Chinese General Threatens To Use Nukes

[dennisw]

It seems to me that we are failing to make a distinction between a capitalism model which we use inside our borders and a model which applies to international community. I believe most of the folks on this site are for capitalism. However, I believe the issues are a little murky when you get into the international market. For instance, when international capitalism and national security conflict, what are the rules?

The Chinese company which is attempting to purchase Unocal is owned mostly by a fear based communist government and is financing the purchase with government interest free loans, I believe our pure capitalism model breaks down. I do not believe questioning this transaction labels one a communist. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? A communist government is trying to purchase Unocal.

In order for the capitalism model to work, the playing field has to be level, and it is not in this situation. We cannot purchase stock in this acquiring company, but they can purchase Unocal. How is that capitalism?

We are currently in a deadly battle with this controlling and communist government over oil. I do not believe it is a pure capitalism argument. The question that still remains unanswered is: when international capitalism and national security conflict, what are the rules? I say national security trumps the capitalism argument, especially when dealing with a entity controlled by a communist government.

[D9 (RIP)]

All the points I would make in this discussion have been well covered by TR, but just to tease out one point he hit on a little further.

A few weeks ago, shortly after the announcement of the aborted Unocal deal, the Wall Street Journal featured a profile of the Chinese quasi-company involved. The great irony was that the management of this company has a very profit-oriented, capitalisitic business model. It's internal policies were meritocractic, with efficiency and profitability as the number one goals and competition encouraged within the ranks. This, IMHO, is a microcosm of a bigger, internal problem that seriously threatens China as it emerges into economic prominence. Namely, that while the handful of nominally-communistic militant thugs that run that country want to become the pre-eminent bully in the region, to get there they have to tolerate and even foster the kind of ideas in their citizenry that are the greatest threat to their government cum racket.

In every dictatorship in recent history - Nazi Germany, Sov Union, China, Cambodia, Taliban Afghanistan, et al - the foremost concern of these tyrants (be they individual or by committee) is the supression of ideas that are incompatible with the culture of fear that give plausibility to their repressive undertakings. The fortunate irony for these power-lusting dictatorships, is that the same ideas that so threaten them are the very ones that are necessary for them to become powerful. And so I expect it to be in China, that they have a choice to make: 1) maintain their solid hold on their population, crushing dissent - they will have to maintain this if they intend to steer China towards a conflagration with the United States, or 2) pursue a path of economic success and material happiness, and accept with it the culture that will make using all that wealth for militaristic adventures dangerous on the homefront.

China is right now telling its people that a new era has dawned, when their own happiness and prosperity can become the new cultural standard (if this article can be believed, or anything can be generalized from it). Once you let people get used to the idea that they are making for themselves, you make it much harder on yourself in the future to enlist all their hard earned wealth in destructive power grabs.

Either way, it's a dangerous and unpredictable future with China. They are building a Navy, for instance, that many experts believe is intended to challenge us for control of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. Just pointing out that their path is frought with its own obstacles.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by D9

Either way, it's a dangerous and unpredictable future with China. They are building a Navy, for instance, that many experts believe is intended to challenge us for control of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans.

I'm sure the Navy is relieved.

[cybear]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I think the Chinese would do it. They regularly use guys like this to sound out their policy to the rest of the world. It'll be interesting to observe Washington's reaction. Also interesting to note - I haven't seen it in the mainstream media yet. TR has a legit point but our nuclear arsenal has suffered treaty and budget problems that the Chinese don't have. (A lot of open source stuff that can be cross checked.) We don't have an overpowering throw weight advantage like we used to. Advantages we had in precision guidance and efficiency, Clinton gave away. On the bright side - maybe we can get the congresscritters that have been fighting the SDI to volunteer themselves as hunan shields (pun intended). Just some thinking on what could be an interesting threat. Peregrino

I guess this is where our 3-stage missile defense system needs to come close to perfection. Although, one thing working in our favor is that ever since China opened it's markets 15+ years ago, there is more and more western influence. More and more of a movement towards democracy. The more they see how well we are flourishing over here, the more the people in China want our way of life. The end result is they realize communism doesn't work.

Taiwan is somewhat a planted seed to spread democracy in that region. A little speck against the "Iron Curtain" or the "Bambo Curtain" as some may call it.

Joe

[dennisw]

What concrete evidence have you seen that the Chinese government is moving towards democracy? I believe we are mixing apples with oranges and confusing entering the free market system and with establishing a democracy.

[cybear]

Originally Posted by dennisw

What concrete evidence have you seen that the Chinese government is moving towards democracy? I believe we are mixing apples with oranges and confusing entering the free market system and with establishing a democracy.

There are more and more pro-democry protests taking place. More college students demonstrating, and a huge outcry in Hong Kong over policy implemented by the communists.

We still must maintain our presense and infuence though.

[rwt_bkk]

I think the previous posts about confusing democracy with the market economy is correct.

Even more is confusing the goal of the communists in getting enough funds to return China to a status of world power and their ability to keep control over the economy and finances of the country through a "market economy" to allow the Chinese government to reap the benefits. This is a PLANNED STRATEGY of control and careful strengthening of the Government and more particularly the Chinese Armed Forces.

China has made a lot of statements about their future in the world and the underlying message is that we are going to be a major world power in every way in the future: economically, politically and militarily. The way the world really works is that you must have economic power before anything else, then you follow that with political and finally military.

Chinese strategy is working and has been working for decades. They are showing a lot of skill in hiding behind the mask while the hands are at work behind the back. Most people are just concentrating on the mask of commercial opportunity.

The reality of companies doing business INSIDE China is a lot different than people would like to publicly admit. Most are not making that much money and a lot of western companies has lost a ton of money. In most cases they find Chinese factories (usually their "partners") ripping off their designs and technology and selling out the back door. What China wants is the technology and know-how, and of course jobs so that they don't have a revolution with jobless workers.

The balance is delicate as they "allow" the west to enter, steal the technology and then upgrade their own defense systems to try to equal the west.

In the long run the Chinese will be the biggest threat the west has ever faced.

[Bill Harsey]

rwt_bkk,
Much truth to your words.
There are many problems with production of US goods in China including Chinas complete and total lack of respect for intellectual property rights (copyright, patent and trademark for other knifemakers reading here) which makes up the corner stone upon which our ability to do business as a free people is based.

[JGarcia]

I imagine the type of communism practiced in china is much different than the communism practiced in the past. So much different, that I think it borders on nationalism. Wikipedia defines nationalism in part as : "Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state"

Websters says: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

I understand Chiang Kai-shek was the head of the defeated Chinese Nationalists. But I wonder if his form of Nationalism actually fit these defenitions above.

China was a world power long before Europe, and is a very old society. They know their history as the dominant power of asia. I am wondering if we are witnessing the transition from communism to nationalism in china today, I don't think they are a free market economy like the west, but they certainly aren't complete communists either. There is a purpose to, or a goal for the ecomomic strategy they practice. I think its a goal that is well defined by nationalism. I agree that they seek ecomomic prominence, if they havn't acheived that already. The next steps of political and military prominence make sense to me.

I don't see the United States taking actions to stop China from acheiving its goals. So I guess I would like to ask all of you, what would the world be like with an economic, politcal, and military giant china? The US is becoming more like Australia in that we don't produce much anymore.

[Huey14]

I wouldn't say China was a world power before Europe.

[jatx]

Hey, guys, just a reminder from your resident economist. Nations don't trade. Businesses trade. Usually in an effort to keep up with your demand.

Don't expect Uncle Sam to wade in and save you in a fight that you should have won at work.

[Detcord]

China is evil, period.

Remember that the next time you go to Walmart or Home Depot and buy the crap on the shelves made in China...

[Huey14]

China is evil or the Chinese government is evil?

They're not one and the same.