[Watermoon]

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99 ... esman.aspx

Ombrageux Edit: I have kept this post because the source is interesting and has provoked discussion. Do NOT in future post a topic just to post a link without any comment whatsoever.

[foxdemon]

The thing is that China is not predictable. Take this 'X-men' stuff for example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 7Y20120523


Then there is what seems to be a nationist movement behind the islands disputes in the SCS and disputed claims with Japan:


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china ... 181518.htm


So what is of concern is the question as to just how much the government is really in control. It seems that the nationism that the government has been fostering for the last decade or so, as a replacement for the communist ideology, is taking on a life of it's own. This is particularly so since nationalism is the means the establishment is using to side step social inequility issues associated with the more to authoritarian capitalism.

So, the fear is that nationalist sentiment will force the government's hand and lead to rash actions. Where it the case that the central government was clearly in firm control, by soft means of widely accepted legitimacy and law and order (a pluralist system, possible democratic, would be the obvious solution), then I doubt there would be so much concern about Chinese miliarty expansion.


Let me offer some historical examples to illustrate the sort of thing we are all worried about:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_X_of_France


This fellow ws the ruler of France in the 1820's. When faced with social unrest at home, he decided to start a foregin war to divert attention from the failings of his regime. So he invaded Algeria. The war didn't go as well as he hoped and he was overthown in a revolution in 1830 (the July revolution).

A later French ruler was also to se war as a way of diverting the attention of the people from domestic problems. It also failed (this time with a resounding military defeat too):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War


So, we see China laying claim to the territory of other nations, beligerently provocting a crisis and then trying to bully the other nation into making territoral concessions, all to the chears and cries of the nationalist peanut gallery. So far the CCP has been lucky and this exercising of Chinese national pride has served it's purpose, but sooner or later it will lead to trouble.

I will reiterate the point that it is not China's military modernisation that is at the heart of other nations' concerners but rather what is clearly an unstablity domestic situation and the irresponsible way the Chinese political establishment has been trying to handle that instability by progecting it outwards. Therefor, the conbcerns of neighbouring countries and their allies are well founded.

[Igor Antunov]

The communist party did not 'foster' nationalism, it was already there, they had to fight and defeat the nationalists in a bloody civil war. It has fostered maoism and some ideological movements, but not nationalism of the kind you speak of. Nationalism is dangerous, it leads to a false sense of entitlement and delusions of a 'manifest destiny'. It also leads to uncontrollable racism, ethnic tensions, xenophobia and lack of control of the populace. For current chinese leaders the future is one of economic growth and consolidation. Don't mistake party assertiveness for nationalism. In fact nationalism, even if being used as a tool, is too dangerous for such a massive demographic. The party would be forced into dumb wars by it's populace if it lost control of foreign affairs to nationalist elements. Just like the US is forced into economically and socially detrimental wars by it's corporate masters who seek individual profit.

China is now strong enough to pursue and solidify interests far beyond it's borders. So it commences down that path. It isn't seeking control over resources abroad because it has grown more nationalist, it is seeking control because it can, and because it needs those resources. And it is doing so in a controlled, methodical manner. A slow creep that involves constructing physical structures on disputed territory or in waters it deems sovereign. Then it waits for outside actors to react in a predictable manner, and then it acts. It is never reacting.

So, we see China laying claim to the territory of other nations,

China claimed the SCS before any of the others, the phillipines staked a claim over chinese waters in 1997, decades after.

[skeptic-1]

The thing is that China is not predictable. Take this 'X-men' stuff for example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 7Y20120523


Then there is what seems to be a nationist movement behind the islands disputes in the SCS and disputed claims with Japan:


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china ... 181518.htm


So what is of concern is the question as to just how much the government is really in control. It seems that the nationism that the government has been fostering for the last decade or so, as a replacement for the communist ideology, is taking on a life of it's own. This is particularly so since nationalism is the means the establishment is using to side step social inequility issues associated with the more to authoritarian capitalism.

So, the fear is that nationalist sentiment will force the government's hand and lead to rash actions. Where it the case that the central government was clearly in firm control, by soft means of widely accepted legitimacy and law and order (a pluralist system, possible democratic, would be the obvious solution), then I doubt there would be so much concern about Chinese miliarty expansion.


Let me offer some historical examples to illustrate the sort of thing we are all worried about:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_X_of_France


This fellow ws the ruler of France in the 1820's. When faced with social unrest at home, he decided to start a foregin war to divert attention from the failings of his regime. So he invaded Algeria. The war didn't go as well as he hoped and he was overthown in a revolution in 1830 (the July revolution).

A later French ruler was also to se war as a way of diverting the attention of the people from domestic problems. It also failed (this time with a resounding military defeat too):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War


So, we see China laying claim to the territory of other nations, beligerently provocting a crisis and then trying to bully the other nation into making territoral concessions, all to the chears and cries of the nationalist peanut gallery. So far the CCP has been lucky and this exercising of Chinese national pride has served it's purpose, but sooner or later it will lead to trouble.

I will reiterate the point that it is not China's military modernisation that is at the heart of other nations' concerners but rather what is clearly an unstablity domestic situation and the irresponsible way the Chinese political establishment has been trying to handle that instability by progecting it outwards. Therefor, the conbcerns of neighbouring countries and their allies are well founded.

First

1. China has 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE.

2. It has one of the oldest intact civilizations.

3. Prior to their revolution in the 40's they were free picking to the more militarily advanced West (who had bloody hard at it).

4. Like it or lump it in respect to the future we might emulate rather than castigate their actions in order to survive.


IMO China is very predictable !

Motivated by the same factors that drive the West but exquisitely more sophisticated in planning and executing long run operations. IMO they have found the key to moving forward in the ways that count the most.

Poetic justice ?

[skeptic-1]

The communist party did not 'foster' nationalism, it was already there, they had to fight and defeat the nationalists in a bloody civil war. It has fostered maoism and some ideological movements, but not nationalism of the kind you speak of. Nationalism is dangerous, it leads to a false sense of entitlement and delusions of a 'manifest destiny'. It also leads to uncontrollable racism, ethnic tensions, xenophobia and lack of control of the populace. For current chinese leaders the future is one of economic growth and consolidation. Don't mistake party assertiveness for nationalism. In fact nationalism, even if being used as a tool, is too dangerous for such a massive demographic. The party would be forced into dumb wars by it's populace if it lost control of foreign affairs to nationalist elements. Just like the US is forced into economically and socially detrimental wars by it's corporate masters who seek individual profit.

China is now strong enough to pursue and solidify interests far beyond it's borders. So it commences down that path. It isn't seeking control over resources abroad because it has grown more nationalist, it is seeking control because it can, and because it needs those resources. And it is doing so in a controlled, methodical manner. A slow creep that involves constructing physical structures on disputed territory or in waters it deems sovereign. Then it waits for outside actors to react in a predictable manner, and then it acts. It is never reacting.


China claimed the SCS before any of the others, the phillipines staked a claim over chinese waters in 1997, decades after.

Aptly stated.

We (USA) fiddle while Rome burns because our intentions are perversely obvious and ill applied.

[Typhoon]

This should come as no surprise, with sequestration on its way. This and every other threat will suddenly become very dangerous and imminent to the planners, as they remove lots of things from the books.

[oppose_obama]

So it's okay for china to secure its resources abroad but you bitch and moan about the united states doing so?

[Igor Antunov]

I see no evidence of resource security in Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan. In fact I saw a massive drop in security for resources leaving these countries. In short, US is doing it wrong: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 98645.html

[skeptic-1]

I see no evidence of resource security in Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan. In fact I saw a massive drop in security for resources leaving these countries. In short, US is doing it wrong: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 98645.html

China is buying resources abroad. The west does not buy but "takes or controls".

Opening China to allow the use of low cost labor without restriction to sell their goods to the USA was a giant mistake.

Allowing US manufactures to without restriction use that low cost labor reducing employment in the USA was the straw that broke the camels back.

[Franker65]

The west doesn't simply take. It does of course buy resources from other countries - including China. This includes huge proportions of stuff like coal.

[skeptic-1]

I said take or control !

We lust for the oil in Iran and Iraq.

[Baff]

We lust for their oil, but the specific oil we shall go to war with them over is Saudi's and Kuwaits.
Its' not their oil we were fighting for, it was their neighbours.