PDA

View Full Version : Powered by trade, China gains political strength



J-10
08-28-2004, 11:22 AM
Jane Perlez/NYT NYT Saturday, August 28, 2004
NEWMAN, Australia Chris Dunbar watched as a front-end loader carved into a 20-meter wall of iron ore glinting in the red dirt of a vast, open mine in the Big Sky country of northwestern Australia. “This is as good as it gets," said a satisfied Dunbar, 47, a manager with more than 20 years of experience.
.
He was boasting about the richness of the blue-black ore at the Mount Whaleback mine, but he might as well have been bragging about the boom that has propelled economies across the Asia Pacific region.
.
These days, Australian engineers - like executives, merchants and manufacturers elsewhere in the region - cannot seem to work fast enough to satisfy the hunger of their biggest new customer: China.
.
Not long ago Australia and China regarded each other with suspicion. But through newfound diplomatic finesse and the seemingly irresistible lure of its long economic expansion, Beijing has skillfully turned around relations with Australia, America's staunchest ally in the region.
.
The turnabout is just one sign of the broad new influence Beijing has accumulated with American friends and foes alike. From the mines of Newman - an outpost of 3,000 in a corner of the outback otherwise dotted with eucalyptus and kangaroos - to the prized forests of Myanmar, the former Burma, China's rapid growth is sucking up resources and pulling the region's varied economies in its wake. The effect is unlike anything since the rise of Japanese economic power after World War II. For now, China's presence mostly translates into money, and the doors it opens. But more and more, China is leveraging its economic clout to support its political preferences.
.
Beijing is pushing for regional political and economic groupings it can dominate, like a proposed East Asia Community that would cut out the United States and create a global bloc to rival the European Union.
.
It is dispersing aid and, in ways not seen before, pressing countries to fall in line on its top foreign policy priority: its claim over Taiwan.
.
China's higher profile is all the more striking, analysts, executives and diplomats say, as Washington's preoccupation with Iraq and terrorism has left it seemingly disengaged from the region, which in turn has found the United States more off-putting and harder to penetrate since Sept. 11, 2001.
.
American military supremacy remains unquestioned, regional officials say. But the United States appears to be on the losing side of trade patterns. China is now South Korea's biggest trade partner, and two years ago Japan's imports from China surpassed those from the United States.
.
Current trends show China is likely to top American trade with Southeast Asia in just a few years. China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, as much as threw down the gauntlet late last year, saying he believed that China's trade with Southeast Asia would reach $100 billion by 2005, just shy of the $120 billion in trade the United States does with the region.
.
Wen's claim was no idle boast. Almost no country has escaped the pull of China's enormous craving for trade and, above all, energy and other natural resources to fuel its still galloping expansion and growing consumer demand. Though the Chinese government's growth target for 2004 is 7 percent, compared with 9.1 percent for 2003, few are worried about a slowdown soon.
.
In Thailand, where the United States maintains its second largest embassy, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is of ethnic Chinese descent, is considering building a pipeline across the southern Isthmus of Kra that would give China quicker access to Middle East oil.
.
In Malaysia, where exports of gas, palm oil and mid-range electronics to China have soared, the new prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, chose to make his first major overseas visit to China. He was accompanied by an entourage of 800 business executives.
.
In Myanmar, China is striking multimillion-dollar trade deals and flooding local markets with consumer products, undercutting Washington's effort to isolate one of the world's most repressive governments.
.
Chinese executives and diplomats, sensing the advantage that comes with riding one of the world's fastest-growing economies, have extended their reach to the point that China is increasingly seen as the go-to neighbor, regional diplomats and other analysts say.
.
Many already contend the future belongs to China. A new generation of political and business leaders is placing its bets now on what is nearly universally seen as China's rise - and hedging against a possible waning of American influence.
.
On campuses, students view Chinese universities as an alternative to studies in the United States, as they seek to make connections and understand a nation that they see becoming a central force in their lives.
.
Even as America's position erodes, its approach and policies - on Iraq, North Korea, weapons proliferation - have tended to push China and its neighbors together.
.
Not least among the shared interests is a “mutual concern about the unilateralism" of current American policy, said Muhammad Noordin Sopiee, chairman of Malaysia's Institute of Strategic and International Studies.
.
“They need regional friendship, we need regional friendship," he said of the Chinese. “They need time to develop their economy; so do we. They need protection from the United States, and so do we."
.
“Sometimes you see the glint of steel," he added of the Chinese approach, “But they hide it. The smile is dominant. They want to be friends."
.
China's rapid gain in influence in the Asia Pacific region ranges so broadly that it can be measured at the extremes.
.
The military government of Myanmar is no favorite of Washington. The Bush administration has tried since last year to use trade sanctions to coerce Myanmar's generals to share power and release the opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, from house arrest.
.
But the logic of the sanctions did not impress even a local Burmese restaurant owner on the road from Mandalay to China. With ceiling fans powered by scarce electricity whirring gently, he drew a rough map of Myanmar on a bare wood tabletop for a recent visitor. India, Thailand, Laos, China, he said, pointing to the neighbors.
.
“As long as China remains friendly, nothing will change,” said the man, who did not want to be named for fear of Myanmar's ruthless military intelligence service. “China can provide everything the country needs, from a needle to a nuclear bomb,” he said.
.
China has in fact capsized Washington's policy with its own trade deals, which far outweigh the value of the American penalties.
.
The State Department estimates that Myanmar lost about $200 million in the first year of the ban on imports to the United States. At the same time, it said, trade between China and Mynamar amounted to about $1 billion in 2003.
.
Here is where economic leverage translates into political preference. For China, Myanmar provides access to the Indian Ocean and is too important as a gateway to energy and other natural resources to be thrown overboard. Not only has China offset the American sanctions and kept Myanmar afloat with easy credit and trade, but it has taken Myanmar's military leaders under its wing.
.
China's deputy prime minister, Wu Yi, during a visit this spring to Myanmar's capital, Yangon, formerly Rangoon, pledged to expand trade to $1.5 billion in 2005.
.
In July, Myanmar's recently installed prime minister, Khin Nyunt, paid an eight-day visit to China, where he was treated like an old friend. He returned with a raft of accords on new railways, a fertilizer factory and mine exploration.
.
High on the list were a $150 million loan for telecommunications and a $94 million rescheduling of debts - relatively small amounts that show how easy it has become for China to serve as Myanmar's patron.
.
Chinese officials have also been willing to finance vital hydroelectric dam projects amply in the absence of lenders from anywhere else. And they recently proposed that a pipeline be built from Sittwe, a port on Myanmar's west coast, to Kunming, the capital of China's southwestern Yunnan Province, allowing China more direct access to Middle East oil than the current route by ship through the Malacca Straits.
.
Closer to the border, the trade is in smuggled teak, a wood prized for its beauty and durability by China's surging furniture manufacturers.
.
“China needs Burma's natural resources to fuel development on the border and in Yunnan Province as a whole,” Simon Phillips, the author of a report on the trade published last year for Global Witness, a British nongovernmental organization, said in an interview.
.
After China imposed a ban on logging on its side of the border in 1998, Chinese companies moved their workers - tens of thousands of them - into Myanmar, he said. With the backing of political patrons in the Myanmar military and in separatist militias, the loggers carried on their work with impunity, often using elephants to drag the huge logs out of the difficult forest terrain.
.
One of the most important highways that China has helped improve is the main artery from the border to Yangon. These days, the traffic is varied.
.
Huge trucks, many of them 40-year-old hulks with exposed engines, still haul outsized teak logs to China. Smaller vans, piled with crates of live crabs from Myanmar's Indian Ocean ports, ply a profitable 48-hour journey delivering delicacies for Chinese epicures.
.
A few months ago, one resident said, the trade included wild frangipani trees plucked from the forests around Hsipaw so they could be cultivated in time for decoration at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
.
From China, a vast assortment of cheap consumer goods for local markets comes down the road, particularly to Lashio. On a recent day, the city market was packed with Chinese electronics, clothes and food.
.
“Myanmar is the resource pit of China,” the restaurant owner lamented. “We send our best wood to them, our best gems, our best fruit. What do we get? Their worst fruit and their cheapest products."
.
For executives at BHP Billiton, the Australian giant that is the world's largest mining company and the operator of the Mount Whaleback mine, it has been a very good year. China has made all the difference.
.
Profits were up nearly 80 percent, the company reported in August, much of the growth riding on new orders from the Chinese steel mills that cast girders for the skyscrapers that dot China's urban expansion.
.
Chinese diplomats talk of the natural fit between the two countries: Last year China became the world's biggest importer of iron ore, and Australia is its second biggest producer.
.
With orders from China surging, BHP Billiton executives say they are opening mines and expanding their overburdened rail and shipping facilities at Port Hedland, on the northwest coast. On a recent day, no fewer than 13 ships waited to berth and load with ore for the 10-day journey to China.
.
Doug Trotter, a project geologist who works at a new BHP Billiton mine called Area C, 100 miles east of Mount Whaleback, called that kind of demand “job security."
.
“They originally planned that this plant would produce four million tons of ore next year,” he said. “Instead, we expect to produce 20 million in 2005."
.
Demand is so great, in fact, that Chinese steel mills, in addition to buying the high-grade ore at Mount Whaleback, are taking a far lower grade that was considered unusable 20 years ago.
.
“Technical changes in steel making make it possible to use this ore," Trotter said, “and Australian technical people are in China showing them how to use it."
.
Even more of a bonanza is China's demand for natural gas - which China says it will use to start replacing coal.
.
In the richest trade deal in Australian history, sealed after Prime Minister John Howard personally lobbied officials in Beijing, the Chinese agreed to buy a 25-year supply of liquid natural gas from an Australian company, Woodside Energy, for $25 billion.
.
The Australians beat Qatar and Indonesia in the bidding, even though Australia's price was higher, because they could better guarantee a secure supply, said Lucio Della Martina, general manager for marketing at Woodside. The gas will start being delivered to China in 2006, or whenever the Chinese finish building a receiving terminal in Guangdong.
.
Huge as the deal was, negotiations are already under way for a still bigger deal - valued at $30 billion - for gas at a deposit called Gorgon, also off Western Australia.
.
Whether in natural gas or iron ore, Australian sensitivities about foreign ownership of natural resources have been outweighed by the sheer size of the Chinese contracts.
.
At BHP Billiton's headquarters in downtown Perth, where recent gifts from Chinese delegations are displayed alongside older ones from Japan and South Korea, Graeme Hunt, president of the iron ore division, said the company had even invited Chinese mills to take a 40 percent stake in another iron ore mine, at Jimblebar, 30 miles east of Mount Whaleback.
.
The Chinese mills, he said, want a secure long-term supply and signed on for 25 years for an estimated $9 billion worth of ore.
.
A slowdown in the Chinese economy and slackening of demand was not a worry, Hunt said.
.
“We're still very confident,” he said. “China is the fourth largest car producer in the world, but most people still don't have a car. There's still a long way to go before the average Chinese person has all the material things of life.”
.
Just how American allies balance their strategic relationship with America against the economic opportunities offered by China is fast becoming a front-burner issue. America's friends see a difficult balancing act ahead.
.
Among the most nervous is Singapore. China publicly scolded the new prime minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, before his inauguration this month, for visiting Taiwan, where Singapore trains its soldiers, even though his father, Lee Kwan Yew, had visited Taiwan many times. China said it would delay trade talks as a punishment.
.
The gravity of the threat was not lost on Lee. In his first major speech, he hastily reaffirmed Singapore's support for a “one China” policy on Taiwan.
.
For his part, Howard, the conservative Australian prime minister, boasted in August that one of his “great successes” was building a “very close relationship” with China while strengthening ties with Washington. He was proud, he said, that he had given symbolic parity to President George W. Bush and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, by arranging for them to speak on consecutive days last fall before Parliament - where Hu was given a warmer reception.
.
This month, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia, which has been a stalwart American ally on Iraq, would have great reservations about joining the United States if a conflict broke out over Taiwan. Howard had to move quickly to set the record straight, dressing down his foreign minister by saying the remarks were “completely hypothetical."
.
Some in the Howard government are beginning to worry that Australia may not long be able to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to China and Taiwan. Most countries in the region, like Thailand, are already on board with China's claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.
.
During his speech to the Australian Parliament last October, the Chinese president urged Australia to help seek a solution to the Taiwan question - a point interpreted in Canberra as pressing Australia to choose.
.
Some high-level American officials warn the Bush administration that the United States is losing its once invulnerable position in Asia. James Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, in unusually blunt testimony before Congress in June, listed Beijing's aggressive diplomatic moves and said they were being used to strengthen China's economic gains.
.
Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative in the Clinton administration, has warned that China's rise as the customer of choice in Asia is likely to diminish American influence in the region.
.
Even if American officials have trained most of their energies and attention elsewhere after Sept. 11, the diplomates of China's new generation, like its ambassador to Australia, Fu Ying, are keenly attuned to the potential tug of competing allegiances, and seem prepared to plug any gaps.
.
Fu, considered one of China's most accomplished diplomats, was sent to Canberra a few months ago to lock in Australia's energy resources. She is succeeding, and noted that, even while the economic relationship brings the two countries closer, differences remain.
.
“When you had this kind of relationship with Japan, you were from the same side of the fence,” she said in an interview with an influential Australian newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald. “No ideological barriers whatsoever. With China it is different."
.
“Do you understand China that well?" she asked. “And does China understand Australia that well?"
.
Those questions remain to be answered.
.
The New York Times
the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/536237.html)

J-10
08-28-2004, 11:29 AM
edite

Red
08-28-2004, 02:29 PM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Trident-za
08-28-2004, 02:48 PM
A few years ago South Africa entered into a BIG trade agreement with China - I can remember being horrified at the prospect, although it made sense from an economic point of view. China was willing to do more than pay lip service to providing funds for development, so I can understand the stance the SA government took.

I can't remember any of the details though, and have no idea if any political agreements have been reached at this stage. If not, I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Capitalism in action.... this is how the US got strong isn't it? The idea doesn't make me happy though - China as a future dominant world power is a (potentially) scary thought.

platform389
08-28-2004, 03:02 PM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Yeah, "good" for them. :roll:

The countries of the region would do well to remember the treatment they received from the last Orientals that tried to dominate them.

Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come.

...and this time, I don't think the United States will be in a position to run interference.

This was an excellent article. Thanks for posting! woot

Lt_Crooks
08-28-2004, 03:06 PM
HMM SINCE IN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD IT HAS THE WORD " POLITICAL" shouldnt be in the POLITICAL SECTION im just saying

Red
08-28-2004, 04:33 PM
A few years ago South Africa entered into a BIG trade agreement with China - I can remember being horrified at the prospect, although it made sense from an economic point of view. China was willing to do more than pay lip service to providing funds for development, so I can understand the stance the SA government took.

I can't remember any of the details though, and have no idea if any political agreements have been reached at this stage. If not, I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Capitalism in action.... this is how the US got strong isn't it? The idea doesn't make me happy though - China as a future dominant world power is a (potentially) scary thought.
China did the same with Nigeria.They entered into a multi-billion dollar energy deal and it alarmed me but i can see why that Govt would deal with the devil.

J-10
08-28-2004, 09:29 PM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Yeah, "good" for them. :roll:

The countries of the region would do well to remember the treatment they received from the last Orientals that tried to dominate them.

Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come.

...and this time, I don't think the United States will be in a position to run interference.

This was an excellent article. Thanks for posting! woot

"Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come."

Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

achilles
08-28-2004, 10:05 PM
Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

You started a nice thread. Indeed, China is a very intersting country-case, but i think your post is oversimplistic, yet the article was nice.
The fact that Chinese want to unify china doesnt mean that this is the right thing to do. Regions like Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong or other little provinces here and there may not want that. In fact Taiwan does not...could it be better to let them go in their independence, let them determine and decide for themselves and base on that a friendly cooperative relatioship? Why does China have to 'centrally plan' certain regions that want to be on their own (please dont address historical or blood reasons, i ve heard that before ;)) ....we have seen what can happen to central planning havent we? ;) It doesnt work and it may not work as well with the EU, for example, if you think of it as a form of economic central planning.

As for China's 'friendly' trade this is not at all the case. There is great dispute, especially with the USA, about the very low value of yuan that boosts chinese exports and burdens other countries' trade balances (it is pegged to the dollar so the US cannot do anything to alter the exchange rate, still to be fair many US businesses have to be thankful towards China and other Asian countries for providing such a cheap labor). Of course China is looking at its own interests, naturally, but the trade is not that 'friendly' the way you put it. Its a very tough competitive 'internation trade' world out there...

Roger your priorities...'get rich and more democracy'....given your current political institutions which largely resemble a dictatorship and incorporate many elements of fascism it is very unlikely that economic growth will bring about democracy. Think about it...there is already in China a large chunk of businessmen involved with the government and all they do is to pile up their swiss bank accounts...they are 'magnets' of wealth and the more rich they become the more involved with the government and this turns into a vicous circle...a symbiotic relationship where tycoons need the government to expand their businesses and the government needs their political support...and economic growth becomes only a matter of the few ;) ...can you dig that? So i would shift my priorites from 'getting rich and more democracy' to 'first democracy and then get rich'. If you ask me...i prefer to have the freedom to express my opinion and access to unbiased press than be rich...dont you think? So you may have a brand new nice car...a cool new laptop and a huge collection of top-end electronic gadgetry....can you go to Tienamen square and express your political opinion freely? You ll probably receive a bullet as a response ;) This is the difference in progress i am talking about...i tend not to measure progress in terms of GDP per capita, or annual growth rate...important measures, but definitely insufficient.

Economic growth is good, and it has been good for China so far but all policies have focused only to that...perhaps, you know...maybe its about time to start switching a bit your priorities...
Think about it...take care

Seiyuuki
08-28-2004, 11:10 PM
bubble economy

seruriermarshal
08-29-2004, 12:03 AM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Yeah, "good" for them. :roll:

The countries of the region would do well to remember the treatment they received from the last Orientals that tried to dominate them.

Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come.

...and this time, I don't think the United States will be in a position to run interference.

This was an excellent article. Thanks for posting! woot

"Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come."

Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Yeah , then can you tell me how much Gi Ni Coefficient in China ? Thanks .

achilles
08-29-2004, 04:58 AM
Well we got to be fair and refrain from giving the impression to poor J-10 that we are all attacking China...at least its not the case with me.

Seiyuuki no its not a bubble economy. China's growth has been real...it has been based primarily on foreign direct investment (foreigns building plants within China etc) and not just on financial investment, which sometimes pumps up the 'virtual' sector of the economy. (some say its virtual some say its not). Good examples of bubbles? The US 'new economy' although there were 'real' aspects involved in that in the sense that new jobs were created and actually a whole new economic sector related to technology and the web. A better example of bubble? The greek stock market...reached a peak of 6355 (or was it 6455, not sure) units in 1999 and about two years later bottomed to almost 1300...very little of that boom had any real positive impact...so, no china's problems do not have to do with bubbles.

Securiermarshal good point about the gini index. China's 2002 gini was 0.45 which is not good but that doesnt say anything on its own...US gini fluctuates around 0.41 (numbers are from the World Bank and the CIA world factbook). The thing is that american equality/inequality (you name it) is stable whereas china's inequality tends to increase...it will most likely gets worse given current political insitutions and corporate/governmental corruption.

seruriermarshal
08-29-2004, 05:42 AM
Well we got to be fair and refrain from giving the impression to poor J-10 that we are all attacking China...at least its not the case with me.

Seiyuuki no its not a bubble economy. China's growth has been real...it has been based primarily on foreign direct investment (foreigns building plants within China etc) and not just on financial investment, which sometimes pumps up the 'virtual' sector of the economy. (some say its virtual some say its not). Good examples of bubbles? The US 'new economy' although there were 'real' aspects involved in that in the sense that new jobs were created and actually a whole new economic sector related to technology and the web. A better example of bubble? The greek stock market...reached a peak of 6355 (or was it 6455, not sure) units in 1999 and about two years later bottomed to almost 1300...very little of that boom had any real positive impact...so, no china's problems do not have to do with bubbles.

Securiermarshal good point about the gini index. China's 2002 gini was 0.45 which is not good but that doesnt say anything on its own...US gini fluctuates around 0.41 (numbers are from the World Bank and the CIA world factbook). The thing is that american equality/inequality (you name it) is stable whereas china's inequality tends to increase...it will most likely gets worse given current political insitutions and corporate/governmental corruption.

Perhaps China have cheap workforce . If China accept in an all-round way the principle of SA8000 , then it will great .

platform389
08-29-2004, 09:38 AM
[Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Bzztt... Wrong, but your answer is not a surprise given your state controlled (..aka spoon fed...) information services.

The American presence in the region is a leftover from the last time Oriental aggression was unleashed there. You do remember that since China suffered greatly at Japanese hands?

The Chinese have shrewdly taken the state controlled industry/labor process and used it to take advantage of the capitalist desire for lowest possible cost manpower. A compromise that may or may not result in the end of communist rule.

Here is an interesting little read that sums up the coming situation rather nicely. I don't agree with everything said here, but it is interesting nonetheless.

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/china_america_pacific.html


China and the limits of US power

Long ago Napoleon likened China to a sleeping dragon, and warned that when this dragon awoke, it would make the world tremble. The Chinese Revolution brought the multi-million Chinese people to its feet and broke the vicious circle of backwardness and lethargy that had paralysed the might of China for millennia. The nationalised planned economy - despite the criminal policies, corruption, waste and bungling of the ruling Stalinist-Maoist Bureaucracy - dragged China out of backwardness and laid the foundations for the economic transformation of the country. The massive gains in production, industry, science and technology made possible by a nationalised planned economy also transformed China from a weak semi-colonial country, robbed and humiliated by foreign imperialists, into a formidable military power. There could be no question of the USA or any other country reducing China to colonial slavery as in the past. China thus represents the limits of US power in the Pacific.

In the course of the last 20 years, the integration of China in world trade has increased with seven-league boots. Both China and America are interested in developing trade. For the big US monopolies, the prospect of developing the China market presents an alluring perspective of profits. They represent the China lobby in Washington, which is anxious to prevent a deterioration of US-China relations which would endanger their interests. For its part, China wants to develop its economy and technology as quickly as possible. This is a matter of life or death for a country that needs to achieve a rate of growth of at least eight percent each year to prevent the growth of unemployment. Therefore, neither Washington nor Beijing wishes to bring matters to an open break.

At every step, China's vital interests in Asia clash with those of the United States. The contradictions have been manifested in a series of incidents that have hampered the establishment of normal relations between the two countries. There was a serious clash over the Tien an Men Square massacre in 1989. In 1996 there was the crisis over the lobbing of Chinese missiles close to Taiwan. In 1999, there was the crisis over the American bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia. Given the existence of conflicting interests in a whole series of areas, incidents like these will continue to occur at regular intervals. But given the balance of forces, they will not lead to open war between China and the USA. In such an eventuality, the USA could not defeat China, and China could not defeat the USA. Therefore, each crisis will end in a compromise.

Above all, the problem of Taiwan, which Beijing still regards as a rebel province which must rejoin the Motherland, remains as an ulcer that poisons relations. Washington is pledged to come to the aid of Taiwan in the event of hostilities, and there is a vocal pro-Taiwan lobby in Congress, especially in the ranks of Mr. Bush's party. There is a lot of bluff on both sides. It is not at all clear that the US could defend Taiwan successfully against an all-out attack from China. But the threat of US military intervention is always present, and it is doubtful that Beijing would want to take the risk. But the situation remains explosive. Both China and Taiwan are arming to the teeth. Washington continues to arm Taiwan - which recently held full-scale military manoeuvres, obviously directed against China - with the most modern weaponry. The Taiwanese are pressing the Americans to equip their armed forces with the latest missile defence systems - a prospect that enrages the Chinese.

At the end of the day, both sides have so much to lose that the Chinese will probably have to reach some kind of a deal with the Taiwanese capitalists, who are already investing in China. There will be a lot of noise on the diplomatic front as both sides seek to gain an advantage over the other. But, at least in the short term, it will probably not lead to war. Nevertheless, in the realm of international politics, relations do not remain fixed for long. With every passing day, China is expanding her economic and military power. This has important long-term implications for Asia and the world. Although it suits the ruling Bureaucracy in Beijing to seek a modus vivendi with Washington as a means of obtaining the technological know-how and capital it needs to build up its economy, it is under no illusions that, sooner or later, a clash with America is inevitable. For the present, the incident of the spy plane is closed, and China has won on points. But in the future there will be new flash points in the struggle of China and America to dominate this decisive part of the globe.

China and Russia

Together with trade and investment in Asia has come a new intensification of the struggle for markets, raw materials and spheres of influence in the Pacific. In this struggle, the key players are China, the USA and Japan, although the Australian and European capitalists and their governments are also pushing for a share in the spoils. In the past the USA (under both Democratic and Republican administrations) dreamed of developing the China market. This mirage is still before their eyes, But whereas before the War, they thought that they could dominate China, this is no longer the case. China is too strong to be trifled with. That is the message of the recent events.

The development of explosive contradictions in the Pacific is shown by the arms race that affects most countries in the region. China itself is busy increasing its military strength. It has recently announced an increase of 18 percent on military expenditure. This is a big increase on the 10 percent increases of the past period, which themselves caused alarm among China's neighbours. Ominously, China's military modernisation programme, which hitherto laid stress on the air warfare capabilities of the People's Liberation Army, now focuses on expanding its naval potential.

Although the Chinese navy is still only a shadow of that of the US, it is growing all the time and developing into a serious force equipped with fast-attack patrol boats, new destroyers, new attack submarines, anti-ship missiles and aircraft carriers capabilities which represent a direct challenge to US naval domination in the Pacific. Its submarines and anti-ship missiles could endanger US aircraft carriers and prevent access by US forces to key areas such as the Taiwan Straits. Such developments must cause great concern in the Pentagon. In response, the US navy is constructing a new land-attack destroyer, the USS Zumwalt class. The activities of American spy planes near China's coast is part of the same strategy, to keep an eye on the Chinese military: the movement of its submarines, the launching of its missiles. This kind of activity is not that of friendly states, but more like two boxers, cautiously eyeing each other, probing to find a weak spot before a fight.

This does not mean that war between China and the USA is an immediate prospect. A war with China, apart from militarily problematical, would be politically very risky. It would provoke anti-American demonstrations all over Asia, and would be unpopular inside the USA. From an economic point of view, it would be disastrous. At a time when the US economy - and with it the whole world - is facing recession, the importance of the Chinese market is self-evident. Not only does it provide potentially a huge outlet for US goods and investment, but the inflow of cheap Chinese goods (not just textiles, but also microchips) has helped dampen inflation in the USA. In fact, one observer reckoned that many of the electronic components inside the US spy-plane were probably manufactured in China!

Faced with such a powerful antagonist, China must look around for allies. After decades of conflict between Russia and China, the rulers in Moscow and Beijing are beginning to draw closer. Putin's visit to Beijing will be followed by closer collaboration on the military and diplomatic front. The domination of US imperialism is bitterly resented in both countries. The outline of a future anti-American bloc, composed by Russia, China, India and Iran, is already visible. It will take place gradually, over a period of years, and will not be a smooth process. China does not want to be dominated by America or Russia, and will attempt to play one off against the other for its own benefit - now tilting towards one, now swinging back to the other. But ultimately the logic of events will drive China into the arms of Russia.

The link with Russia will provide China with access to a huge arsenal of weapons and equipment. In the last analysis, China may gain access to Russia's nuclear arsenal. This is a prospect that fills Washington with the deepest foreboding. That is another reason why it will try to avoid a direct confrontation with Beijing - for example over the spy plane issue. Although China's failure to release the plane has provoked fury in the Pentagon, the Americans know that, if they push China too hard, the Russians would be the ones to gain. They are therefore compelled to manoeuvre. They try to press Beijing, but dare not press too hard.

The situation in the Pacific Rim is far from reaching it's final resolution. Given the myth of "manifest destiny" it is anyone's guess what will exactly happen. However, communist governments are not known for their gentle dealings with neighbors, especially when they have something badly needed(...think oil and iron ore for two examples...).

Operation Ivy
08-29-2004, 11:39 AM
But doesnt china need the US to become powerful, what if we were to take all the businesses that we put in china and take them out, millions would be out of work and that would not help there growing economy
(im not very smart on this issue :D )

J-10
08-29-2004, 12:59 PM
A few years ago South Africa entered into a BIG trade agreement with China - I can remember being horrified at the prospect, although it made sense from an economic point of view. China was willing to do more than pay lip service to providing funds for development, so I can understand the stance the SA government took.

I can't remember any of the details though, and have no idea if any political agreements have been reached at this stage. If not, I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Capitalism in action.... this is how the US got strong isn't it? The idea doesn't make me happy though - China as a future dominant world power is a (potentially) scary thought.

Do business, make money, very simple. :lol:

achilles
08-29-2004, 01:14 PM
J-10:


Do business, make money, very simple. :lol:

after all the comments and thoughts that have been posted is this your response? :roll: Why did you post the article in the first place then? To keep us updated on China's achievements or to start a nice 'bumpy' conversation? Fooling around maybe?
If any of the above (especially the latter) is the case you can always ask the moderators to move it to the OFF forum where you can joke all you want...my impression was that we were discussing here ;)

J-10
08-29-2004, 01:34 PM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Yeah, "good" for them. :roll:

The countries of the region would do well to remember the treatment they received from the last Orientals that tried to dominate them.

Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come.

...and this time, I don't think the United States will be in a position to run interference.

This was an excellent article. Thanks for posting! woot

"Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come."

Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Yeah , then can you tell me how much Gi Ni Coefficient in China ? Thanks .

Here:
http://www.iolaw.org.cn/paper/paper300.asp

J-10
08-29-2004, 01:40 PM
J-10:


Do business, make money, very simple. :lol:

after all the comments and thoughts that have been posted is this your response? :roll: Why did you post the article in the first place then? To keep us updated on China's achievements or to start a nice 'bumpy' conversation? Fooling around maybe?
If any of the above (especially the latter) is the case you can always ask the moderators to move it to the OFF forum where you can joke all you want...my impression was that we were discussing here ;)

Thanks for your coments, give me some time, I just come back and on line, I am reading your posts and prefer to reply all your posts.

J-10
08-29-2004, 03:08 PM
Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

You started a nice thread. Indeed, China is a very intersting country-case, but i think your post is oversimplistic, yet the article was nice.
The fact that Chinese want to unify china doesnt mean that this is the right thing to do. Regions like Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong or other little provinces here and there may not want that. In fact Taiwan does not...could it be better to let them go in their independence, let them determine and decide for themselves and base on that a friendly cooperative relatioship? Why does China have to 'centrally plan' certain regions that want to be on their own (please dont address historical or blood reasons, i ve heard that before ;)) ....we have seen what can happen to central planning havent we? ;) It doesnt work and it may not work as well with the EU, for example, if you think of it as a form of economic central planning.

China seek for territory integrity, it's right. Amost countries in the world include U.S. legalize Taiwan is a part of China, only one China in the world. Unify China not means will change taiwan's life style, they are doing democracy test, that's OK, continue it.


As for China's 'friendly' trade this is not at all the case. There is great dispute, especially with the USA, about the very low value of yuan that boosts chinese exports and burdens other countries' trade balances (it is pegged to the dollar so the US cannot do anything to alter the exchange rate, still to be fair many US businesses have to be thankful towards China and other Asian countries for providing such a cheap labor). Of course China is looking at its own interests, naturally, but the trade is not that 'friendly' the way you put it. Its a very tough competitive 'internation trade' world out there...

You say 'internation trade' , hehe, China is a developing country, it's learning how to do business well under WTO, if U.S. prefer to teach China more about, welcome. Trade dispute is normal things. China like trade with other countries base on international trade rules.


Roger your priorities...'get rich and more democracy'....given your current political institutions which largely resemble a dictatorship and incorporate many elements of fascism it is very unlikely that economic growth will bring about democracy. Think about it...there is already in China a large chunk of businessmen involved with the government and all they do is to pile up their swiss bank accounts...they are 'magnets' of wealth and the more rich they become the more involved with the government and this turns into a vicous circle...a symbiotic relationship where tycoons need the government to expand their businesses and the government needs their political support...and economic growth becomes only a matter of the few ;) ...can you dig that? So i would shift my priorites from 'getting rich and more democracy' to 'first democracy and then get rich'. If you ask me...i prefer to have the freedom to express my opinion and access to unbiased press than be rich...dont you think? So you may have a brand new nice car...a cool new laptop and a huge collection of top-end electronic gadgetry....can you go to Tienamen square and express your political opinion freely? You ll probably receive a bullet as a response ;) This is the difference in progress i am talking about...i tend not to measure progress in terms of GDP per capita, or annual growth rate...important measures, but definitely insufficient.

Economic growth is good, and it has been good for China so far but all policies have focused only to that...perhaps, you know...maybe its about time to start switching a bit your priorities...
Think about it...take care

"a symbiotic relationship where tycoons need the government to expand their businesses and the government needs their political support..."

Yeah, as you know officals corruption is a serious problem in China now, because no perfect supervise system in goverment.

I do hope China have a democratic system like U.S.. but most Chinese people specially in rural just care for their economy income growth now.

"it is very unlikely that economic growth will bring about democracy", - I should let you know, with economic growth not only change people's life level and also change their thoughts, more and more middle class create in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou... they have more democric request. In fact, speech freedom is much more than 10 years ago. for example, in today's CCTV-2 "dialogue" program, some guys inquiry two CCP officials:
"Some one say "one party" come into power cause corruption, what do you think?"
"China get large change than ever before, Why does CCP still stick to Marxism in China?"
Haha, :lol: I feel surprise when I watch this scene on a state TV station, you know more than 300 million Chinese people watch it in the meantime. Those guys are so boldness, normally they don't like openly express their opinion.

seruriermarshal
08-29-2004, 07:17 PM
Good for China,everyone wants to control just one world.What a way to go

Yeah, "good" for them. :roll:

The countries of the region would do well to remember the treatment they received from the last Orientals that tried to dominate them.

Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come.

...and this time, I don't think the United States will be in a position to run interference.

This was an excellent article. Thanks for posting! woot

"Sooner rather than later, the Chinese will want something these countries don't want to provide(...military bases, as one example) and out the guns will come."

Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Yeah , then can you tell me how much Gi Ni Coefficient in China ? Thanks .

Here:
http://www.iolaw.org.cn/paper/paper300.asp

Thanks for that data , pay attention to it :

The Gini coefficient
for the whole country in recent years further shows that the inequality of
income distribution is intolerably high as the income gap has been ;widened
in a great deal. In last 5 years, the Gini coefficient has increased
substantially. In 1995, the Gini coefficient was 0.389, in 1996 it was 0.375,
in 1997 0.379, in 1998 0.386, and in 1999 0.397, as we mentioned above, in 2000
it was 0.458 (SSB, 2001). And many researchers have agreed that the actual Gini
coefficient in China is already more than 0.5. If the out-of-salary and
unlawful incomes such as taxation evasion, monopoly rent and the group
consumption are taken into consideration, the Gini coefficient will be much
higher.

J-10
08-29-2004, 08:31 PM
Thanks for that data , pay attention to it :

The Gini coefficient
for the whole country in recent years further shows that the inequality of
income distribution is intolerably high as the income gap has been ;widened
in a great deal. In last 5 years, the Gini coefficient has increased
substantially. In 1995, the Gini coefficient was 0.389, in 1996 it was 0.375,
in 1997 0.379, in 1998 0.386, and in 1999 0.397, as we mentioned above, in 2000
it was 0.458 (SSB, 2001). And many researchers have agreed that the actual Gini
coefficient in China is already more than 0.5. If the out-of-salary and
unlawful incomes such as taxation evasion, monopoly rent and the group
consumption are taken into consideration, the Gini coefficient will be much
higher.

yeah, it's a big social problem be concerned about by Chinese people now.


In short, from the above analysis, we can draw a conclusion that China has been going through a profound transformation phase to the market system. Market reforms have a dual nature. On the one hand, market reforms have a great vitality that has created a wealthier China and offered most of the Chinese people a better material life, but on the other hand, they have also produced unintended problems. Widening income disparity is a pressing problem China facing now. Deepening of the reforms will be much more difficult if the income inequality
issue is not tackled more effectively.

achilles
08-29-2004, 10:48 PM
[

I do hope China have a democratic system like U.S.. but most Chinese people specially in rural just care for their economy income growth now.

It does not have to be necessarily a western-type democracy...there is always room for improvement ;)


- I should let you know, with economic growth not only change people's life level and also change their thoughts, more and more middle class create in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou... they have more democric request. In fact, speech freedom is much more than 10 years ago.

Your point on the creation of middle-classes is very important. The middle class is the foundation of democracy and has been so, historically. With the continuing inequality though, there is the danger of a new 'aristocratic' middle-class to emerge and run the place hand-in-hand with the government. I do not discount the benefits from the emerging chinese middle class...my view of it is that China needs rural areas to be developed if it is to achieve equality and most importantly political stability. You cannot have the latter with a vast number of very poor rural areas.

J-10
08-30-2004, 03:20 AM
[Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Bzztt... Wrong, but your answer is not a surprise given your state controlled (..aka spoon fed...) information services.

The American presence in the region is a leftover from the last time Oriental aggression was unleashed there. You do remember that since China suffered greatly at Japanese hands?

Yeah, I understand, so China never opposed U.S. Army and navy deployed in Japan. p-)

J-10
08-30-2004, 03:34 AM
Your point on the creation of middle-classes is very important. The middle class is the foundation of democracy and has been so, historically. With the continuing inequality though, there is the danger of a new 'aristocratic' middle-class to emerge and run the place hand-in-hand with the government. I do not discount the benefits from the emerging chinese middle class...my view of it is that China needs rural areas to be developed if it is to achieve equality and most importantly political stability. You cannot have the latter with a vast number of very poor rural areas.

Yeah, I entirely agree with your opinion.

Steel21
08-30-2004, 04:12 AM
[Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Bzztt... Wrong, but your answer is not a surprise given your state controlled (..aka spoon fed...) information services.

The American presence in the region is a leftover from the last time Oriental aggression was unleashed there. You do remember that since China suffered greatly at Japanese hands?

Yeah, I understand, so China never opposed U.S. Army and navy deployed in Japan. p-)

So by implication US must deploy to answer any foreign aggression?

Should I remind those illusioned that the Hawaiians and Native Americans could have used a bit of intervention?

Oh yea, its not like our own media are so inquisitive...

Just like to point out that wars are not fought for righteousness, but for profit and survival. We would like to think we fight for some higher goals........

platform389
08-30-2004, 07:09 AM
So by implication US must deploy to answer any foreign aggression?

Should I remind those illusioned that the Hawaiians and Native Americans could have used a bit of intervention?

Oh yea, its not like our own media are so inquisitive...

Just like to point out that wars are not fought for righteousness, but for profit and survival. We would like to think we fight for some higher goals........

Ah yes, time for Ye Olden Moral Equivalency to appear, where the historical actions of the United States are compared to the most blood soaked regimes to appear on the planet. :roll:

For whatever reason, I do wonder if we could ask the people of the Philippines or Poland if they appreciated the actions of the US?

Now you would dare to compare the Red Chinese to the United States? And a free press to communist controlled media? How many multiplied MILLIONS are dead at the hands of the Reds?

What historical actions on the part of the US could even be remotely compared to machinations such as the Cultural Revolution, or the Hundred Flowers nonsense...?

While you are indeed correct there are regrettable aspects to US history, they pale in any attempt at comparison to communism. Any objective examination would reveal that.

n4292936
08-30-2004, 07:53 AM
That's basically right j-10 its essentially about money


Beijing has skillfully turned around relations with Australia, America's staunchest ally in the region.
Australia is now China's 4th largest importer. There was little skill involved on the Chinese side, its simply in both our best interests.

J-10
08-30-2004, 11:38 AM
What historical actions on the part of the US could even be remotely compared to machinations such as the Cultural Revolution, or the Hundred Flowers nonsense...?


You reminder the Cultural Revolution in China in 1966? What's a hell! All Chinese people damn the Cultural Revolution, it's crazy and absurd.

Steel21
08-30-2004, 11:51 AM
So by implication US must deploy to answer any foreign aggression?

Should I remind those illusioned that the Hawaiians and Native Americans could have used a bit of intervention?

Oh yea, its not like our own media are so inquisitive...

Just like to point out that wars are not fought for righteousness, but for profit and survival. We would like to think we fight for some higher goals........

Ah yes, time for Ye Olden Moral Equivalency to appear, where the historical actions of the United States are compared to the most blood soaked regimes to appear on the planet. :roll:

For whatever reason, I do wonder if we could ask the people of the Philippines or Poland if they appreciated the actions of the US?

Now you would dare to compare the Red Chinese to the United States? And a free press to communist controlled media? How many multiplied MILLIONS are dead at the hands of the Reds?

What historical actions on the part of the US could even be remotely compared to machinations such as the Cultural Revolution, or the Hundred Flowers nonsense...?

While you are indeed correct there are regrettable aspects to US history, they pale in any attempt at comparison to communism. Any objective examination would reveal that.

I agree with you that the CCCP has been a very violent and oppressive regime. If im not mistaken the 100 flower bloom thing was a ill fated attemp at open discussion that resulted in the arrest of those who voiced their opinions... the fools that actually trusted Mao.... :bash:

I would also argue that Communism never existed. Because Communism seeked an imppossible industrial working class that would eventually make greed obeslete. But of course Marx never understood that there was a limit on natural resources and thus all things must have a limited supply...... which dictated a demand..... and thus greed.

What did exist was dictatorship cloaked in communism. Which is not to say communism is pretty and nice, but just pointing out that it never got there, because it couldnt.

Which brings me to this... why fear communism? If we know Capitalism to the omnipotent WalMart, then why worry about the badly run KMart?

If we go far back enough every nation and every country has done some pretty messed up things. But why hold the fathers grudge while there is money to be made.

If we accept the fact that human nature is greedy and lustful, then capitalism is the greatest tool in undermining communism and dictatorship. Who would you rather see on the wall? Britney Spears of Kim Jun-il?

Have patience, with commercialism dictatorships will fall. You have to give the common man some degree of private interest to protect so that they will want a say in the governance. The greatest topis in any election is always Jobs, Economy.... not foreign oppression.

Finally, if you read numerous reports, our bases in Asia doesnt serve much of a purpose. (Seee www.g2mil.com article) I know, because i was stationed not far from the DMZ. Its expensive and extraneous. There are cheaper and more economical wa of doing things.

J-10
08-30-2004, 12:04 PM
[Hahaha, that's just American doing now. p-) :lol:

Chinese just want to unify China. China friendly trade with every country in the world now, China's target in the future 50 years -- get rich and more democracy, peaceful rise.

Bzztt... Wrong, but your answer is not a surprise given your state controlled (..aka spoon fed...) information services.

The American presence in the region is a leftover from the last time Oriental aggression was unleashed there. You do remember that since China suffered greatly at Japanese hands?

Yeah, I understand, so China never opposed U.S. Army and navy deployed in Japan. p-)

So by implication US must deploy to answer any foreign aggression?

Should I remind those illusioned that the Hawaiians and Native Americans could have used a bit of intervention?

Oh yea, its not like our own media are so inquisitive...

Just like to point out that wars are not fought for righteousness, but for profit and survival. We would like to think we fight for some higher goals........

You misunderstand it, U.S. was fought for righteousness in WWII, all the world remember it, Chinese people respect American's great action in Asia in WWII. U.S. had requested China (ROC in 1945) deployed army in japan, but Chinese president Jiang Jieshi did not answer. Now some Chinese people still think Japan would be a potential invader, so prefer to see U.S. Army deployed in Japan.

Durandal
08-30-2004, 05:47 PM
Should I remind those illusioned that the Hawaiians and Native Americans could have used a bit of intervention?

That's quite enough whining.

This needs to be in the politics sections. I know you understand the concept J-10 so play by the rules. :)