PDA

View Full Version : A Different View of China


The Reaper
04-14-2006, 17:30
This is a point I have articulated before.

The Chinese need us worse than we need them.

They just seem to be better at getting what they want than we are.

TR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/troubled_china.html

April 14, 2006
Conventional Wisdom Overlooks China's Troubles
By Richard Halloran

When President Hu Jintao of China meets with President George W. Bush in Washington on Thursday, he will have behind him a troubled and vulnerable nation that will surely put him in a weakened negotiating posture with the Americans.

The conventional wisdom on China today holds that it has generated an economic miracle that is propelling Beijing into the top ranks of the global arena. While there is much truth in that image, it overlooks widespread political unrest, vast unemployment and under-employment, and a disruptive disparity in the sharing of economic progress.

Moreover, China's reliance on exports to drive its economic engine has left it exposed to external pressures, notably from the United States. Foreign investment has faltered. China has sought to lock up supplies of energy without much success. China's shipping lanes through the Malacca Strait in Southeast Asia are unprotected.

In addition are looming water shortages that affect not only agriculture but the economy and national security, inadequate public health and safety programs, and pollution caused by dumping industrial waste, accidental spills, and harmful smoke billowing from factories everywhere.

The U.S. Pacific Command, which is responsible for deterring or countering potential threats from China, summed up its annual economic assessment of the Asia-Pacific region with perhaps an understatement: "China faces great uncertainty."

The Chinese government has disclosed, through its official Xin Hua news agency, that there were 85,000 incidents of protest in 2005, up from 74,000 in 2004 and 58,000 the year before. A study by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York attributed those outbursts to "land confiscation, pollution, taxation, corruption, and religion," meaning religious persecution.

"Surging social unrest reflects frustration, particularly in the countryside, with the lack of redress available through official channels," the council found. Many protests are peaceful demonstrations but occasionally the police become repressive and in one instance at least, opened fired on the protesters and killed several.

Accurate estimates of unemployment and under-employment, meaning a worker has only one or two days work a week, range between 20 and 40 percent. Some 125 million people, equal to the population of Japan, are in motion every day looking for jobs. While urban Chinese have become better off, people in rural areas are getting poorer.

In a new twist, The New York Times reported earlier this month that shortages of skilled labor had appeared in coastal China where much of Chinese industry is situated. As the nation moves from low-tech to higher tech manufacturing, workers apparently are not being trained fast enough.

In trade, China ran a $202 billion surplus with the United States last year, the highest on record. A disruption of that export surplus, which might inconvenience Americans, could tip China's economy into a tailspin.

China sells little to the United States that Americans couldn't buy for comparable prices and quality from India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. China, however, could not find a market anywhere near the size of that in America. Privately and candidly, Chinese scholars acknowledge this.

Moreover, foreign investment in companies and plants in China has leveled off. It peaked at $60 billion in 2004, was the same in 2005, and is projected not to rise this year. Some Americans worry that China's holding of $262 billion in U.S. Treasury bills gives Beijing leverage over Washington. That, however, is less than 12 percent of all foreign holdings.

Robert Zoellick, U.S. deputy secretary of state, said in September that U.S. business executives who saw China as a land of opportunity in the 1990's now "worry about Chinese competition, rampant piracy, counterfeiting, and currency manipulation."

Emblematic of China's energy concerns is what Ian Storey, a scholar at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, calls "China's Malacca Dilemma." China gets 60 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, mostly shipped through the Malacca or Lombok Straits into the South China Sea.

"Over the past few years," Storey says, "Chinese leaders have come to view the straits, especially the Malacca Strait, as a strategic vulnerability." Beijing fears that its oil tankers "could be interdicted by hostile naval forces," which are unnamed but clearly mean those of the U.S. Navy.

"Any disruption to the free flow of energy resources into China," Storey concludes, "could derail the economic growth on which the Chinese government depends to shore-up its legitimacy and pursue its great power ambitions."

It has long been said that all foreign policy is rooted in domestic politics and economics. In China's case, that is doubly true.

Richard Halloran, formerly with The New York Times as a foreign correspondent in Asia and military correspondent in Washington, writes from Honolulu. He can be reached at oranhall@hawaii.rr.com

NousDefionsDoc
04-14-2006, 17:48
I agree.

What we have to watch for is desperation, not agression.

Cincinnatus
04-14-2006, 18:17
I agree.

What we have to watch for is desperation, not agression.

I started to say that that's a distinction without a difference, but I guess that's not really accurate. Rather, the former could become the latter verrry quickly.

Sdiver
04-14-2006, 20:10
I agree.

What we have to watch for is desperation, not agression.

But could it become that desperation that turns into aggression, internally? Could the people rise up and mount a coup against the communist leadership.

I don't think that China will do anything for the next couple of years, what with their hosting the next summer Olympics in two years. This might be a good opportunity for them underground dissidents (which I'm sure there's quit a few) will do something to further their cause.

Martin
04-15-2006, 11:10
A telling part about the discussion about China is that it is generally more or less assumed that it would be big guns and fighter jets soaring the skies.

Today that seems unlikely among other reasons due to what the above article says.

Then why do countries fight?

I think we need to take more into consideration what the current and possible future leadership of China want and weigh that with their domestic situation and outside pressures and possibilities.

The matter of fact is that even if China would have wanted and been able to invade and conquer the US later this evening, they may gain more long-term by not doing it now. Yet again, if they had been able to do it, they would gain a lot by doing it, so the question becomes about who is in power and who has to be pleased or quieted, or have their focus redirected. It is not all economics, but if we look at the economics, they too will have a huge market in the future, and theirs is growing. Of course, this ties into where they see the most gain and besides looking at the regime and more at the people and middle to upper class, they would get more out of having more markets to sell to. On the other hand, they seem to think that they can handle themselves without outside help.

Yet China cannot compete in a creative manner and that is going to lead to mounting pressure for openness. And again, if increased competitiveness and internal tension is combined with outside irritation over for example piracy and currency re-evaluation, that is a big question about what would happen to the region or how they would handle it. If we submit on these issues, they have won. Piracy they will sort out internally sooner or later, at least that of their own products.

Let's suppose that the regime wants to stay in power and keep society vibrant, then I think it more likely that they will drain the rest of the world and the US specifically of brain power. In the long run this could move their political system to create friction with other elements, say the military.

So how about mitigating that future internal friction and current and future outside pressure by manipulating domestic US issues? Shape the battlefields around the world and engage states as fits the developmental and security needs while furnishing a grander state at home and subvert the US not to the point where it is all dead, but where it has de facto lost its ability to do anything else than cry and study physics, then take the research and commercialize it.

China would not gain much from writing its name over the world, but power does not demand it.

Okay... that was more than I intended to write. Have had a few thoughts in these lines before, but this is really just off the top of my head, so take it with a grain of salt.

Martin

Martin
04-15-2006, 11:37
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008244

M

tk27
04-15-2006, 13:13
My $.02:
We need them, they need us, basic interdependence theory. Normal Angell won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1933 for his work in 1910 explaining that Europe would not go to war with itself because it was so interconnected. History proved him wrong, but he was on to something.
What’s different now? Nukes. The advent of nuclear weapons essentially eliminated Great Power war (we have not had one since 1945), for connected states nukes are for having not using. Until China develops a secure second-strike capability, their actions are checked by interdependence and (Mutual?) Assured Destruction.


That said, I am much more worried of China’s threat to itself then to the U.S. In short, China is in internal chaos. Thomas Barnett points out six revolutions going on in China:

1. Shift from agriculture to industry
2. Shift from central planning to free markets
3. Shift from top-down political authoritarianism to bottom-up pluralism
4. Shift from central political control to stronger forms of provincial government
5. Shift from disconnection from outside world to globalizations networked connectivity
6. Demographic revolution, China is getting old, and amongst the youth there is a vast gender asymmetry

Honestly, I don’t know how they haven’t imploded already. What’s happening in China is monumental. And the only thing that keeps it from spiraling out of control and the CCP from being hung from streetlamps is economic growth. This hinges on markets to export to and secure energy supplies to fuel this dragon.

They just seem to be better at getting what they want than we are.
RealPolitik, the CCP makes Henry Kissinger look like Alec Baldwin. They have absolutely no room for idealism. Every Foreign Policy decision they make must be optomized in their best interest, and not impede economic growth b/c of the domestic powder keg they face. However, they have a very complex form of Statecraft and have become very adept at utilizing Soft-Power, again its because its a tool that works.

TFM
04-15-2006, 13:58
1.Shift from agriculture to industry
2. Shift from central planning to free markets
3. Shift from top-down political authoritarianism to bottom-up pluralism
4. Shift from central political control to stronger forms of provincial government
5. Shift from disconnection from outside world to globalizations networked connectivity
6. Demographic revolution, China is getting old, and amongst the youth there is a vast gender asymmetry

Yea, they got issues.
Personally, I don't see them as much of a threat, for now. Once they resolve these issues it will be a different story.

tk27
04-15-2006, 14:23
Yea, they got issues.
Personally, I don't see them as much of a threat, for now. Once they resolve these issues it will be a different story.
Different story with a country that has an advanced free market economy, decentralized pluralistic government, and is connected into the modern globalized world? That sounds an aweful lot like us.
Im not saying that China should be completly discounted as a threat, or even that we shouldnt be cocked, locked and ready to rock with anybody. But I am skeptical to chalk China in the enemy category just yet.


Of Related Interest:
Barnett: WWCD: What would Churchill do? (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_4601847,00.html)

Huey14
04-16-2006, 23:03
Interesting.

I haven't been here long enough to form a solid opinion but currently I would dispute the wording "internal chaos". It doesn't seem like the right phrase to use.

I also doubt, based on what I've seen thus far, that the people would rise against the government.

magician
04-16-2006, 23:24
A phenomenon that I am observing is China's relationship with Burma (Myanmar).

There are economic opportunities in Burma, particularly in the exploitation of off-shore natural gas fields, that are being snapped up by the Chinese.

This is an area where the sanctions against Burma are really benefitting the Chinese.

tk27
04-17-2006, 08:23
I would dispute the wording "internal chaos". It doesn't seem like the right phrase to use.

You are probably right, sensationalist wording on my part.

But what I see going on just leaves me awestruck. The scale China operates on is just mind boggling. Consider this:
- The current migration of people from the countryside into cities is becoming one of the largest mass migrations in human history.
- China and the U.S. will both hit the “Florida Mark” in 2036, that is 20% of the population over the age of 65. It will take the U.S. 64 years to travel from 10% to 20% (1972-2036), China will do it 19 years (2017-2036).
- China will experience around 9% GDP growth for the next 20 years, think of the shock to the economic and social systems.

China's relationship with Burma
I've heard they may run pipeline over Burma and into China to skirt problems in the Straits of Malacca. They cant afford morality in their Foreign Policy right now.

Thanks for your insights, more questions and comments to come...

tk27
04-19-2006, 07:54
Assessing China's power, By Joseph S. Nye Jr. The Boston Globe, April 19, 2006.
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/19/assessing_chinas_power/)

The Latest Issue of The Jamestown Foundations China Brief (http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=415&&issue_id=3686) is devoted to energy security issues.

tk27
05-24-2006, 19:02
DoD has released its annual report to congress on China's military build-up. Its in PDF form:

Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2006.
Office of the Secretary of Defense. (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China%20Report%202006.pdf)