Thank you so much for reading and responding so comprehensively. I wish I had more time to do your comments justice.

Likewise.

Well, yes, the people whose job it is specifically to think about these things are presumably thinking about it.

Exactly.

However, this would not necessarily be a red alarm were it not for the sudden naval buildup and the tone of the propaganda coming out of the CCP.

There is no reason to do so. China cannot win a war against the west.

Don’t underestimate the “Great Dragon” of the East. They outlasted the Japanese, they are the traditional hegemon of the Orient (the whole Japanese spate from 1853-1945 was historically an anomaly), and the numerical superiority (which is probably only going to get bigger, given the Conscription, the “Bare Branches” of the One Child Policy, and the growing malaise of the West).

All it needs is a few battlefield victories and some smart industrial planning (yes, I oversimplify, but that is the basic gist of it).

If China were somehow able to suddenly defeat all the armies of the west with zero military losses of its own it would still lose because, as others noted earlier, China’s economy is dependent on the trade with the west.

True, but you are overstating that position.

Simply put, you can afford to have a trade collapse so long as you can conquer enough to offset it. The Germans and Japanese both learned this all-too well in the past century, and to expect that the same lesson will not be heard in Beijing is, well, not all that wise. In the end of the day, it is worth a collapse in trade if you can keep the industries moving (and believe me when I say that war economies can usually do that well, particularly when you are a large nation out of the main fray, like the US was in the World Wars or China would be in this case).

After all, to the victor goes the spoils. And to an extent even more than that.

Hypothetically and rhetorically no, but practically there are a lot of common interests, yes.

And history shows that ideological enemies can only remain strategic allies as long as there is a “unifying” factor driving a shared reaction. Consider that in 1900, pretty much every major Western power (Brits, French, Dutch, Americans, Italians, Japanese, Germans, Russians, Austro-Hungarians, etc) pitched in to launch a combined response that crushed a sudden upsurge by the Society of Righteous Harmony (AKA the Boxers) that was aided by the Manchu court.

Within four years after this victory, the two nations who made the largest contributions to the intervention- Japan and Russia- were at each other’s throats in the Russo-Japanese War.

Ten years after that and fourteen after the Conflict in China, and the nations involved were fighting amongst each other in a conflict that eclipsed both.

The moral of the story: Strategic interests may dictate who you side with in the present or near future, but sooner or later ideology will dictate who you line up against.

China’s prosperity is strongly interlinked with the prosperity of the USA and Europe.

And the Japanese economic from 1853-1940 pretty much ran on British, French, American, and Dutch trade.

But once the economic reasons for calming down lessened and the moderates were sidelined or wiped out by the radicals, that long relationship didn’t really prevent the West from being attacked in 1941, now did it?

Japan wanted China, and Japan wanted oil. When the West tried to restrain it from the former by stopping imports of the latter, the result was literally explosive.

And if China and the West grow apart economically, expect the platitudes to fall apart quite rapidly.

The differences that exist are, in many cases, similar in scope and nature to the sort of differences of opinion that would be found between the USA and Europe.

The only thing is that our relationships with the governments (if not necessarily the nations) of Europe was largely positive, seeing as how the current governments were largely shaped either by the Western Allies after WWII (see Germany, Austria, etc) or by the fall of the USSR (which the US had a not inconsiderable role in).

Our last major endeavour involving the PRC? Conflicts over the private capital crossing the Pacific in both directions, and who gets to call the shots.

Before that? The extremely cynical and uneasy three-way detente where the West tried to play the PRC against the USSR and the PRC sought to play the West off against the USSR.

And before that?

The Korean War.

Enough said.

Yes. Much hot air is expended over Taiwan but for as long as both sides are making lots of money nothing will happen.

Probably a safe bet, but don’t be too certain. It wouldn’t be unheard of. And even if that is so, a “Chinese Great Depression” could have a very similar effect to the one it had on Germany during the interbellum, particularly because the ideological constructs for such a conflict were already in place.

And both sides are making lots of money.

For now. But if that were to change, well…

And in addition, Japan’s strong ecconomic interests in the KMT from the Xinhai Revolution and the 20′s didn’t stop them from embarking on a course that liquidated those, now did they? Nor did Germany in regards to German defense contracts in Czechoslovakia.

Wonder why?

It’s because they expected to REGAIN them AFTER they had taken over.

And while China might not be able to “take over” the West, valuable targets like Japan, the ROK, Central Asia, Thailand, and the Russian Far East are not so lucky.

The Taiwanese are very active commericially in Southern China (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen) and the mainland Chinese are increasingly very active in Taiwan.

True, but Czechoslovakia’s biggest trading partner by far during the 1920′s was Germany (due to Prague’s attempts to defend itself from Hungarian or (ironically, when you think about it) Austrian influence or attack). And Czech businesses were likely active in Germany, even during the early years of the Fuhrer’s tenure.

But come 1938, that didn’t excuse them from Hitler’s hitlist.

Rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world has long ago conceded China(Taiwan, ROC) to China(mainland, PRC) in practice if not in words. Eventually both sides will start talking about how they can re-unite much as East and West Germany eventually reunited.

True, but you are missing two key things here:

1. You are not considering where this buildup would cause the West to re-evaluate its stance vis-a-vis the ROC, and what that would mean for diplomatic relations.

2. Even assuming you are correct (and you may well be), you are forgetting the fact that the first “re-acquisation” is usually not greeted by much. Few panicked when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland or “Anschulussed” Austria, or when Japan seized Manchuria, or when the USSR began to take over the old Eastern European Republics that they and the Germans had laid to waste during WWII.

Taiwan would likely not be that much different.

It is the NEXT major issue that will spike the tension.

Yes. They are a petulant pain in the arse.

On that much we can agree on.

For the USA they are a pain-in-the-arse at a distance but they are sitting on China’s doorstep.

True, but Beijing has shown that it is far more capable of dealing with Pyongyang than Washington is, just as Washington is more capable or talking with Seoul.

Unsurprsingly China feels greater affinity for its near neighbour and former ideological buddy than does the USA, and China has no interest in having a conflict for the sake of confict.

Perhaps, but Kim Jong Il- who is, in many ways, Beijing’s tenant in Korea due to their influence- may be different. And while nobody wanted conflict for the sake of conflict in 1914, a sudden chain reaction is not unthinkable.

However the fact that China has not meddled much in NK’s affairs could be evidence of China’s willingness to let other countries be themselves.

As shown by the interests China has had in preserving North Korea’s power even at the expense of the talks.

China has no interest in an aggressive NK if only because of the refugee problem it would create.

True, but if given the choice between an agressive DPRK and a neutered one, the PRC has made it abundantly clear it prefers the former.

Which says much.

Partly. It is not in the USA’s or China’s interest for the area to become unstable or for it to be dominated by Russia. Obviously there is competition for trade but so too between the USA and EU for example; it isn’t necesarily a fighting matter though the possibility for tension is there.

Fair enough, though it is safe to say that in any conflict China has with either the West (particularly the US) or Russia, and Central Europe will be one of the first to feel it, one way or another. These territories were historically under Chinese influence, and no major power wants to neglect its interests.

As you noted, India and China have actually fought border skirmishes. There is the potential for big trade conflicts in the future but there is far more oportunity for trade collaboration.

Perhaps, but there is also a considerable chance of a massive land war. You do not have two ascendant powers in the same region (much less directly BOARDERING each other) and have them co-exist peacefully, particularly after a history of cultural and ideological animosity. Add in the blood factor, and the tensions are aparent.

Why do you think China should view India much differently to how the USA views India.

Because, even at the height of India’s flirtation with the USSR, neither side was openly willing for war, and their mutual Democratic traditions and (yes) trade meant that war was unlikely, particularly for India, who had to keep one eye peeled on the PRC, one eye on the USSR, and one on Pakistan (which, ladies and gentlemen, has done wonders in promoting the Hindu gods).

In addition, thereis the fact that the US and India haven’t had a rather ugly border issue that has seen blood shed, that there is the trade competition between China and India for Western capital (in which India has a slight advantage, both in the “reputation” category and in many cases the contract details).

And, finally, there is the fact that China has diplomatically supported Pakistan in its conflicts with India to some degree for decades.

All of this means that, if and when a tipping point comes, India is far more likely to swing to the West than towards China.

I will be honest and admit that I have never paid any attention to Chinese involvement in the Phillippines so I am completely ignorant in this matter.

Fair enough.

First, we have the fact that Manila is involved in the larger Spratly Islands dispute involving various parties, of which the PRC is easily the most powerful and has the dominant hand.

Than, we have the issues over Scarborough Reef, which is a uniquely Sino-Filipino mess in which the Taiwanese have a very much secondary role and the other competitors for the Spratly Islands do not have a claim. The Chinese mapped it under Kublai Khan (and thus claim it from there) and it was often used by Chinese fishermen and merchants (the other part of the claim), while Filipino claims are roughly as long, though they only officially laid claim to it in 1965.

Than we have the unpleasant games that the Chinese and Filipino navies have of competing with each other, occasionally firing at each other, and having a few sinkings, impoudments, and “confiscations.”

This is important because this is probably where the PRC’s naval buildup is going to be used first, due to the numerical difference but Filipino prestige placed in the navy. It is also one of those rare cases where a simple misjudgement of the player’s attitudes could blossom into war without considerable changes to the players themselves. In other words, it could happen tomorrow, under the current leadership of all involved. It’s a line not large enough to be easily seen, but powerful enough to blow up in a bad way if it is crossed.

More or less, yes. China trades extensively with Japan and has no interest in having them as an enemy. Many Chinese do hold a deep-felt resentment against Japan but that is not the same as the government wanting conflict with Japan.

True, but old grudges die hard, and the growing power of the JSDF is not something Beijing is going to be happy about, nor is their navy an insignificant threat to the PRC in any larger conflict with the West (though obviously infinitely less so than it was in 1937).

In addition, don’t underestimate the emotional factor involved: animosities aren’t easy to let go of, if for nothing else than for the man on the street. And while China may not want a war with Japan NOW, a future rupture may strain the issue again (and both Japan and China’s attitude towards each other means that is hardly an otherworldly event), and god knows that the righteous rage from seventy years ago could be the margin of error that would toss the situation over the edge. And if such a conflict were to emerge, the West’s support for Japan would probably draw much of it into the inferno.

Not so much, I will grant you. In Africa all countries are competing for access to resources and for trade opportunities so in that sense China and the USA are not on the same side. China very much wants greater influence in Africa in order to have preferential access to the opportunities.

True.

China is not operating with the same moral concerns about dictatorships and corruption as the West so that again is a valid difference.

I am not so sure about that. Sadly, Western relationships with Africa (at least on a governmental level) probably have more to do with ideological and strategic reasons than with morality, not unlike China’s and Russia’s.

A better example would probably have been Iran. Both sides want access to the oil and China appears to be prepared to support Iran against Western interests to get it.

True, but China has also been willing to support the West against Iran at the UN when it feels Iran is swinging the pendulum too far in its favor, but a better example is perhaps its influence in the Middle East in general, which is growing in strength, and it something the West (and the US in particular) are going to have to deal with sooner or later.

You already agreed that China has problems all around it. Given the history of China’s interactions with the world over the past 150 years it would be very foolish for China not to want a substantial military.

Fair enough, but again, a naval buildup of this degree usually does not show the hallmarks of being a defensive measure, and the lack of significant other targets (Russia, Jihadists, Indonesia) mean that it is probably directed against the USN and the ANZACs.

However the present threat to China does not come from the nations that gave it the most trouble in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Perhaps not the “present” trouble, but the fact remains that the West is not a target Beijing is just going to excuse.

As for the marine build up, which is where this thread started, perhaps the Chinese government is thinking 20 years ahead

Percisely. And who is perhaps the greatest long-term rival Beijing has had for years? Particularly in the Pacific?

to a time when Europe could easily be engaged in one of its internal strifes and who knows what the USA will be thinking and doing at that time. China needs to think ahead to a world in which the unusual stability of the past 40 / 50 years is lost to the sort of disorder that was prevalent in earlier centuries.

Fair enough. But the nature of ship technology (you really can’t just do an overhaul on old ones, you have to scrap them) means that China is unlikely to be designing its fleet for a conflict 10-20 years in the future.

If pirates and militant Muslims can cause trouble today for the USA and Europe then they can certainly cause trouble tomorrow for China.

Well, in this case, the West is ironically China’s first line of defence. No Islamist naval threat can even contemplate getting to China without Indonesian and Malay ports, and they can’t contemplate getting those while the Western Navies are in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. The only other Islamist (or even Muslim) threat from Central Asia and Sinkiang, which the naval buildup has literally no chance whatsoever of have an effect. And given the nature of fleets, it is unlikely China is thinking of a near future involving massive Caliphatle navy in the South China Sea.

It will take China many years to build-up its naval capability so even if the problems are not anticipated for a decade or so the ship-building and sailor-training needs to start now.

Sailor-training? Yes.

Ship-building? Not really. While some practice is undoubtedly needed, the fact is that in a decade or so, these ships will be gracefully out of date at best, hopelessly outteched at worst.

Practicing socialism with Chinese Characteristics, of course. Why else would they want to come to China?

Um, for the cheap labor, sweetheart contracts, and lack of a coordinated worker’s opposition whatsoever? This is not a new scam.

Oh, the more diligent ones are also studying the “three represents”. But mostly they are just desperately trying to make sense of, and profit in, the commercial quagmire that China offers.

1. For future reference, a “commercial quagmire” would be an ecconomic disaster (which China is not) like Zimbabwae.

2. I think you are giving the Capitalists too much credit. The bottom line most of them see in coming here is profit from markets and cheap labor.

Kind of like the things Socialism and Communism vehemently opposed.

You are quite correct, and I am glad you enjoyed the quote I found for the delectation of HotAir readers, but in China Chairman Mao is still revered by many and criticising him openly is not a wise course of action. Say good things or say nothing or risk a visit from the local police.

Ok, fair enough, though my main point was how radically the two “thoughts” differ economically.

The CPC isn’t going to say bad things about Mao for much the same reason that the heads of state in France and Spain aren’t going to say bad things about the Pope. Nobody wants to upset the proletariat without good reason; it just spoils the party … so to speak.

True, and we also have the fact that those doing so are liable to get an all-expense paid trip to the fine resorts in the Northeastern Desert.

China has done one revolution recently, it learned from the experience that it doesn’t want another any time soon.

Perhaps, but again: the status quo has only been popular now because everybody is making money. That lessens or even collapses, and it is not going to be pretty.

Well, it does actually due to joint venture rules, land ownership & acquisition rules, and so on. However even if a some foreign companies were deploying capital in order to acquire a trading profit, China is still a long way from being a capitalist country, even with “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Ok, I concede the point.

Materialistic yes, capitalistic … not so much. Mind you, after the events of the past year the UK and USA have rather stretched the definition of a free-market economy to the point where I suppose we could say that China isn’t so different after all. But that would be as much a case of the USA and UK adopting socialism with Chinese characteristics, as it would China adopting capitalism.

Alright, fair enough.

Its lucky I wasn’t supping on steamed rice when I read this. Have you any idea how much it hurts to snort steamed rice through one’s nose?

Unfortunately, yes I do.

It’s been a pleasure. I haven’t laughed so much on a HotAir thread for quite a while. Thank you very much.

Glad I could help.

This really is how the Old Republic dies, with thunderous applause. *le sigh*

Turtler on May 2, 2009 at 12:55 AM

Thank you so much for reading and responding so comprehensively. I wish I had more time to do your comments justice.

Hardly. If they aren’t CONSIDERING it, than they deserve far less credit than I thought they do.

Well, yes, the people whose job it is specifically to think about these things are presumably thinking about it.

The question is if they are PLANNING it. Which, given the fleet buildup and saber rattling regarding Africa, the Phillippines, and the Straits of Malacca, seems to be a resounding “YES.” If not tommorrow, at least in the near future.

There is no reason to do so. China cannot win a war against the west. If China were somehow able to suddenly defeat all the armies of the west with zero military losses of its own it would still lose because, as others noted earlier, China’s economy is dependent on the trade with the west.

On the SAME SIDE?

Right, we agree on everything.

Hypothetically and rhetorically no, but practically there are a lot of common interests, yes. China’s prosperity is strongly interlinked with the prosperity of the USA and Europe. The differences that exist are, in many cases, similar in scope and nature to the sort of differences of opinion that would be found between the USA and Europe.

Taiwan?

Yes. Much hot air is expended over Taiwan but for as long as both sides are making lots of money nothing will happen. And both sides are making lots of money. The Taiwanese are very active commericially in Southern China (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen) and the mainland Chinese are increasingly very active in Taiwan. Rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world has long ago conceded China(Taiwan, ROC) to China(mainland, PRC) in practice if not in words. Eventually both sides will start talking about how they can re-unite much as East and West Germany eventually reunited.

Korea?

Yes. They are a petulant pain in the arse. For the USA they are a pain-in-the-arse at a distance but they are sitting on China’s doorstep. Unsurprsingly China feels greater affinity for its near neighbour and former ideological buddy than does the USA, and China has no interest in having a conflict for the sake of confict. However the fact that China has not meddled much in NK’s affairs could be evidence of China’s willingness to let other countries be themselves. China has no interest in an aggressive NK if only because of the refugee problem it would create.

Central Asia?

Partly. It is not in the USA’s or China’s interest for the area to become unstable or for it to be dominated by Russia. Obviously there is competition for trade but so too between the USA and EU for example; it isn’t necesarily a fighting matter though the possibility for tension is there.

Afghanistan?

Yes. Do you think China will be happy to see radical Islam growing there? If the hot-tempered followers of Mohammed dislike the monotheistic “people of the book” far-way in America and Israel, how do you think they feel about the pork-loving, baijiu swilling, buddha revering, atheists of China next door?

India?

As you noted, India and China have actually fought border skirmishes. There is the potential for big trade conflicts in the future but there is far more oportunity for trade collaboration. Why do you think China should view India much differently to how the USA views India.

The Phillippines?

I will be honest and admit that I have never paid any attention to Chinese involvement in the Phillippines so I am completely ignorant in this matter.

Japan?

More or less, yes. China trades extensively with Japan and has no interest in having them as an enemy. Many Chinese do hold a deep-felt resentment against Japan but that is not the same as the government wanting conflict with Japan.

Africa?

Not so much, I will grant you. In Africa all countries are competing for access to resources and for trade opportunities so in that sense China and the USA are not on the same side. China very much wants greater influence in Africa in order to have preferential access to the opportunities. China is not operating with the same moral concerns about dictatorships and corruption as the West so that again is a valid difference.

A better example would probably have been Iran. Both sides want access to the oil and China appears to be prepared to support Iran against Western interests to get it.

And when you have perhaps the largest armed force (regulars, militia, local auxiliaries, etc) on the planet, further military buildups, increasingly bellicose rhetoric, and an ideology confrontational with much of the world, you wonder why?

You already agreed that China has problems all around it. Given the history of China’s interactions with the world over the past 150 years it would be very foolish for China not to want a substantial military.

However the present threat to China does not come from the nations that gave it the most trouble in the 19th and 20th centuries.

As for the marine build up, which is where this thread started, perhaps the Chinese government is thinking 20 years ahead to a time when Europe could easily be engaged in one of its internal strifes and who knows what the USA will be thinking and doing at that time. China needs to think ahead to a world in which the unusual stability of the past 40 / 50 years is lost to the sort of disorder that was prevalent in earlier centuries.

If pirates and militant Muslims can cause trouble today for the USA and Europe then they can certainly cause trouble tomorrow for China. It will take China many years to build-up its naval capability so even if the problems are not anticipated for a decade or so the ship-building and sailor-training needs to start now.

Remind me again what all those foreign businesses are doing over there?

Practicing socialism with Chinese Characteristics, of course. Why else would they want to come to China? Oh, the more diligent ones are also studying the “three represents”. But mostly they are just desperately trying to make sense of, and profit in, the commercial quagmire that China offers.

Now THIS is going to be a laugh…

“The Three Represents is imbued with the same spirit as Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory

Deng Xiaoping being the very same person who realized that “Mao Zedong Thought” had plowed the road to industrialization with corpses but couldn’t actually use them, and so opened China up to the West once again after discarding vast swaths of Mao’s ecconomic policies?

You are quite correct, and I am glad you enjoyed the quote I found for the delectation of HotAir readers, but in China Chairman Mao is still revered by many and criticising him openly is not a wise course of action. Say good things or say nothing or risk a visit from the local police.

The CPC isn’t going to say bad things about Mao for much the same reason that the heads of state in France and Spain aren’t going to say bad things about the Pope. Nobody wants to upset the proletariat without good reason; it just spoils the party … so to speak.

China has done one revolution recently, it learned from the experience that it doesn’t want another any time soon.

Various branches of the state do, however, still own/control large swathes of industry and other money-making ventures.

Which doesn’t mean much about the state of the FOREIGN owned industries.

Well, it does actually due to joint venture rules, land ownership & acquisition rules, and so on. However even if a some foreign companies were deploying capital in order to acquire a trading profit, China is still a long way from being a capitalist country, even with “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Materialistic yes, capitalistic … not so much. Mind you, after the events of the past year the UK and USA have rather stretched the definition of a free-market economy to the point where I suppose we could say that China isn’t so different after all. But that would be as much a case of the USA and UK adopting socialism with Chinese characteristics, as it would China adopting capitalism.

… complete the picture with PRC apologists.

Its lucky I wasn’t supping on steamed rice when I read this. Have you any idea how much it hurts to snort steamed rice through one’s nose?

Thank you for playing, please come again.
Turtler on May 2, 2009 at 12:55 AM

It’s been a pleasure. I haven’t laughed so much on a HotAir thread for quite a while. Thank you very much.

Well, since we’ve had Liberal trolls, Islamist trolls, Militia trolls, and Fascist trolls, we might as well complete the picture with PRC apologists.

China and the West have been ‘opponents’ for the past dozen or more decades because the trade wars of the late 1800s, the ancient and violent tensions between China and Japan, and then because of Communism.

Simplified yes, but accurate enough.

Now, whilst the Chinese are pretty image conscious and have felt humiliated by its interactions with the ‘West’ during those dozen or more decades, it would be wrong to think that the ‘West’ is China’s only concern.

True, but if it is not the biggest one, it must be no lower than #2.

China is still nervous about Russia. It has its own internal Islam problems.

True, but this is not 1967: the Russians are a paper tiger compared to their past that is only still dangerous due to the sheer willpower of Putin and other “Russophiles” (as they call themselves nowerdays), and the internal Muslim problems are comparatively minor (nothing that sending a few armor divisions to Singkiang hasn’t been sufficient enough to fix in the past).

It has the unstable Islamic states of Afghanistan, Burma and Pakistan as neighbours.

And Burma (or, as the Junta calls it today, Myanmmar) is a staunch ally of Beijing, and Pakistan is roughly neutral (though the nukes complicate everything). Only Afghanistan is an outright threat to China from the Muslim border regions you mentioned, including perhaps Iran (though they are tied down dueling us and the Russians and trying to get the nuke) and Pakistan.

And isn’t it a coincidence that it is the only nation of the above where the West has a sizable military presence?

Four of its neighbours, India, Pakistan, N.Korea and Russia, have nuclear weapons and three of those countries are aggressive and badly ruled.

And China has wasted no time making renewing its old alliance with Pyongyang (though to what extent remains to be seen) and making detente with Russia and sending feelers to Pakistan. The only outright nation that the PRC has actually shed blood against overtly is India, which, suprisingly enough, is also the one nation mentioned that has the closest ties to the West.

What a coincidence!

China needs to trade, import and export, which means it needs to keep the trade routes to its customers and oil supplies open.

So did we in Vietnam, but it didn’t stop Beijing from making a stink about it when we had to rout ships through the South China Sea, eh?

The piracy in the gulf has revealed that the Chinese cannot rely on European or American maritime forces to keep those shipping routes safe.

Hardly. Just because we don’t adopt Chinese strategies for dealing with problems doesn’t mean we aren’t gettin gthe job done. And by the way, if the PRC is complaining about the Somalis, perhaps they should STOP SELLING THEM WEAPONS!

Given all of these things, China’s desire to expand and upgrade its military in general, and blue water fleet in particular is, can be interpreted as an attempt to take responsibility for their own safety … something that many people on this forum should understand and appreciate.

Understand? Yes. Appreciate? Depends on the definition.

We “appreciate” it as a definitive attempt to compete with the only true opponents China has for dominance of the Pacific (the US and its secondary Japanese and ANZAC allies). It can hardly be directed at anybody else: the Russian Pacific Fleet never has recovered from the beating they took from the Japanese in 1904/05, and the Indonesians and Fillipinos don’t have nearly a large enough navy, and one that is primarily directed against each other.

Such rhetoric reminds me of the WWI German excuse that they didn’t START the war (which was only technically true) but that the massive arms buildup was just them “Defending themselves.”

This was right after they had violated international law by attacking Belgium and Luxembourg, keep in mind.

That might be true in a conflict between China and the USA, but I doubt if China is seriously considering any kind of significant conflict with the USA.

Hardly. If they aren’t CONSIDERING it, than they deserve far less credit than I thought they do.

The question is if they are PLANNING it. Which, given the fleet buildup and saber rattling regarding Africa, the Phillippines, and the Straits of Malacca, seems to be a resounding “YES.” If not tommorrow, at least in the near future.

Fair enough, I’m sure we’re considering the same things. But, than again, we don’t exactly have an inferiority complex regarding long-lost Pacific domination, now do we?

A WW2-type navy might be very useful when dealing with aggression from, or instability in, countries that are less developed than China is, and China is surrounded by such countries.

All of whom have perhaps a tenth of China’s manpower (with the exception of Russia), most of whom have no navies whatsoever, and most of whom who have no ideological reason to be gunning for the West (with the exceptions of Russia, Pakistan, and the Islamists running amok in Central Asia).

Nice try. Please come again.

I have seen many comments on this forum which suggest that people see China as some sort of monstrous threat to the USA, and as if China-USA tension were the only sort of tension China need consider.

And so far you have decisively proven the second wrong. Well done.

If only you could do the same for the first…

Neither of those views matches reality.

Yeah, sure. And that naval buildup is directed against who again? And those propaganda posters and films?

China and the USA are mostly on the same side, despite all the posturing, grimacing and tough-talk from either side, and China has plenty of immediate tensions to consider since it is surrounded by unstable countries that have the ability to harm China’s stability and its trade routes are being threatened right now by the gulf piracy.

On the SAME SIDE?

Right, we agree on everything.

Taiwan?

Korea?

Central Asia?

Afghanistan?

India?

The Phillippines?

Japan?

Africa?

Ring any bells?

While you are right we aren’t the ONLY enemy China has, you can be damn sure we are not being ignored.

Some did, some didn’t, most probably didn’t care. Not “all kinds of foreigners” have the same opinion or perspective.

I will concede you that.

The people who make the most noise do not generally represent the majority and that’s why they need make a lot of noise to get their (minority) viewpoint noticed.

And what makes more noise that sending out the tanks and letting them rip loose on that pesky minority? Or perhaps sending those in the majority to Prison or the executioners block (case in point: there are probably more Chinese Christians than there are CCP members)?

How ironic.

(And how I wish governments around the world would understand this, and stop trying to remould society to please the whims of the vocal minority).

And if you are truly serious, you can start right at home.

We’ll wish you the best.

I don’t know, I am only speculating: Many people hold negative views of China that perhaps China is a convenient “demon” to use to justify defense spending.

And when you have perhaps the largest armed force (regulars, militia, local auxiliaries, etc) on the planet, further military buildups, increasingly bellicose rhetoric, and an ideology confrontational with much of the world, you wonder why?

I would have thought Australia would be more concerned about the Piracy habit taking hold on the trade routes from Australia to the middle-East, India, China, Japan and so on.

Well, you can forgive the Aussies for being more concerned with Asia than with the Middle East.

After all, the last time a serious threat openly attacked them, it came from a certain Pacific nation whom you should be VERY familiar with. And its greatest potential foe for several decades were the Indonesians, not the Russians or the Islamists.

My other guess is that Australia is not so much concerned about a direct military conflict with China but more that in the event of a conflict involving any of the intervening coastal states (esp. Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam) Australia would be able to exert influence to counter any unfavourable influence that China might wish to exert.

Hardly. Even at the post-WWII height of its power, Australia never had the resources or the men that China could have, even when China was wracked by warlords. In a direct conflict between Australia and China without any Western aid, China will win unless the Aussies play the game of their LIVES.

And remind me again who has hundreds of thousands of troops on the borders of Vietnam and (for all intents and purposes) Thailand, an alliance with the Burmese junta, and a navy strong enough to wipe the Indonesians from the map?

Also, since China and Australia are likely to want to trade extensively with one another in the future, it is in both nations’ interests to make sure that the relationship remains moderately balanced.

True, but it is also in both nation’s interests to expand or at least secure themselves against ideological foes in the region.

Gee, I wonder who they would be?

Comrade, you are mistaken. There is no “capitalism” in China.

Remind me again what all those foreign businesses are doing over there?

Marxism classes are still taught to undergraduates and the Chinese government follows a strict policy of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”?

Translaton: The CCP dictates the terms and gets a cut of everything.

While some have interpreted the “three represents” to be an adoption of capitalism, in 2002 Comrade Jiang Zemin said (translated),

Now THIS is going to be a laugh…

“The Three Represents is imbued with the same spirit as Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory

Deng Xiaoping being the very same person who realized that “Mao Zedong Thought” had plowed the road to industrialization with corpses but couldn’t actually use them, and so opened China up to the West once again after discarding vast swaths of Mao’s ecconomic policies?

and it reflects new demands on the work of the Party and the state arising from developments and changes presently occurring in China and the world over.

I can buy that.

The Three Represents is a powerful theoretical tool for strengthening and improving Party building and promoting the self-improvement and development of China’s socialist system.”

By letting the foreign capitalists get sweetheart deals in most cases in exchange for giving the CCP products and funds (both overtly and less so)?

Socialism is still pioneering the way into the future and any resemblence to capitalism, refined or unrefined, is purely coincidental.

Translation: Please ignore the foreign factories and the foreign capitalists from Sony, Microsoft, Dell, etc.counting the money saved on labor costs during this conference with the CCP. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

Let’s see, you let foreign capitol (and foreign capitalists) in, you give them regulations to work under, you take some of the profits, and yet this is not capitalism?

Various branches of the state do, however, still own/control large swathes of industry and other money-making ventures.

Which doesn’t mean much about the state of the FOREIGN owned industries.

Thank you for playing, please come again.

Yes, Spain.

The birth of America as a world power occured when we defeated them in 1898, and it was solidified when we defeated them in the Pyrenees and Morrocco in 1946 during a handful of skirmishes that caused Franco and Salazar to back down, which helped minimalize them and (arguably) contribute to their downfalls.

And now we are not only loosing Spain as an ally, but they are becoming a persistent menace with the “inquisition” they mentioned before.

And what is worse, we are LETTING them at this time of all times when we need to bring them into line and project a strong upper lip.

Is it fading or is it being willfully thrown away?

Don’t mind Kevin Rudd, he is a drunken oaf. He’s ruined practically everything the great John Howard built. He’s a prefiguration of Obama and we in Australia regret him mightily. trouble is we don’t have a conservative leader in the wings like Sarah Palin.

promachus on May 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM

What of Peter Costello? He was Howard’s Treasurer. And he is now biding his time as a backbencher.

Although he is not exactly a social conservative I would rather him than Rudd. If ever Costello were to debate Rudd he would wipe the floor with him.

Is he electable?

Let’s face this, they are refining capitalism by observing our failures.

FireBlogger on May 1, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Comrade, you are mistaken. There is no “capitalism” in China. Marxism classes are still taught to undergraduates and the Chinese government follows a strict policy of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”?

While some have interpreted the “three represents” to be an adoption of capitalism, in 2002 Comrade Jiang Zemin said (translated),

“The Three Represents is imbued with the same spirit as Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, and it reflects new demands on the work of the Party and the state arising from developments and changes presently occurring in China and the world over. The Three Represents is a powerful theoretical tool for strengthening and improving Party building and promoting the self-improvement and development of China’s socialist system.”

Socialism is still pioneering the way into the future and any resemblence to capitalism, refined or unrefined, is purely coincidental.

I’m truly not sure if I am being sarcastic or accurate since like, more or less everybody else, I’m truly not sure what the correct interpretation of the “three represents” is supposed to be. Many volumes have been written to explore that question.

Various branches of the state do, however, still own/control large swathes of industry and other money-making ventures.

您不是中国人，对吧？

DarkCurrent on May 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM

哦，我们这里可以用汉字 我不知道了。
谢谢你问我是不是中国人但是我承认没有什么。可能是可能不是。你采！你的中文不错 :)

70% of our GDP is from Consumer spending Walmart could actually hurt China. Walmart is 5% of our economy.

One minister, I forget which one, recently suggested having an extended holiday. Moor all this ships.

China and the USA are mostly on the same side, despite all the posturing, grimacing and tough-talk from either side, and China has plenty of immediate tensions to consider since it is surrounded by unstable countries that have the ability to harm China’s stability and its trade routes are being threatened right now by the gulf piracy.

YiZhangZhe on May 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM

China has no ambition here, IMO. We are their wealth generator in good times. When we don’t shop at Target or Walmart they close factories by the thousands.

Let’s face this, they are refining capitalism by observing our failures.
For one NO tax on private companies. Even they see the foolishness of hampering growth by penalizing through taxation.
They get their revenues but not at the expense of the industrial engine.

The Ironic thing about this statement is the fact that Prime Minister Rudd appears to have a much closer relationship with the Communist Government in China than he does with the Government of the United States. Then again the Australian Labor party has always been sympathetic toward the communist government in China and that position appears to have grown stronger as the Labor party has become more intellectual and less working class.

Dreadnought223 on May 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM

I don’t know, I am only speculating: Many people hold negative views of China that perhaps China is a convenient “demon” to use to justify defense spending.

I would have thought Australia would be more concerned about the Piracy habit taking hold on the trade routes from Australia to the middle-East, India, China, Japan and so on.

My other guess is that Australia is not so much concerned about a direct military conflict with China but more that in the event of a conflict involving any of the intervening coastal states (esp. Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam) Australia would be able to exert influence to counter any unfavourable influence that China might wish to exert.

Also, since China and Australia are likely to want to trade extensively with one another in the future, it is in both nations’ interests to make sure that the relationship remains moderately balanced.

YiZhangZhe on May 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM

您不是中国人，对吧？

Yeah Yeah Yeah…after years of anti Americanism we are hearing all kinds of foreigners complain about a weak America. Well, isn’t that what they wanted?

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Some did, some didn’t, most probably didn’t care. Not “all kinds of foreigners” have the same opinion or perspective.

The people who make the most noise do not generally represent the majority and that’s why they need make a lot of noise to get their (minority) viewpoint noticed.

(And how I wish governments around the world would understand this, and stop trying to remould society to please the whims of the vocal minority).

Yeah Yeah Yeah…after years of anti Americanism we are hearing all kinds of foreigners complain about a weak America. Well, isn’t that what they wanted?

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Australia’s always been a good ally. It’s the Europeans who are going to have face some pretty harsh realities about providing their own defense, while somehow feeding their (collapsing) welfare states. Not that we and the Aussies won’t be far behind.

Waterloo is about 20 miles from where I live.

Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Just found this online. Grandfather is the guy in middle, front row. Can’t wait for my mother to see it!

I salute your grandfather. My guess is he hid out somewhere near where I currently live, though finding evidence for that would be near impossible.

There are woods near the Maquis du St Marcoult where many resistance fighters congregated.

My sons have camped out in those woods, and are nearly oblivious, aside from my harping, to the sacrifices of those who went before them.

Really, where?

Near where I live is the Maquis du St Marcoult – the hideout of the Belgian resistance during WWII.

Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM

I don’t know exactly where, just know the aircraft impacted near Waterloo. Here’s an account. Grandfather was 2nd Lieutenant Moffat, copilot mentioned in the report.

I think libtired was snarking.

Jaibones on May 1, 2009 at 4:42 PM

I was. It’s one of my few good habits.

Really, where?

Near where I live is the Maquis du St Marcoult – the hideout of the Belgian resistance during WWII.

Every year they raise a tree on May Day. It’s quite a sight. Drink a little, push the tree up a little, drink a little, push the tree up a little.

Wallonians are an odd bunch. Lovable, but odd.