The Chinese
“president”, now dictator for life, Xi Jinping, announced to the world that China 18-Oct-2017 , is one that historians will look
back on as the day China China East China Seas
In a 3-1/2
hour speech before the Communist Party Congress, Xi Jinping basically stated
that China
“China
Of course, China
But China
“China will never pursue development
at the expense of others’ interests, but nor will China
This is
hilarious given that China Vietnam Pacific Rim countries that China
“No one should expect China
This is the
justification China Philippines Vietnam
Here are
some additional excerpts from the rambling speech.
“The party exercises overall
leadership over all areas of endeavor in every part of the country.” (2)
Thus, we
see that the entire Chinese economy, culture, infrastructure, military, and
industry is controlled by the central Chinese government/dictator. What this means is that every aspect of
Chinese life and actions are united and focused on Chinese domination of the
world. It’s why, for example, Chinese
merchant vessels are built with military use in mind.
Here’s
another quote that offers great insight.
“A military is built to fight.” (2)
We see from
this that China China US China US
In a
reference to Taiwan Hong Kong ,
"We will never allow anyone,
any organisation or any political party, at any time or in any form, to
separate any part of Chinese territory from China
Thus, it is
inevitable that China Taiwan China Taiwan US Taiwan
Don’t
believe me about Taiwan
“…achieving China
Kind of
hard to interpret that any other way than an ironclad guarantee that Taiwan
The speech contained moments of comic relief such as,
“
This is
hilarious as China
More
comedy,
“China
Again, China China China
Finally,
this warning to any who would offer opposition.
"We must oppose any speech or
action that weakens, distorts or negates the party's leadership, or China
So much for
any acceptance of free speech or independent thought!
A
reasonable person might note that this speech was delivered before the Chinese
Communist Congress and suggest that much of the content was hyperbole intended
for internal political consumption rather than serious worldwide
audiences. I might be inclined to accept
that view except that all of China
________________________________________
(2)Washington
Post website, “Xi Jinping at China 18-Oct-2017 ,
Spot on and nicely done
ReplyDeleteAny confrontation with China in the future will be proxy wars.. like it has been with the USSR for 45 years, duh ?!
ReplyDeleteNo one will risk a one on one conflict.
Perhaps you should offer your thought to China? They seem unconcerned with confronting and possibly initiating a war with the US. While we quake in our boots at the possibility of escalation if we even send a strongly worded note to China, they think nothing of flaunting international laws and treaties, using their military to seize territory, seize US aircraft and drones, and order the US out of the East/South China Seas.
DeleteI really don't see any proxy wars on the horizon but I do see all out war with China simply because they don't seem to mind the prospect at all. They're gearing their military up for a peer war while we're gearing down for light, mobile policing actions. The trends are obvious on both sides and the eventual outcome is an assured Chinese victory unless we quickly change our ways.
Storm Shadow- there is a big difference between the Soviet Union and China. The US knew from the beginning the Soviets were poor, unlike China today. And the West's economy is very interwoven with China's, so China can threaten the WORLD both economically and militarily.
DeleteIt is already conducting proxy wars now in many countries. Not just poor Asian and African countries, but actively in Australia and New Zealand. in 2003-4, the CCP officially considered these two countries part of it's "periphery". Can be read here:
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800
As for conflict- China has already started this by actively building the islandds in the SCS- the only reason it's not a shooting war is that Obama's foreign policy has always been weak. The Philippines actually asked the USA to intervene and stop them, but the US declined. Many bad mouth Durterte for kowtowing to China, but it has no military power, and it's ally, the US, basically abandoned it. What's he supposed to do? Read here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074N18DC6/ref=sxts_sxwds-puwylo_rv_3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=3534076942&pd_rd_wg=nprEN&pf_rd_r=9P7NDMW2ZREDKX2WB6EC&pf_rd_s=desktop-sx-top-slot&pf_rd_t=301&pd_rd_i=B074N18DC6&pd_rd_w=z1hIR&pf_rd_i=hugh+white&pd_rd_r=fb4ff4dc-eff1-43eb-b088-1c043f11d29f&ie=UTF8&qid=1525232732&sr=3
Andrew
"The US knew from the beginning the Soviets were poor, unlike China today."
DeleteAnd that's the best prove that China won't co for a full out one on one war with US.
The richer you are the more you are likely to avoid war.
just think of WWII , what brought Hitler in to power.
"And that's the best prove that China won't co for a full out one on one war with US."
DeleteThe problem is that you're applying Western logic (and values) to China and they're just not applicable. Consider Iraq's Sadaam Hussein. There was absolutely no logic for him to pick a fight with the US and yet he did. There was absolutely no logic for Japan initiating a war with the US and yet they did. There was absolutely no logic to Hitler initiating a two-front war that he had no hope of winning and yet he did. I can go on but you should be able to see the point. Dictatorships rarely behave rationally.
The values that we hold dear (individual freedom and respect for individual life) don't concern dictators. China can always breed more people. If a war causes China great losses but they can gain the territory or control they want, they'll gladly do it. Losses can be replaced. So what if people suffer? That's what they're there for - or so China views it.
You need to stop thinking about China like they were your friendly, reasonable, next door neighbor who shares the same values as you and start thinking of them as the dictatorial, uncaring evil that they are. You're deluding yourself by trying to apply Western values and logic.
Now Hitler was brought to power with a democratic election, because most Germans were pisses by the Treaty of Versailles .
DeleteSaddam invaded Kuwait because they where screwing him with oil prices .
Do not think of dictators as irrational players all the time. They are circumstances what brought them to power.
In the Chinese case as long as you have this
Number of Chinese millionaires sees rapid surge
The number of wealthy people in the world's second-biggest economy has grown exponentially over the past decade, according to a new study. But the increase in the private wealth market is expected to slow this year.
http://www.dw.com/en/number-of-chinese-millionaires-sees-rapid-surge/a-39322859
dont expect war ;)
How they came to power is utterly irrelevant. It's what they do and the decisions they make after that matter to this discussion and each example I cited is a case of an irrational decision. So, why you would believe that the Chinese dictator wouldn't make an irrational decison is, itself, irrational.
DeleteConsider that China has already made some arguably irrational decisions such as the seizure of the E/S China Seas in defiance of international treaties, laws, tribunals, and norms which has cost them badly in terms of international good will. Their irrational behavior towards the use has triggered a trade/tariff war and cost them. Their actions are having the effect of isolating them in the international community. There's a pretty good case to be made that they are already on an irrational path heading for an irrational war.
You can believe in fairy dust and rainbows but the reality is that dictators do irrational things and China shows every evidence of the same.
expect war ;)
It needn't come to war. The US can understand that it won't be able to dominate China's backyard and retreat to its half of the Pacific. Problem solved.
Delete"The US can understand that it won't be able to dominate China's backyard and retreat to its half of the Pacific. Problem solved."
DeleteOr ... China can take a law-abiding place among the nations of the world, begin respecting the rights of other nations, stop intimidating other nations, respect the ruling of the UNCLOS tribunal to which they are a signatory, renounce their illegal construction and militarization of artificial islands, and stop talking about conquering everything out to the second island chain and be content with their country and its 12 mile territorial waters just like every other country in the world and focus on helping poorer nations and peoples in the world instead of conquering them. Problem solved.
This is not a political blog so this is as far as this conversation will go.
"seize US aircraft and drones"
ReplyDeleteLike the former USSR has never done that, its part of the spy game.
"I really don't see any proxy wars on the horizon"
How about Africa for example or even South America in the next decade if one side chooses to escalate over economic reasons.
Point being, Chinese leadership learned the lessons of the USSR downfall they wont repeat them.
In a sentence a war between US and China means - Nukes.
Nukes are a no go in both ruling establishments heads.
"a war between US and China means - Nukes."
ReplyDeleteWhat possible logic or evidence supports that conclusion?
"Nukes are a no go in both ruling establishments heads."
If that's true then you've just contradicted your own, previous statement!
I meant its gonna be proxy wars, not a one on one full out war between US and China.
ReplyDeleteI think it will be everything. There are huge numbers of Chinese outside China - enough to vote in pro-Chinese politicians and increasing. There are development and resource deals going on throughout Africa and elsewhere. There is is straightforward Commercial interest - bribing Vanuatu to refuel Chinese warships as a pre-cursor to basing. Diplomacy - Chinese bases in Africa. Straightforward invasion as in the Paracel islands. This is before we even get to any serious warfare. Israel is working on putting missiles into standard shipping containers - I see huge Chinese container ships with thousands of containers in our ports every day and ineffective inspection. LNG ships are a bomb waiting to happen and could easily be made to look like an accident.
ReplyDeleteChina has a very different attitude to loss of life than the west and much less political and media constraint. Add that to the above and note that China has 33million more men than women (which causes them issues) and the only conclusion you can come to is that the USA has to take a very firm hand (with as many allies as possible) or western influence will stop at Hawaii in future.
Very good comment.
DeleteWe have already lost, just too many Americans (top to bottom) don't know it yet. We have become fat, lazy and dumb plus soft! After 9-11 probably was our last real chance to wake up to numerous (not sure just China) threats, instead what did we get? Patriot act and GWB telling consumers not to worry and shop til you drop....just this morning, news is out that Kelly had to walk back Trump from removing troops out of SK a few months ago, I don't have a hard time believing that, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump told China XI that everything and US forces were on the table when it comes to NK nukes. I'm sure XI had no problem what's so ever with that!!! XI would guarantee/give anything Kim wants if US forces leave for a few NK nukes.
ReplyDeleteWe are in full retreat and Americans don't even see it but look what the Japanese and Europeans are looking at and talking about and it's obvious that the US is retreating.
First off we have not "lost" anything. This speech in my opinion was for a political audience to look strong as he consolidates his power like Mao did before him. Ultimately China does not have enough fishing or energy for future needs of their population so to avoid being strung up they do this "9 dash line" claim and hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteGoing forward once they have met us on peer status militarily and economically they will go from cold war to hot. How we and the potential allies in the region respond to this will make or break the day.
Japan, Vietnam and Australia will not stand for this I believe. But somehow I am not to sure about South Korea getting involved.
Sad to say that a war will clean out all the idiots touting LCS speed boats, and boondoggle 13 billion dollar carriers etc. In the end it may be for the better if we get properly challenged in the open.
Erick
"First off we have not "lost" anything."
DeleteWell, we've lost the South/East China Seas. It is now just a matter of the rest of world getting used to the illegal claims of territoriality and the EEZ that goes with it (which, itself, lays the foundation for further seizures to "protect" the illegal EEZs) and, eventually, recognizing the claims.
Given the volume of international shipping that passes through the region, that's a huge loss for the US and the world. It's only a matter of time until China begins to impose "fees" for administration and protection (they'll claim safety and environmental concerns) of the region.
China is now eyeing the second island chain, Africa, the Middle East, and South America and laying the groundwork for inroads in those regions. We are losing a little bit on a daily basis!
CNO, normally, if I follow your track of thought/discussion, we usually ended up disagree on China's goal globally (though, we both agree what will happen to Taiwan if there is such a conflict.)
ReplyDeleteToday, I'm going to give you a different take as a China realist (even though, you called me an apologist, and Sol said 'I'm a Chinese patriot'..I just don't think both description fits me as I see myself).
The operative word is: Made-In-China-2025.
My take:
As MIC-2025 goes, so goes China's new economy; and as Chinese new economy goes, so goes China dream (or your nightmare..but let's put that aside).
So everything is hinged on MIC-2025, which to me, means 'computer chips and PhDs'. Put a road block on either one (or both of them), MIC-2025 is gonna be a tough row to hoe. And this is what I see POTUS is doing: trying to 'kill' Chinese semiconductor (and later, semiconductor equipment) sector, and Chinese STEM PhD students in the states.
This is where the battle is, and it's happening right now, a War without fighting and bloodshed. I believe China cares much more about this one, than the one you're prescribing of shooting war, because all along China is preparing but actually engaging in 'winning without war'.
POTUS Trump is doing it to China on the same track.
"China's goal globally"
DeleteThere's not much left to discuss. China has pretty clearly laid out its vision for the world and its a Chinese dominated one with every other country subservient to it. Global conquest.
Regarding the rest of your comment, you're just restating what I've said all along - that China views war as the totality of all its actions: financial, demographic, military, political, educational, industrial, etc. War with China is inevitable. The only thing that slightly lessens the certainty is that China is, so far, winning without having to resort to actual combat. If we allow them to continue, we can avoid war but we'll all be speaking Chinese because they'll have conquered the world.
Well..as much as I don't think well Trump as a person, or a family man, or even a leader..But he has found a weak spot in China, and whomever comes after him will keep at it, and it's going to be a great contest from here on out, one of 'wits and total wherewithal' not 'death and destruction', I hope. (Ain't got the death wish just yet.)
DeleteCNO, I didn't see it coming (as how the US tackle this thing called 'China') 6mo ago, not even 1 month ago. But, today is a different ball game, and China has its work cut out for it.
China took an immense, calculated risk by seizing the South/East China Seas in defiance of international treaties, tribunals, norms, and relations. The reward was the seizure of the region and the risk was that China would wind up isolated internationally. Thus far, the seizure has occurred almost flawlessly and the risk is still being assessed but it's clear that China's actions are having the effect of isolating itself. The Pacific rim countries are beginning to oppose China and the US is beginning to lead the opposition.
DeleteChina may well wind up winning the "battle" for the S/E China Seas and losing the "war" for international recognition and respect.
As far as not seeing it coming, it was obvious years ago and the responses such as tariffs, revised trade treaties, restricted educational visas, legislation to pull jobs back to America, etc. were all also obvious and I've been harping on them for years. If you didn't see it coming then you weren't paying attention or you had a preconceived and incorrect view.
Since you may not see it, I'll spell out the future for you. After a long, drawn out period of economic and political battle resulting in a stalemate that leaves China isolated, feeling threatened, and resentful, China and the US will eventually engage in an all out war. There, now you won't have to say you didn't see it coming.
China is so paranoid that war is inevitable. It's as simple as that, in the end. Nothing the US does or says will convince China that there is no need to conquer the world and all of China's actions merely prove to the US that China is evil and must be eliminated. China is creating their own self-fulfilling prophecy. China's actions are creating the very responses by the US and the world that they're afraid of!
'Not see it coming'..I understand tariff, trade treaties, foreign student admission, bring jobs back, I understand all that, and I understood it since early 90s'. What I didn't understand is how big of gambler& outsider Trump is: knowing that trade-war will blow holes thru American consumers to get at the Chinese, and basically Trump is telling the west coast techies (i.e. not his camp) to take one for the team (since cutting off high tech oversea sales and restricting foreign talents is shooting one's own foot as collateral damages). I know politicians came up thru 'the system' don't have the gumption for it, and I was truly surprised that Trump was crazy enough to do it- that's why I didn't see it coming.
ReplyDeleteAs for Chinese will war eventually...That's your professional and genetic 'genes' speaking. Unlike steppe nomads and island dwelling/high sea pirates, historical Chinese are basically farmers, traders, merchants, and builders, self-sufficient on a land that provided all the bounty within without taking from others..but, I suppose you will disagree.
Anyway, there is always the matter of nukes, or slippery slope, which should hedge any (and all) big powers from peer-to-peer warring nonsense. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, again.
"trade-war will blow holes thru American consumers to get at the Chinese"
DeleteTrump's purpose is purely "America first" economic protectionism as opposed to my view which is that we're at war and just haven't recognized it yet. Now, the end result is somewhat the same.
Trump is trying to bring our jobs and manufacturing back to America after a couple of decades of driving them away due to stifling tax and regulatory burdens. As the jobs come back - and they already are! - the American consumer will benefit greatly from more jobs, more income, more spending. Rather than "blowing holes" in consumers, consumers will reap financial rewards. Trump has no problem continuing to trade with, and sell to, China but only on terms that are beneficial to the US. If those terms can benefit both sides then it's the perfect trade relationship. If it can't, then Trump is determined that America will not operate at a disadvantage. China's economic and trade policies have brought this on themselves - much like the S/E China Seas seizures which are bringing on the very [hostile] responses that China was afraid of. By not being a responsible world neighbor, China is slowly walling itself off and developing a bad reputation.
"Trump is trying to bring our jobs and manufacturing back to America after a couple of decades of driving them away due to stifling tax and regulatory burdens. As the jobs come back - and they already are! - the American consumer will benefit greatly from more jobs, more income, more spending. "
DeleteJobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing isn't coming back. The jobs that were lost are gone. Any manufacturing that comes back will be in the form of robots.
Fortunately, unemployment was already low when he started. This trend has continued but hasn't accelerated.
They only thing that changed is Trump just stopped making BS up about massive, unsubstantiated unemployment rates.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=1401681600000&tend=1519966800000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/25/most-americans-unaware-that-as-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-have-disappeared-output-has-grown/
"Jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing isn't coming back. The jobs that were lost are gone. Any manufacturing that comes back will be in the form of robots."
DeleteThis is true to a large extent, but misses the point: a return of manufacturing brings man, many other benefits even if the work force impact is minimal.
Just the tax revenue is worth it, the second order effects on related industry, professional services, and so on is also desired.
GAB
Ok, but by that measure, manufacturing has been "returning" for decades.
Delete"Jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing isn't coming back. The jobs that were lost are gone. Any manufacturing that comes back will be in the form of robots."
DeleteComNavOps first law of economics: jobs are neither created nor destroyed, they just change.
For every job that is lost to robotics, another one is created to service, design, build, and maintain those robots as well as designing and building the facilities they'll be housed in and all the supporting jobs and industries that will provide the raw materials for the robots. So, yes, jobs are coming back. You seem not to understand the complexities of the economy and the interrelationships among the various aspects.
We've already seen many announcements of manufacturers relocating back to the US and even more announcements of facilities that were planning to leave instead staying.
To say that jobs are not coming back is factually wrong and suggests that you have a political agenda rather than an objective, factual analysis. You can like or hate Trump but the fact is that his policies are doing exactly what he intended.
On 'manufacturing jobs & automation',
DeleteFirst off, American (or American-trained) MBAs' have 'perfected' the most efficient production system/chain in a global setting, and result is 'profit(higher) comes back to the states, cost(lower) stays oversea'. Not only that, that production system is scaled for global production. During that time, one of the byproduct is that China become the biggest producer nation, and the largest retail market (in year 2017 or this year).
Now, to ask the same MBA's (Americans) to relocate and cut off (as result of MAGA policy and aftermath) its profitable Chinese market (e.g. GM and Boeing made more money in China than in the states in 2017 I believe) is to go against another tenet of 'being an American': the freedom to be all you can be (make as much as one can.)
Say, even if Trump is able to twist MBA's arm and forced them to relocate. They will be faced with a truncated market, higher cost (from infrastructure to labor), and had to re-start all the entire chain to be able to compete against China (which is also transitioning to automation) globally, and given 4x GDP per-capita (therefore cost) difference, I just don't see reversion back to human labors in these mfg jobs.
Also, as CDRsalamander alluded to the other day (and many in the left coast techie say so for quite a while), the natural progression in America, if unchecked IMO, is one of universal basic income (i.e. welfare) for most, in a future of AI and automation. Devil is going to have a lot of fun with these idling hands.
"We've already seen many announcements of manufacturers relocating back to the US and even more announcements of facilities that were planning to leave instead staying."
DeleteAnecdotes are not evidence.
Perhaps you can provide some numbers to illustrate your claim that jobs are "coming back" at higher rates that can be directly attributed to Trump's policies.
My claim is they have been coming back since the recession. To date, Trump's policies haven't had much, if any impact. I posted links to show this.
I don't like Trump, but I'll give credit if and when it's due. So far, no credit is due.
About all GOP policies have done is generate a huge wave of stock buybacks and padding the pockets of the rich.
The GOP Motto: Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.
"For every job that is lost to robotics, another one is created to service, design, build, and maintain those robots as well as designing and building the facilities they'll be housed in and all the supporting jobs and industries that will provide the raw materials for the robots."
There is zero causal evidence of anything close to a 1-to-1 relationship between jobs lost to automation and jobs gained in "automation support". There will be some jobs gained in those areas but they won't necessarily be in the US.
Many industrial robots are built abroad. The US is fifth overall in net robot exports. So many of these automation jobs are still overseas.
http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-industrial-robots-exporters/
The Japanese export nearly an order of magnitude more than we do.
The fact of the matter is, productivity gains mean we can sustain higher manufacturing outputs with fewer people overall.
Regarding jobs returning to the US, here's a quote from a Politico article,
Delete"According to the group, reshoring started going up substantially beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016 and has accelerated in 2017.
Between 2013 and 2015, the average number of reshored jobs announced per quarter was about 17,000, Harry C. Moser, the Kildeer, Ill., group’s founder and president, told PolitiFact. Then, during the first three quarters of 2016, that number fell to an average of 12,000.
Then it picked up. In the fourth quarter of 2016, it almost doubled to 22,000. In the first quarter of 2017, it almost doubled again to 40,000. And the preliminary number for the second quarter of 2017 is even higher, at 50,000."
Jobs are coming back and at record pace and the anecdotal stories simply confirm it.
You clearly don't like Trump and don't want to give him any credit but the evidence is clear.
It's clear that you've never worked in industry and seen the effects of robotics on jobs. I have. I've seen entire departments created to support robotics. The job creation rate is at least one for one and possibly more. Those robots don't design themselves, clean themselves, build themselves, maintain themselves, program themselves, and reprogram themselves. Entire robotics support industries have been created.
Delete"The GOP Motto: Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted."
DeleteI'm very disappointed. This no more sums up the Republican's philosophy than the counter mocking claims about the Dems. People who believe this type of thing have abandoned all pretense of objectivity and analysis. I expect better of my readers. You can be for or against any particular political policy but this kind of demagoguery is insulting to all in embarrassing to the practitioner.
A comment was deleted for being purely political. This is not a political blog.
DeleteThis entire comment chain is political. Too bad you don't apply your own standards to yourself.
DeleteI allow politics to the degree that they support or relate to military aspects such as combating China. Your comment was a pure diatribe against Trump/GOP and served no purpose.
DeleteI believe that China will not stop. If it can dominate the world, it will. If it can't, it will aim for domination of the South East Asia and the part of the Pacific Ocean near it.
ReplyDeletePeople sometimes ask- well, what about the USA's global influence and dominance of the world?
My friend- there is a huge difference.
Even in middle eastern countries being occupied by the US, you still have the freedom to say the "US sucks".
In Australia and even the UK, countries supposedly independent, book publishers are scared of publishing books which criticise China.
The US promoted freedom of opinion, of basic human decency, of rule of law.
China undermines rule of law, human decency, and is only concerned about wealth and personal power.
War may or may not happen. But the world will be worse off by CHina's rise
Andrew
"the world will be worse off by CHina's rise"
DeleteVery well said!
This is a good post and there is excellent commentary, however, I am less concerned about China's rise, and focused on American decline.
ReplyDeleteI also note that China is not a unified country in the traditional sense of a western nation state. There is tremendous fragility along side the strength.
True strength does not originate from the military, it comes from economic power. What the USA desperately needs is to reinvigorate our infrastructure (ports, electricity, communication, and ship/rail/highway interfaces), industry (AI!, tool making, steel, heavy machinery, nano tech, etc.), sort our many social ills (drug abuse, prescription drug abuse, barely/illiterate non-functional citizens), and everything else will follow.
Our best strategy might be to let the Chinese bog themselves down in Southwest Asia and Africa and bleed themselves for a few decades. We have blunder badly, but the Chinese have demonstrated great arrogance and outright stupidity in foreign policy.
GAB
"China's rise, and focused on American decline."
DeleteTwo sides of the same coin. You're quite right that we need to address both. You're also correct about economic power.
I have to hesitate, though, about letting China have (get bogged down in) Asia and Africa. That's a potentially valid strategy but it also carries enormous risk. For example, we view Africa as an unmanageable mess because the countries and peoples are not amenable to any form of governance we can imagine and work with. However, China may well intend to simply move in and take over (soft conquer) rather than try to work with what's there. If they can simply take and impose their will/way, we could wind up facing an entrenched China that has gained all the resources and benefits (strategic, military, economic, ets.) without the problems that we would face with our approach.
I don't know enough about the specifics of what Africa offers to have a solid opinion but I can see enough of the potential problems with allowing China to seize an entire continent unopposed.
Africa = strategic resources
ReplyDeleteSW Asia = oil/natural gas + mother load of strategic resources in Afghanistan
Short of outright ethnic cleansing, I do not believe China could pacify SW Asia. The Chinese have not pacified their own ethnic Muslim population, they are highly unlikely to deal with the ethnic, religious, and tribal subtleties of the middle east.
A festering, multi-region insurgency is a great cure for rampant imperialism. We just have to have patience and a little wisdom.
GAB
"The Chinese have not pacified their own ethnic Muslim population"
DeletePerhaps not but they have managed to reach a level of control that has allowed them to move their national interests forward with functionally minimal disruptions. I don't see why they couldn't do the same elsewhere.
Again, the US would attempt to govern and placate an entire African nation whereas I would see China simply setting the bases and manufacturing facilities it wants and ignoring the rest of the country's population and needs other than ruthlessly suppressing them if they become a disruption.
Along with whatever problems expansion into Asia and Africa might bring, it also brings resources and control of large areas of the world. Military bases throughout Asia and Africa would greatly expand China's military reach and influence. Are those benefits that we're willing to allow them to gain in exchange for the possibility of insurgency type problems? I'm not at all sure it is.
DeleteI'm assuming that Africa would provide access to rare earths and elements that are needed for advanced military technology. Again, is this acceptable to us to in exchange for the possibility of problems?
The Chinese seem to be rather efficient, if brutal, in their handling of internal ethnic issues. I see no reason why they would be any less efficient, or brutal, in handling such issues elsewhere.
As I said, I don't have sufficient knowledge and data to have a definitive opinion but the risk/reward balance with ceding Asia/Africa seems suspect.