afghanistan will take atleast 3 decades if the Chinese get their hands on cutting edge military innovation straight or if they can steal it. In these 3 decades the Americans would have developed an 8th gen stealth UCAV fighter + bomber and OR/ a stealth flying AC we see in movies. So, whatever we hear in the media about how the world is going to be multi-polar, that's for local consumption. The US was, is, and will be, a force unlike any, till the end of this century. Innovation feeds the American military much like their economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    That is provided, in the future, the Aussies do not elect another mandarin speaking Lay-bor PM who will back scuttle it like Rudd did back in 2008

    Or the Americans do not elect a president that is the Champ at the art of back slide or us getting cold feet or the militarist pacifist Japanese.
    The Aussies feed commodities to the Chinese and are reliant on them from an economic POV. I am also not sure how India will react if there is a conflict. We hardly are non-aligned now, but I don't think India will let itself in on a conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Those are the inherent weaknesses in a coalition of democracies against an autocrat who can play one off the other, with ease
    They did it with the Aussies in 2008. The Aussies see that now, India was not comfortable and against an Aussie holiday in the Indian Ocean region, which now seems to be relapsing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Just how troubling will this so called quad be to China anyway ? These countries want to contain China but the container has holes.
    Unless the holes are patched with some kind of a military pact, it will continue to lay off the Chinese but cannot contain them. Australia/Japan both enjoy the privilege of US nuclear umbrella.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    History has shown the best way to motivate Americans is to bomb them. Japanese at pearl harbour or OBL for 9/11. Then they put things in place and end up writing history.

    But China won't do that

    Key american goal is to ensure no power can dominate either end of the Eurasian landmass. Soviets threatened to do that once, no WW3 ensued. Now it is China

    Have to maintain a cold peace
    Soviet control of a warm water port in the IOR was what every country was worried about. The Chinese very silently stole a march and own it now. Did any country or intelligence agency ever think of the Chinese owning Gwadar?
    Last edited by Oracle; 14 Nov 17, at 09:03.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Third day of Shanghai strike threatens China exports
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02 May 11,, 22:03
  2. Drought threatens China wheat production
    By Shuimo in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12 Feb 09,, 15:31
  3. Tibet rail line is a marvel, but China is mum
    By lemontree in forum International Politics
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 19 Sep 05,, 17:32
  4. China Threatens U.S. Alliances
    By Julie in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 16 May 05,, 08:44

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •