China's Unmentionables

Dan,

Thanks for the kind words and link, which are very much appreciated. As you note, I'm just getting started with ChinaRedux and am excited about becoming a part of the community covering China and related issues.

China's military intentions are a matter of great speculation and debate, as well as considerable tension. The stakes are very high for US. China's recent anti-satellite test raised the level of tension by several notches.

The short answer is that no one is really certain about China's military intentions. China shares relatively little information about its military programs and expenditures. For this reason, it can be difficult to ascertain its military strategy. In a widely noted exchange last year at the IISS defense conference in Singapore, then-Secretary Donald Rumseld publicly called out China for its lack of transparency in military affairs and implied that obfuscation can create undesirable tension and conflict.

Still, there is general consensus on some key elements of China's strategy. Asymmetric warfare--exploiting niche advantages to target weaknesses of a stronger enemy--is a large part of it. For example, China could build up its capabilities in some of the areas mentioned by Orbit Now, such as financial systems disruption and ecological warfare (although I have no reason to believe China is focused on these). Some more frequently cited asymmetric capabilities include cyberwarfare and anti-satellite technology (which explains the hyper-concern expressed by the international community last week).

From China's viewpoint, these capabilities are essential to deter any potential adversaries from entering into any Taiwan scenario. Taiwan remains the focus of China's military planning. China will go to war before allowing Taiwan to break off as an independent, democratic country. US leaders are more or less obligated to come to Taiwan's aid under such circumstances. No one desires this outcome (no sane person, at least). Still, China has pursued asymmetric capabilities as a means of changing the risk calculation for any foreign interference in "matters of Chinese sovereignty" (Taiwan or other).

In addition to Taiwan, China increasingly seeks to exert its influence in East Asia. The US remains the regional power there, but China's growth has levelled the playing field in recent years. China's ability to assert its influence over the region is limited so long as the US retains military, technological, economic and diplomatic superiority there.

Now, whether China actually intends to displace the US from its role in East Asia is at the heart of the ongoing discussion over China's military intentions. I would rephrase Orbit Now's query; rather than focusing on China's military intentions, we should be interested in better understanding China's domestic and international goals as a nation, and how China's leaders expect to achieve them. Those answers will go a long way in telling us how China's rise will impact global economic and security conditions.

Well, well, well, I don't follow military closely but I had chance to know a couple Ph.D/postdocs who are involved in the development of China's military and space programs. If their levels are of any indication, I seriously doubt there are much to worry about, well, at least in my lifetime.

However, the amount of attentions paid to its military development from various interests does worry me, especially from the perspective of a Taiwanese.

The US military/industrial complex are likely to exaggerate China's military threat. China's annual military budget is $30 billions vs US's $270 billions without counting the CIA's $30 billions. It's good for business to have a concrete enemy while begging for budget in the Capitol Hill. Plus, Taiwan is big customer as well paying premium for anything from American military junkyard. The F16s sold to Taiwan was so disabled, they posed no threat to China and Taiwan paid three times the price paid by other countries.

The press/blogsphere are likely to go after any Chinese military story like it's the plot in the latest Tom Clancy making China's military look far bigger and stronger then it actually is.

Sun Tze spelled out in the Art of War some two millennium ago laying out five conditions of war and the first is the moral of the troop and American already lost by this run. In the next 20 years, the vietnam generation will go into retirement and the iraq generation will reach their 40. The two groups probably constitute the biggest political power in America. How many of them are likely to support US going to War with China over a two bit island often being mistaken as Thailand in the coast of China?

China's military is not Unmentionables. I think there is really nothing to talk about. For one thing, if we are not going to assume a rational Chinese leadership and treat them like mad dictators, good luck to all of us. There is no anti-ICBM defense system in existence and China got tons of them with nuclear war heads. For the rest, they are just theatrical.

chriswaugh

Yes.

CR is a wordpress blog. Those are not all blocked in China, are they?

ChinaRedux --

I do not want to oversimplify a hugely complicated area of which I know very little, but I will say that when it comes to discerning motives, there is nothing new under the sun and the best sources are the old ones, like, Art of War or The Prince.

halfpat_rant --

Thanks for checking in. Great name, BTW. Panel?

Well, now David, it goes both ways.

1. Last year the BBC did an interview of some Kazaks about their relations with China. A Kazak interpreter working for CNOOC described the Chinese map of Kazakstan she saw in the planning offices, the chinese map of kazakstan put %30 of Kazakstan's territory in China. When she asked about this, a chinese woman asked her "wouldn't it make you happy to see the chinese flag flying over your head?"

2. As tensions around NK increase, the official Chinese Historical Society put out a publication stating that 30% of NK belonged to China "since the ancient times". This set off weeks of protests outside China's embassy in Seoul.

3. Tibet, never a part of China, even on maps going back to the Tang and Song dynasties. In fact, most of interior China belonged to Tibet. Now Tibetans are being ethnically cleansed and driven out of Tibet.

4. Apply #3 to eastern Turkmenistan.

5. Inner Mongolia exists only because the USSR smashed the PLA invasion of Mongolia in the mid 1960s, the Mongolians begged the Russians to help them.

6. Russia publicly acknowledges China's claim to eastern Siberia and Putin responded by making it Russia's national defense policy to respond to a territorial invasion with nukes.

7. China's embassy in New Dehli has openly proclaimed the state adjacent to Tibet, where the Brahmaputra river enters India, as "south Tibet" and therefore Chinese territory (because china is killing itself with poisoned water).

8. PLAN subs regularly violate Japanese waters around Okinawa and refuse to surface when pinged from sub hunters.

9. China claims the entire south china sea right down to Malaysia's beaches, check out a chinese map.

10. The Vietnamese are so worried about China that they are letting the US Navy back in as "friends" and negotiating with India and the US over leasing the old Soviet Kahm Rahn Bay naval base.

As for chinese weapons technology, it is improving very unevenly and in leaps and bounds, especially in software, rocketry and DEW areas. This is due to some homegrown ability (including importing foreign scientists) but mostly due to buying/smuggling dual use technology, shaking down foreign companies for tech transfers and traiterous western execs selling technology for the promise of future contracts (how do you think Cisco got an exclusive contract to service all of China Telecom's data switches?).

I've found more and more wordpress blogs have disappeared behind some error message or another, and not just because the signal crapped out or it got lost in traffic. And it's certainly not the earthquake- for some reason the only effect the earthquake had on my China Unicom was connectivity to NZ websites, which I have to say I don't miss terribly much. Conclusion: Definitely the firewall. Oh well, there are always proxies.

"I think the whole world is sitting back and watching China grow it's military with very little concern because China has very little history of outward aggression"

Then how did China grow to its present size? China is aggressive when it feels strong and confident and passive when it feels weak.

"If the world has to sacrifice Taiwanese 'independence', then that's a small price for world peace."

The world has already sacrificed Taiwan for money and the promise of market potential from the CCP. Try standing up for what is right once in a while and China's retaking of Taiwan won't be peaceful, so where is the promise of world peace?

Sheesh Pipi, did you get a knock on your door from you neighborhood party rep this morning? Maybe your site is starting to rub the wrong people the wrong way.

China Redux was down or slow earlier but it appears to be working fine now.

"I am not justifying what China is doing by the example of America. Just try to make a point of the kind of border and internal issues a young regime has to face. Doesn't your list make it more important and obvious for China to have to develop militarily?"

A young regime? You think me and CLB naive David.
The CCP is not really any different than any other Chinese dynasty, you could call this era "???" and the issues that the CCP dynasty faces now on its borders are the same faced by previous dynasties for around 3500 years and you can see repeated behavior and policies, the CCP is adhering to the "36 strategies" quite nicely.
And since when has China ever acted peacefully when it had a strong military? When China was the hegemon, it collected regular tribute and gifts during the Lunar New Year from the same Asian nations that surround it today.

@nanheyangrouchuan,

I am going to follow PiPi and bite my tongue on this one unless you have something substantive to say other then the China bashing rhetoric.

Well, if pipi and david can't debate in a calm manner, then I guess I'll chalk up two more marks in the "win" column for myself. BTW, I went to Pipi's site and he backed down on his challenge.

@nanheyangrouchuan,

If you want to debate, back up your claims with some evidences.

"And since when has China ever acted peacefully when it had a strong military? " --- Which ones of the Chinese dynasties are aggressive outward? Which of the present Asian countries have China tried to conquer in the history? We should exclude Jin Dynasty as it's a Mongolian dynasty and China was conquered.

"When China was the hegemony, it collected regular tribute and gifts during the Lunar New Year from the same Asian nations that surround it today." --- Have you ever looked into the accounting books between China and its tributaries? In Ming, it's fine Chinese skills, potteries, gold and silver for pepper and spices from East Asian. China often ran in a deficits to maintain peace.

"But, PiPi's calling nanheyangrouchuan over to fight on PiPi's own blog (Sinocidal) has got to be the internet equivalent of "step outside." Right?"

Not really Dan, I just preferred not to get into an argument with him that would/could detract from the otherwise sensibilities of your website - then I decided it's best not even to get into an argument with him again, even on my website. He used to hang out at TTC occasionally and he's got nothing new to say.

Dan - ah, got you. Bars are places for adults who enjoy (good) beer and social discourse. :-) Cheers.

The fact is Pipi and I could have had a calm, logical debate on this site or on his. On his site I calmly called him out and he deleted my post. My subsequent post simply reflects my disdain for him and the China expat community in general. I was one of them but saw the light, and after reading "Losing the China" put myself on a mission to discuss China on the internet as it really is and not how the various chambers of commerce like to portray it.

Wow. This dialogue very much reminds me of a conversation I had recently wiyh my wife. I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that we both made a stand and defended our positions most passionately.

I am very impressed with your arguments and am very grateful for the education. Many thanks to CLB for hosting this forum. I've already visited each of your blogs and found them most impressive, as well.

Despite the tone of my Paranoid American post, which was simply cut and paste hackwork from the referenced source, from my perspective--a 40-something mid-level manager in Corporate America--the situation is reasonably in hand.

Visit me at ON! for lighter fare.

@Paranoid American,

The book "Unrestricted Warfare" by two Chinese PLA officials is nothing comparing to the "Millennium Challenge" war game ran by JFCOM at the cost of $250 millions of your tax dollars compiling and simulating every strategy and tactic imaginable. Many of the ideas from "Unrestricted Warfare" could be tracked to the results of the project part of which are available freely on the net. Authors like Tom Clancy has been milking military scenarios for years. "Unrestricted Warfare" is really nothing but another cheap Chinese piracy of American Intellectual Property.

The Chinese gov't is not a young regime by any stretch, it is one of the oldest institutions on earth. Can you disagree that there are many similarities between the way today's CCP and the dynasties of the distant past ran themselves?

"I am not sure what diehard behaviors of China you extrapolated from those events? And what else can Beijing do to solve those problems except to be militarily strong to secure its claims on the border?"

Well, around 2500 years ago, China had either direct territorial control or direct political control of its neighbors, many of which it now has "border disputes" with. I'll point to China's past occupations and influence on the Korean peninsula as the most obvious, because China's recent, official claim of 30% of northern Korea's territory is a direct result of that past influence and control and a clear indication of China's deep desire to wield such influence again. Does China ever have enough land?

Time for all 'Americans' to leave their great land and give it back to the original inhabitants since your ancestors stole it by force. Modern Americans are the direct ancestors of evil colonialists who gained a continent by force and expanded it's borders through pure greed and aggression. We can see it happening all over again as history repeats itself. If I were Canadian or Mexican I'd be shitting myself right now as it's obvious that the continually growing superiority in technology and firepower can only mean that the government of the USA of today has expansion and total world domination on its agenda - and they're not going to stop there. We can already see how they're planting those seeds of expansionism throughout the whole world. And don't believe this whole UN cover story, the UN is totally saturated with USA primers working towards a USA - United States of the World. Bad, bad country. If your ancient history is anything to go by, we're all screwed.

I'm going to attempt to walk the middle ground here and hopefully I don't get run over.

I agree with nanheyangrouchuan in that I'm somewhat skeptical of China's claims of a peaceful rise but perhaps less for reasons of history than because of a point David made. China (the PRC) is a young country and one that has inherited the mantle of empire rather uneasily. As it consolidates its rule (And we should remember it took the Manchus nearly 50 years to consolidate their own rule), Beijing may occasionally do so at the expense of territories and people outside its borders (and sadly, inside its borders as well). There are not a few Chinese academics in the field of history making claims on "non-Chinese" figures and territory based on (often dubious) historical research and Beijing's repeated threats against Taipei should also be considered in this discussion. (Though a tap on my shoulder reminds me that the US hasn't been all that neighborly either with its former territory, Cuba.)

I like Pi Pi's tongue in cheek post and I think it does show perhaps that some of the extreme paranoia towards China might be unwarranted. I might add, however, that Spain/Mexico and Britain/Canada were both far more wary of the United States in the first 50 years of its existence than they have reason to be now. In fact, if we look at the first half of the 19th century, we see considerable tension and not a few bloody wars between the US and its neighbors.

@nanheyangrouchuan

"Saving face from what? The imperial navy collected the tribute for the emporer."

Saving face from not having to deal with them with force so China can concentrate on the bigger enemy from North. China would probably be invaded more often from North if it also had to deal with nations and tribes from the south.

Imperial Navy?!? Man, you gotta be dreaming. China has never been strong at sea. In the past 700 years after Zhenghe's voyege, building sea going junk was capital offense in both Qing and Ming court. Navy was weak if even existed.

Before that, while Zhenghe had to put together his armada, there wasn't a Ming Navy help him. He had to recurite ship builders and sailers out of Quanzhou, Fujian which back then was one of the busiest ports in the world packed with Indian, Arabic and African traders. Southern sea at that time was controlled by a Chinese pirate named Chen Zuyi all the way to the strait of Malacca. Chen was wanted by Ming court for 30 years.

Only in the mind of a Chinese intellect with middle kingdom complex would exist a strong Chinese Imperial Navy.

There is claiming land for internal political/nationalism reasons and there is claiming land. One is more serious than the other.

Dan,

You forgot to put claiming land for religious reason and that's most serious of them all. There is no space for rationality and hardly resolution. They are handing out Nobel Peace prize for that! ;)

Mr. Li --

I am not sure claiming land for religious reasons differs all that much from claiming it based on ethnic reasons. What does history say on this? Jeremiah?

PiPi --

Glad you made it. I think you are right about China's border claims. You make an interesting, but not unsurprising point about the EU. I do not for a moment buy into the idea of post-nationalism and what you are describing sounds like nationalism just squiring out.

@David:
China's navy was good enough to contend with the region, and if one or two pirates were untouchable, that is no different than the mighty Brits and French who were confused and frustrated by pirates around the Caribbean and eastern Africa.

"China would probably be invaded more often from North if it also had to deal with nations and tribes from the south."

China invaded the north quite a few times as well, and sometimes the "invaders" weren't foreigners but imperial officials (like the fall of the Ming dynasty).

@Pipi:
"I think the world has little to worry about regarding China's 'border' claims." The South Koreans took those claims pretty seriously when they burned flags in front of the PRC embassy. The Vietnamese take it seriously enough to allow port visits by USN ships (some are commanded by Vietnam War vets) and are negotiating with the US and India over leasing its old Soviet Navy base...and most of the Vietnamese officials were probably VC as young men or boys.

As for Europe's nationalist groups, that is far from official PRC national education policy teaching the "reconquering" of lost territories, which is what set off the protests in Seoul. That policy is more like Nazi Germany.

nanheyangrouchuan

As someone who has spent enough time in Korea to have seen at least twenty anti-US/anti-Japan, anti-this and anti-that in Korea, your using an anti-Chinese demonstration in Korea to connote seriousness does not hold water with me. I watched from my window as supposedly hundreds of thousands of Koreans marched below me protesting against the US over a soldier's having accidently hit and killed a Korean girl with his jeep. It does not take much to stir up Korean nationalism. Unfortunately, it does not take much to stir up just about any country's nationalism.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a pan-worlder who opposes nationalism or patriotism, as I most certainly don't. But it does concern me with how quickly nationalism can be used to light up old hatreds or create new ones.

Mr. Li --

In the grand scheme of things, I am much more worried about those countries who seem more interested in fomenting trouble than in pursuing economic gain. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (yes Lebanon), Yemen, Iraq, Hamastan, Libya, North Korea, Syria .... And don't anyone put the US in here because Iraq does not a pattern make.

In my simple worldview, we should seek to work with those countries focused on economic gain (China goes here) and, if necessary and practical, isolate those with clear war-like intentions.

That's my long-winded way of saying I agree with you in not seeing China as a big military threat. China may be a threat ten years from now, but I do not see them as that now. Of course, some will say that someone that may be a threat ten years from now is a threat now, but I would beg to differ.

@nanheyangrouchuan,

"And, China's naval history:

BTW, the Portugese and Dutch had their naval expeditions repelled."

Where is the mention of repelling of Portuguese and Dutch? I assume you mean by the Chinese navel. As far as I can remember, there was no recorded encounter of European and Chinese at sea in 15th century. Yes, China built bigger ships in the 15th century and if such encounter ever occurred on the sea, it would have major impact on the European history. Just look at the size difference between Zhenghe's flagship and St. Maria.

http://www.chinapage.com/chengh2v.gif

China vs. the Dutch? Would that not be Koxinga/Zheng Chenggong kicking the Dutch out of Taiwan? His father was Chinese, mother Japanese, he was from Fujian and a die-hard Ming loyalist. He used Taiwan as a base to attack and hopefully overthrow the Qing, reestablishing the Ming. Don't think he counts as Chinese naval power. And besides, he failed. Obviously.

And last I heard, Chinese people started calling themselves 'Han' after the Han Dynasty (similar to 'Tang' being used for 'Chinese' after the Tang Dynasty). Wasn't it Qin Shihuang who first built the Great Wall? Let me see: Xia, Shang, Zhou, Spring & Autumn/Warring States, Qin........ Saying the 'Han' built the Great Wall is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 'Rebuilt' during the Ming would make a little more sense.

And it's Sichuan, with an 's', not an 'x'. Well, I assume that's the province you're referring to.

Feel free to correct me if I've gotten any of the above wrong.

And I still can't get to China Redux. Must be that same old problem of the Great Firewall having a few holes in it in some parts of the country or within certain ISPs.

nanheyangrouchuan --

If I am Vietnam or Korea I am going to be wary of China no matter what. But, I will agree that if I am Mexico or Canada I would not be, so there obviously is a difference there.

chriswaugh_bj --

Impressive.

If I had been really smart, I would not in the comment immediately preceding this one admitted my complete ignorance on the subject of China's 15th century navy and just pulled your material and made it my own. Oh well.

So is China Redux behind the Great Firewall?

@chriswaugh_bj :

Perhaps I'm mistaken between "si" and "xi".

@David:
"Dutch and Portuguese on Taiwan island are not navel. They were pirates."

call them what you may, these were officially funded expeditions, many under the guise of "spreading christianity".

"Canada actually has an on-going dispute with US on border issue in the Beaufort Sea because of oil."

Canada also has a problem with Denmark over some island claims which may also involve oil, and the Danes have gone so far as to sail naval ships around the island. The Canada/US row will be solved by letting 1-2 US oil companies develop some blocks of oil/gas, that is what the real dispute is about.

"Speaking of Korea worrying. I assume you mean North Korea? I think the chance of getting NK invaded by US is much bigger then by China. And Iran is on the list as well. I'd say there are more countries wary of US military action then of China."

Really? the US has removed 1/3 of its troops from the DMZ as the ROKSDF takes on greater responsibilities, including direct command of some US forces should a conflict break out. You don't see the US claiming parts or the whold of countries as US territory "since ancient times". As for being the superpower in the world, check out Farheed Zarkawis' "Foriegn Affairs" program. He is a middle eastern who does not spare the rod when it comes to scolding the US, but in his newest show spoke of a complete lack of leadership, vision and never ending "passing the buck" should China take over the US as the "superpower". Be careful what you wish for.

"California, Arizona, Taxes, Oregon, Guam"

The difference is that the US took these territories from other empires (namely spain, Mexico and France) and that in this modern world, we aren't claiming other territories. The behaviors of the 19th century belong there, not in the 21st century. China just can't get over the idea that not everyone wants to be ruled by China or that China actually does not have a heavenly mandate to rule and is using that ancient, outdated and obsolete model of thinking to justify its actions and prop up support for the CCP at home.

Mr. Li --

The number of countries wary of the US versus China is irrelevant to me. Countries can be wrong to be wary. Countries can deserve to be wary. Is Canada wary of the US? Is Mexico wary of the US? Is South Korea (not NK) wary of China? Is Japan wary of China? Is Vietnam wary of China? These are the countries that matter if we are to compare the US and China.

If Iran is wary, so what? If Sudan is wary, so what?

chriswaugh_bj --

You are right about it not being consistent. I also sometimes get the feeling that the firewall is not so high in the high end foreign hotels. True or False?

Mr. Li --

You answered a question I would have never asked. I did not ask if history matters because I have absolutely no doubt that it does. I would also not ask if an intellectual discussion matters because I have absolutely no doubt that it does.

I was merely asking how far back in history is relevant for determining what China will do today.

I would bet there is some site out there where you can place bets like that. Anyone?

Mr. Li -- I remember a site was up where you could bet on the presidential election. It was legal because you would buy shares in a candidate.

Okay, I agree one can go way back if dealing with philosophies and religion, but how far back if just dealing with a military incident or conquest? I would venture to say way less far.

Mr. Li --

Interesting site. The odds seem crazy to me. George Allen with a good chance?

Mr. Li --

Good point about Art of War.

Mr. Li --

That is a very well done article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am going to do a very short post on it.