|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 4, 2009 21:27:48 GMT -5
My take on Chinese diplomacy is the "long term" view. Chinese diplomacy has been consistent, slow moving, and determined. From the decision in 1951 to cross the Yalu River in Korea to badgering the Soviets on the Sino-Soviet border, to weapons testing near Taiwan to their patience with re-acquiring Hong Kong, the Chinese never make rash moves, but apply steady pressure in the direction they wish to head. They've been damned good at it, too. They annexed Tibet, recovered Hong Kong and, like a previous poster mentioned, will probably encompass Taiwan soon. The border conflicts with Russia have been subdued, but are still there. A more modern, powerful military allows them to adapt harder line approaches to diplomacy, as does the massive amount of money loaned to America. The Chinese should not be underestimated, not as a Communist power, but rather, as an extremely nationalistic one. We in the west often overlook Chinese nationalism, due to the Communist label, but Chinese Communism was NEVER modelled after the Leninist/Stalinist model. Mao's communism was about land reform and NATIONALISM, combined with the removal of foreign influence. When considering Chinese foreign policy, one must look long term.
|
|
|
Post by vojnik on Mar 4, 2009 21:30:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 4, 2009 21:39:35 GMT -5
I think, though, that attributing that visit to "begging for money" is, at best, a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 4, 2009 22:35:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 4, 2009 22:36:02 GMT -5
My take on Chinese diplomacy is the "long term" view. Chinese diplomacy has been consistent, slow moving, and determined. From the decision in 1951 to cross the Yalu River in Korea to badgering the Soviets on the Sino-Soviet border, to weapons testing near Taiwan to their patience with re-acquiring Hong Kong, the Chinese never make rash moves, but apply steady pressure in the direction they wish to head. They've been damned good at it, too. They annexed Tibet, recovered Hong Kong and, like a previous poster mentioned, will probably encompass Taiwan soon. The border conflicts with Russia have been subdued, but are still there. A more modern, powerful military allows them to adapt harder line approaches to diplomacy, as does the massive amount of money loaned to America. The Chinese should not be underestimated, not as a Communist power, but rather, as an extremely nationalistic one. We in the west often overlook Chinese nationalism, due to the Communist label, but Chinese Communism was NEVER modelled after the Leninist/Stalinist model. Mao's communism was about land reform and NATIONALISM, combined with the removal of foreign influence. When considering Chinese foreign policy, one must look long term. Concur. The Chinese have always been an exceedingly patient people, and almost immune on the broad scale to foreign ideas. The Communist regime is frankly just another dynasty, albeit a non-biological one, with the difference that they're in a position now to deal with the West on terms of political and increasingly economic equality. All that said, though, an expansion of their military changes almost nothing. They say they're working on modernization, but in many ways, especially hardware and doctrine, they lag behind the West by fifty years or more. This has always been their weakness and really the drawback of an inherently conservative state as dictatorships must be and the Chinese people tend to be. I just don't think a strong military, especially one that's doctrinally backward, is all that much of a political tool anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 5, 2009 1:46:04 GMT -5
USA planned military budget (plus supplements): $651.2 billion China planned military budget: $70.2 billion China's population: 1.6 billion USA population: 300 million And you're scared of THOSE guys?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 1:56:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't bet on that 50 year lag in technology. Chinese scientists have accomplished amazing things, independent of western influence. However, the last 20 years of off loading American jobs to China, we also off loaded huge amounts of technology and innovation. The Chinese are intelligent people, and are open to technological innovation. I think you may be overestimating the lag in technology. As to their "doctrine" I am unsure of exactly what you mean. Do you mean their military doctrine, or their political doctrine? In China, the military is the Communist Party, particularly in the upper echelons. The Chinese military was underestimated in Korea, and in the sometimes huge "border conflicts" (huge meaning up to Army Corp level) with the Soviet Union. In Korea, the Chinese military actually won. The Chinese guaranteed a Communist state on it's sourthern border for at least two generations. The unknown factor, in the west, in the fall of the Soviet Union was the cost of maintaining large forces on the Chinese border, as a deterrent to Chinese incursion into territories they claim as theirs, by treaty. It bubbles up now and again, on a smaller scale. They will eventually win this "battle", too. The Chinese would not pose a direct threat, militarily, against the U.S., except for the nuclear option. They already have that capacity. The Chinese military is used as another pressuring tool in its diplomatic arsenal. This is what I meant by a possible threat. The Chinese play the game of brinksmanship better than any nation on earth, and think generationally in their strategies. Most westerners don't understand that China has never recognized Taiwan as anything but a province of China. They have kept the pressure on, without letting it once boil over into an actual shooting war, since 1950. Fifty nine years later they are, perhaps by the time the new generation assumes power this goal will have been acheived. They always claimed Tibet as a Chinese province. They perceived that a theocracy inside Chinese territory was, by nature, anti-communist. They are in process of acheiving that goal, but the west hasn't really applied any pressure to "free" Tibet. At least, not very many western governments have done so. Understanding Chinese government policy goals, the long term ones, should aid in our diplomacy with China. Their miliatary is just one more element of that diplomacy.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Mar 5, 2009 2:51:08 GMT -5
The Chinese guaranteed a Communist state on it's sourthern border for at least two generations. Do you mean Vietnam? Because as soon as the Americans moved out, China sent in several divisions - which didn't do any better.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 5, 2009 7:41:53 GMT -5
...which is why I cringe every time I hear about Hillary going over to China in order to beg them to buy more government debt. Sky, has Ms. Clinton even been to China yet? It seems to me that the "China" debt has been passed on to us by the previous administration. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just calling you on your bullshit. The previous administration racked up HUGE debts to the Chinese, for eight years. Lay off Clinton for a bit, please. This whole "Hilary begging the Chinese" smells of Republican spin and hatred of anything Clinton, ala Rush. Republican credibility is gone. Accept that, and life will be easier for you. Please, everyone, carry on with the previous rational discussion. As per usual, Sky keeps solidly across a certain type of news, and gets the implications of it utterly wrong. Yes, she was in China, yes bonds were some of it, being that China has over a trillion dollars of actual greenbacks sitting in it's Federal reserve, doing sweet fuck all except being used to finance oil exploration in Africa, take over of depressed western mining assets etc, but mainly it was to talk about the fact that between the two countries, over 40% global CO2 emissions are issued, and both are the key players in migration to a low carbon economy and future, and the rest of the talks were about future growth of their respective economies. Nepal, Taiwan, Falun Gong etc didn't even get a look in. Then again, it also needs to be said that Sky also cringes when he sees himself in a mirror, has a shower, or sees a black person, so I wouldn't worry about the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 9:39:05 GMT -5
...which is why I cringe every time I hear about Hillary going over to China in order to beg them to buy more government debt. Sky, has Ms. Clinton even been to China yet? It seems to me that the "China" debt has been passed on to us by the previous administration. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just calling you on your bullshit. Last I heard, Hillary was literally looking to pay them a visit for the sake of asking them to acquire more US debt.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 5, 2009 13:25:29 GMT -5
Sky, has Ms. Clinton even been to China yet? It seems to me that the "China" debt has been passed on to us by the previous administration. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just calling you on your bullshit. Last I heard, Hillary was literally looking to pay them a visit for the sake of asking them to acquire more US debt. Dumbass! literally instead WTF here? Metaphorically? Figuratively? Hypothetically? Parenthetically? You can shudder away until the cows come in your home, but the simple facts are the U.S. needs investors to buy the government bonds, and the bulk of it's going to come from China and middle Eastern petro dollars, both of whom are cashed up with that kind of readies. It's actually in China's best interest to do this because even though it'll be on a pitiful rate of return and a 10 year 'loan', the sooner the U.S. is back running, the sooner they'll be buying complete and utter crap again to fill their consumeristic addiction and China's economy will avoid catching the brunt of the recessive contagion effecting so many other Asian exporters right now...
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 13:41:22 GMT -5
Sky, has Ms. Clinton even been to China yet? It seems to me that the "China" debt has been passed on to us by the previous administration. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just calling you on your bullshit. Last I heard, Hillary was literally looking to pay them a visit for the sake of asking them to acquire more US debt. This is just another example of a Skyfire train wreck, er thread derailment. Skyfire, the Democrats won, and won BIG. The GOP's popularity is in the tank, and will stay there as long as they spew this kind of shit. The political ground has shifted under your party's feet, and, like you, they are so obsessed with Hilary bashing, they ignore it and continue with the same dated rhetoric. Thanks to people like you and your "sources", the Democrats will stay in power for a long time. Keep it up, fuckstick. You're actually helping the Democratic cause.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 7, 2009 14:12:30 GMT -5
I wouldn't bet on that 50 year lag in technology. Chinese scientists have accomplished amazing things, independent of western influence. However, the last 20 years of off loading American jobs to China, we also off loaded huge amounts of technology and innovation. The Chinese are intelligent people, and are open to technological innovation. Yes, they are. And the US (a necessary component of any military response to Chinese aggression) has itself slowed its cutting-edge approaches except in a handful of fields, meaning that the Chinese are catching up. I didn't mean to denigrate the capacity of the Chinese to develop such technology, only that they as yet broadly lack technology and hardware on par with the West. Unfortunately, such things tend to lag significantly in a command economy. With outsourcing, as you say, and increasing elements of a free market, this will undoubtedly change. By doctrine I mean how they use their forces, and how their military leadership employs those forces. The US has, since at least WW2, employed a doctrine known as Superior Firepower. Our soldiers are well-trained and well-equipped, but they are also (or are supposed to be) backed by the latest technology and the strongest hardware in vast amounts. The Chinese, like the Russians and like the combatants in WWI where other options weren't available, favor Human Wave doctrines that rely on sheer weight of numbers. Yes, the Chinese employ tanks and aircraft, but do they use them well? Do they know how to use them to properly support their soldiers? My guess is that the answer is no, but they've just never had the sort of knock-down fight that'd prove it. And without that doctrine backing their play, their military is much less of a factor in any rational appraisal of diplomacy. Of course we all know that diplomacy is rarely rational.... The other side is that the logistics train for an army the size of China's would be monstrous. It may be that force projection is simply not possible for more than a fraction of the Chinese army. They can do it in Tibet because that's right next door. They could probably do it in Taiwan. I don't think they have the hardware to force a landing, though. Alright, this is the exception. The Russians have only the advantage of huge numbers of miles between their Chinese border and anything worth having (other than Vladivostok and endless amounts of unforgiving tundra), and sure seem to lack the political cohesion to do much. And of course historically they've won wars by throwing bodies at the enemy, a game at which the Chinese would do far better. I agree (again) with all of this. I just disagree with the conclusion that it means a whole lot. China's military is a failed tool, I would say, for the modern age - their discussions with Taiwan are promising, but came about because of a willingness to compromise, and, as you've mentioned, because of a cultural disposition toward patience. I would argue that this came about because the PRC realized that no military resolution to the problem was possible. More and more that is proving to be the case in conflicts around the world, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. I discussed this above. This is proof of persistence and diplomatic skill, not the value of the military. For that matter, the PRC presumptuously demanded that any nation having diplomatic relations with them not have them with Taiwan. They got away with it because of their sheer economic size, not their military. That's the weakest part of my argument, I admit. I'm not really sure what the reasons are for continued non-intervention from the West. Bigger fish to fry? I can't say. I expect we are pretty much in agreement here. I think the Chinese look longer-term than the West does, and that they will make the military a part of their diplomacy. Fortunately we aren't so proud or fearful as to exclude experts on the region in our own foreign policy calculations (as was done, I believe, until the mid-70s). My argument is basically that the Chinese military is no longer an especially viable tool. Like a vacuum tube, it's a part whose time has passed, and it should be treated as such.
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Mar 8, 2009 5:42:27 GMT -5
Last I heard, Hillary was literally looking to pay them a visit for the sake of asking them to acquire more US debt. This is just another example of a Skyfire train wreck, er thread derailment. His post was at least tangentially about China. Your reply was not. Don't blame him for your derailment.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 9:02:37 GMT -5
The Chinese guaranteed a Communist state on it's sourthern border for at least two generations. Do you mean Vietnam? Because as soon as the Americans moved out, China sent in several divisions - which didn't do any better. No, actually, I was referring to Korea. As to the Chinese "invasion" of N. Vietnam, it was done to send a signal to the Vietnamese government. When the Americans pulled out, there was huge persecution of the Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam, ie boat people. While the Chinese incursions into Vietnam were played out to a draw, the Vietnamese oppression of its Chinese ethnic minority ceased fairly quickly. This may have been the main reason for the incursions in the first place, not territorial expansion. Regarless, the oppression of the Chinese ethnic minority was ended.
|
|