China's potential weakness now worries West more than its strength

[Genesis]

Exactly, you got confused.

Well, your American media does that sometimes. Funny shows like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, but not much in the way of very concrete facts. Though it does offer at least half truth.

Maybe you can petition for some more facts in his show as to not misled his viewers. Cause at this point non of us can watch boring news again.

At least this explains why the Tea party is still out there.

 

[Genesis]

Your assertion about what "existential threat" comprises is not correct. Merely having the capability does not make for an "existential threat." It must be capability combined with intent. For example, ISIS is an existential threat to Iraq. Mugabe is an existential threat to white Zimbabwean farmers. Iran is an existential threat to Israel. If you insist that the US is an existential threat to China, I would like you to prove that intent.

Otherwise, if "existential threat" is based on capability alone, logic dictates that you believe that the US is an existential threat to the entire world, not just China. Surely, then, you must also regard Russia as an existential threat to China, since it has the same capability. But China has friendly relations with Russia, and not with the US. Why?

Right now in terms of foreign relations, the China seas is probably not the most important or close, but it is the most visible issue.

Is American presence in these waters helping or denying a resolution in China's favor.

Is Russia doing the same thing.


Switching positions how would you feel about America, if you truly believe that the China Seas belong to China and not because they are called China seas.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well, your American media does that sometimes. Funny shows like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, but not much in the way of very concrete facts. Though it does offer at least half truth.

Maybe you can petition for some more facts in his show as to not misled his viewers. Cause at this point non of us can watch boring news again.

At least this explains why the Tea party is still out there.

You're now just ranting after you failed to provide citation to your erroneous claims.

 

[gambit]

Well, your American media does that sometimes. Funny shows like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, but not much in the way of very concrete facts. Though it does offer at least half truth.

Maybe you can petition for some more facts in his show as to not misled his viewers. Cause at this point non of us can watch boring news again.

At least this explains why the Tea party is still out there.

Bill Maher is not a reporter and never claimed to be. I watched him on/off over the yrs, long before his hair turned grey, and not once has Maher even tried to portrayed himself as anything other than a comic and commentator.

A comedian is obvious enough. But a commentator is where you are confused about. May be you are too used to official state mouthpieces to know the difference ? I asked that kindly. Yes...A commentator must use some facts, but a commentator goes beyond bare facts reporting and analyses and ventured into opinions, which often intrudes into predictions of what could happens, will happens, and progress of current events. Rachel Maddow is a blend of both reporter and commentator, but over the past several years, her credibility has taken serious hits because crossed the political line and did not perform much of the reporting side. The sad reality for Maddow is that even Fox News talking heads are perceived to be more balanced of both bare facts reporting and commentating than the MSNBC crew.

You need to understand that in the highly competitive world of free media, as in audience which translate to profits, the burden is upon the viewers -- YOU -- to distinguish reporters from commentators. And the American viewership is not as stupid about the media as foreigners would like to believe.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Right now in terms of foreign relations, the China seas is probably not the most important or close, but it is the most visible issue.

Is American presence in these waters helping or denying a resolution in China's favor.

Is Russia doing the same thing.


Switching positions how would you feel about America, if you truly believe that the China Seas belong to China and not because they are called China seas.

If everyone would just roll over, then China would be able to resolve the issue promptly. Since that's not a realistic solution, China can be pragmatic and work out profit-sharing (or resource-sharing) schemes, long-term leases, or perhaps even swaps if the objective is to prioritize land instead of location of the land.

I don't pretend to understand China's history with the SCS, so I can't say whether or not its position is the correct one. I will say that if China's objective is to dominate Asia, it's doing a poor job by throwing its neighbors into the arms of the US over an issue that could be solved fairly quietly through other means. I do understand China's anger at Daioyu/Senkaku, since that upset the quiet status-quo that had been in place for several decades. That said, China squanders whatever goodwill it earns from Daioyu by turning around and using exactly the same strategy in the SCS.

It's a complicated situation. I'm not sure China's simple military solution will work out as cleanly as it hopes.

 

[Genesis]

If everyone would just roll over, then China would be able to resolve the issue promptly. Since that's not a realistic solution, China can be pragmatic and work out profit-sharing (or resource-sharing) schemes, long-term leases, or perhaps even swaps if the objective is to prioritize land instead of location of the land.

I don't pretend to understand China's history with the SCS, so I can't say whether or not its position is the correct one. I will say that if China's objective is to dominate Asia, it's doing a poor job by throwing its neighbors into the arms of the US over an issue that could be solved fairly quietly through other means. I do understand China's anger at Daioyu/Senkaku, since that upset the quiet status-quo that had been in place for several decades. That said, China squanders whatever goodwill it earns from Daioyu by turning around and using exactly the same strategy in the SCS.

It's a complicated situation. I'm not sure China's simple military solution will work out as cleanly as it hopes.

See, that's not the question, if we were to go into that, then it gets messy and a lot of factors would come into play.

Let's just keep it simple to your original question. Why China feels the way we do about America, which btw, is way less animosity than you think. The average Chinese couldn't care less and even those that do care, only feels America is out of place.


Just place yourself in our shoes, China seas belong to China, America is preventing a fast solution. Just these two facts are presented to you, how would you feel about America.


As to your last sentence, you just essentially said why China want to keep the two issues separate, because they are actually in conflict with each other.

If you are wondering if Chinese belief is what it is, it's not the propaganda, cause that don't work in China, despite what you might think, too much of anything makes people immune to it, it's because we want to believe it, and there are evidences to back it up. However it's not concrete, enough to make it a case, but not enough to put a man behind bars kinda deal.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

See, that's not the question, if we were to go into that, then it gets messy and a lot of factors would come into play.

Let's just keep it simple to your original question. Why China feels the way we do about America, which btw, is way less animosity than you think. The average Chinese couldn't care less and even those that do care, only feels America is out of place.


Just place yourself in our shoes, China seas belong to China, America is preventing a fast solution. Just these two facts are presented to you, how would you feel about America.


As to your last sentence, you just essentially said why China want to keep the two issues separate, because they are actually in conflict with each other.

If you are wondering if Chinese belief is what it is, it's not the propaganda, cause that don't work in China, despite what you might think, too much of anything makes people immune to it, it's because we want to believe it, and there are evidences to back it up. However it's not concrete, enough to make it a case, but not enough to put a man behind bars kinda deal.

Sure, if I were Chinese and I believed that America were preventing a fast solution to the SCS issue, I would be angry at the US as well. Of course, as an American, I have to ask what it is we're doing to prevent a fast resolution. I have seen Chinese users here vaguely claim that we are "encouraging" the ASEAN nations to resist China, but I wonder if proof of that can be provided, and I wonder what form that encouragement is taking. Clearly, it's not military backing, because we don't have defense treaties with those countries; so what kind of support for extending the conflict do the Chinese believe we are providing?

This is a genuine question. I have not followed the issue closely, so I don't know what the US is doing there, if anything.

 

[tranquilium]

LOL. You doubt your own news article agency? Why, too democratic for your taste?

Well, it is the same reason I don't use People's magazine as a reference for world politics. Everyone know South China Morning Post is a gossip forum.

And please, the words democracy and freedom has been dragged through enough mud in the past two decades that will take centuries to clear it up. Though, if your standard of democracy is at South China Morning Post level, it is kinda understandable.

 

[TaiShang]

First, let me say I appreciate the calm approach you have taken, and I hope you will approach this with an open mind, as I intend to.

Thank you. It is always a good experience to exchange ideas with educated-members. Frankly, I feel a lot of hostility, bias and outright hatred coming from all sides on this section (I can't even imagine other sections as I do never visit them) toward China. So, my appreciation for your open-minded exchange without hiding behind self-imposed terminology and silly comparions like "my regime is better than yours." What I hope to accomplish here is only to get to understand others' viewpoints; not really to convince or convert.

About China and history: come on, really? China signed a peace treaty with Japan, but still manages to nurture grievances against Japan for the atrocities Japan committed in China 70 years ago. These atrocities were not committed in the present, and nearly all of the perpetrators of those atrocities are dead. Nearly all of the victims of those atrocities are dead. If you say that the "past is of no practical value to make sense of the present" when it comes to China's view of the world, it diminishes your credibility.

The problem with that is, I guess, the issue (Japan's war time atrocities) are brough up with shrine visits, some reckless (individual) statements, etc. Nevertheless, that has not prevented China and Japan from building an impressive trade volume and pretty good people to people exchange. In that sense, I think past has no bearing on present strategy. In the same way, the fact that the US had been more or less benign during the hard times China went through over the modern history (although one can bring about many instances when China was subject to unfair treatment such as sanctions on key technologies) does not rule out the present day (especially post-pivot) hostility the US holds against China. In this case, Chinese government cannot seek comfort in old good days, but, live in the day and respond to the present day (and future) challenges.

I guess same goes with any country.

In the present, the US occupies no land that is disputed by China, has imposed no economic embargoes on China, has imposed no financial restrictions on China, has not raised special tariffs against China in retaliation for China's currency manipulation or industrial espionage, etc. As far as the US is concerned, we have normal relations.

I guess these are reciprocal policies other than the fact that the US has in fact blocked certain business transactions on national security grounds. The Chinese only took action with US telecommunication companies doing business in China after the US barred Huawei from the US telecommunication-infrastructure market. Other policy measures you mention such as currency, by the way, are like a double-edged sword. There are things US likes about cheaper Chinese currency and there are things, it does not. What is apparent is that, if the US is not taking action on these matters, it is because its own interests dictate so. But the US has potential to harm China the most. That's what really matter in strategy-making.

It is China that is maneuvering to push the US out of Asia (even though the US is an Asian power), not the US that is maneuvering to push China out of Asia or contain it. Any sense of encirclement felt by China must recognize that the factors of encirclement (military bases and alliances) pre-date the rise of China and were put into place to counter the USSR. If China seeks to replace the USSR as America's great rival, that is China's choice, but it is not an inevitability.

China will naturally propose strategies to push the US out of its proximities (as a beginning) since it feels to be surrounded by the US. That's what I mean by existential threat. That is, capabilities. I cannot read your intentions, but can have a healthy assesment of your capabilities, which would be my yardstick to develop my own counter strategy. China cannot really rely on US good will. And as Chinese government develops policies and the Chinese support it, they will seem hostile to the US. But remember, what propels the Chinese actions is the US military presence in the areas that are so close to China. The Chineses side sees that, now that the Cold War is over, the Cold War strategic structuring should be over. Or, does the US want to replace the Red Soviets with Red China? Most Chinese think the US is in search of an enemy to legitimize its military grip across the region. But, to deligitimize the US action, China cannot simply disarm itself or stop seeking to push the US farther away from the immediate peripheries. It will just do the opposite, which, in turn, will seem hostile to the US.

The US may not be as "respectful" as China believes it deserves, but the US has taken no tangible action against China that justifies China's sense of victimhood.

I think you sum up the gist of our disagreement very perfectly. And I am afraid it will remain a disagreement (a very deep one) as (although I would not call it victimhood since the Chinese side is often reactionary--they will not coment on the US action if they do not find it targetting China such as the proposal to name the street where the Chinese Embassy is located after some dissident celebrity). China only reacted after the Huawei affair, the indictment of 5 PLA generals, etc. Victimhood suggests resigning oneself to fate. I do not see China of the past 30 years resigning itself to the facts on the gorund, but actively working to change them. So, let's say, US action justifies Chinese reaction.

I think, on this, we will have to agree to disagree.

Next. What I was responding to was not Raphael's suggestion that the US is hostile to China, or that the US is the number one thread to China. This is reasonable, since China is hostile to the US and is the number one threat to the US. What I took exception to was his labeling of US foreign policy as "psychopathic."

I think "psychopathic" in the sense that it has been quite reckless and fatal for couple of decades. I guess its international intervention track record proves that statement. Would that be "psychopathic" or just hard core realism (is there any difference between the two, I am not sure) is to be discussed. But, from outside, at least to many Chinese, US foreign policy is seen rather destructive and hostile.

I find this hard to believe, because the majority of Chinese do not consume US media. If the majority of Chinese believe that US media is excessively anti-China, it's because they have been told so, and lack the intellectual curiosity or means (thanks, Great Firewall of China) to find out the truth for themselves.

Unlike what is believed, there is access to most US media. Especially apparently anti-China pieces in NYT, Bloomberg etc. are spread like a wild fire in the middle of a tornado. Obviosuly, human being are conditioned (or gets more excited) by the negative, rather than positive, hence, the potential positive news of China in the US media might not receive a similar attention that negative reportings do. You can see a million direct links to many anti-China (perceived or real) articles published on major US networks on Weibo and others. Intellectual curiosity and means are right there. Maybe already too much of it.

America has virtually no negative history with China, as I have pointed out repeatedly, and on the contrary, has helped China several times in the past. We have no reason to hate China, but it's hard to like a country that hates your country for no real reason. China may make this hatred a self-fulfilling prophecy, which may be the CCP's goal in order to deflect popular anger against internal conflicts, but it does not help China in the long run.

Hence the need to separate people from governments. Most Chinese could in fact not care any less about what is going on in the US media or the US government. They have no reason to get obsessed with the US or any others as they go by their lives daily. PDF is an indicator of nothing. Just as many anti-China posters from the US do not indicate a general inclination of a whole nation, same goes with some other members waving Chinese/Taiwanese/HK/MC flag. As for the respective regimes, yes, just as the US regime hopes to create a certain dose of China-hatred (and other-hatreds) to justify their policies, China may bu using public sentiment to promote certain foreign policy objectives. US hand is no cleaner in this respect. I guess our discussion will end if you are convinced that the US does not "make hatred a self-fulfilling prophecy" to promote its own foreign (often private interests driven) policy.

See, our convictions/perceptions of each other are in fact so much alike. You just become surprised when Chinese members state that "the US make hatred a self-fulfilling prophecy" when you direct a similar accusation at China. What is surprising is that some people are so self-righteous -- to the extend that they no longer hold a critical view of themselves.

There is no more internal conflict in China than there is in the US. In fact, the world is awash with US collapse theories (because of internal racial strife, poverty etc) and each has their own reasons. What you are doing seem sadly to be just adding your name to the list with China replacing the US as the next candidate for a collapse. That could not have been any further from truth.

In short, if you claim that the US is an existential threat to China, then you claim that the US has the intent to end China's existence. Not regime change in China, not imposing our value system on China, but ending China as a geographic entity, possibly along with its people.
This is sheer hysteria. Paranoia of such a degree that I cannot fathom it. I invite you to present proof that the US is preparing a nuclear strike that will annihilate China from the face of the earth. I know, and you know, that such proof does not exist.

Therefore, it is not only incorrect to call the USA an "existential threat," it is a provocation of the highest order.
Your assertion about what "existential threat" comprises is not correct. Merely having the capability does not make for an "existential threat." It must be capability combined with intent. For example, ISIS is an existential threat to Iraq. Mugabe is an existential threat to white Zimbabwean farmers. Iran is an existential threat to Israel. If you insist that the US is an existential threat to China, I would like you to prove that intent.

Existential threat in the sense that it can harm China the most. The people will not certainly evoporate, the land will remain as it is, but, the US action threatens China's territorial sovereignty, national political security, and economic prosperity. That's existential in the sense that nations exist.

And that's why I mentied "potential" not necessarily imminent existential threat. Having capability is enough for national strategy to consider it an existential threat. If some other replaces the US with all the basis surrounding China, then, the US is no longer an existential threat. Strategy making is built on the worst case scenario.

when China criticizes the US over our profligate spending habits, I take it to heart. Fixing our problems will help us, and help the world. Going beyond criticism to demonization (see above re: "existential threat") is where criticism transforms into anti-American rhetoric.

I do not deny there is anti-US rhetoric as there is anti-China rhetoric. Again, existential threat only in the sense of potential. I do not personally see it coming. The balance of power does not simply allow that. Other than that, sure, at times, criticism is the best friend and adversaries might be the most useful tools to point out shortcomings. That kind of constructive criticism is always welcome for China.

As I have said many times here, I admire China. I have Chinese colleagues and friends, and I have traveled to China many times. I admire Chinese history, Chinese accomplishments, and want the best for China. There is nothing inevitable about China-US hostility, just as there was little such friction when the British Empire handed off global leadership to the US. We have the opportunity on this forum to discuss these points of friction, and hopefully smooth them out, while most Americans and Chinese do not. I hope in some small way we can bridge the gap of mistrust that has developed.

Same goes here. In fact, I stoped buying US collapse theories after I spent some three years in the US. Hopefully, as people visit each other's nation, they will come to appreciate the good sides and learn not to really interfere in each other's internal affairs. Certain issues are only to be dealt with by and among the nation. Outside interference is often costly and fatal. I guess US tourists find nothing but hospitality in China since we like to think them as regular citizens coming to enjoy the country and have good time. Just leave China's internal affairs to the Chinese (we do the same with you), and talk about our accomplishments, including military. That's fine and fair.

 

[Obambam]

If it is democracy they care about, then do something for the Okinawans and Palestinians. The democracy preachers have either failed to address their own issues or have barked up the wrong tree.

 

[mycutegirl]

Sure, if I were Chinese and I believed that America were preventing a fast solution to the SCS issue, I would be angry at the US as well. Of course, as an American, I have to ask what it is we're doing to prevent a fast resolution. I have seen Chinese users here vaguely claim that we are "encouraging" the ASEAN nations to resist China, but I wonder if proof of that can be provided, and I wonder what form that encouragement is taking. Clearly, it's not military backing, because we don't have defense treaties with those countries; so what kind of support for extending the conflict do the Chinese believe we are providing?

This is a genuine question. I have not followed the issue closely, so I don't know what the US is doing there, if anything.

tell me what the world is and what the nation is!every country propagate things according to their interests.so we should not distinguish one-sided who is right or wrong,and i dont think US govt always "encouraging" the ASEAN nations to resist China,and sometime US need to do it when it accord with the US interest.sure, i dont think the US'influence is greater than china in ASEAN.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Thank you. It is always a good experience to exchange ideas with educated-members. Frankly, I feel a lot of hostility, bias and outright hatred coming from all sides on this section (I can't even imagine other sections as I do never visit them) toward China. So, my appreciation for your open-minded exchange without hiding behind self-imposed terminology and silly comparions like "my regime is better than yours." What I hope to accomplish here is only to get to understand others' viewpoints; not really to convince or convert.



The problem with that is, I guess, the issue (Japan's war time atrocities) are brough up with shrine visits, some reckless (individual) statements, etc. Nevertheless, that has not prevented China and Japan from building an impressive trade volume and pretty good people to people exchange. In that sense, I think past has no bearing on present strategy. In the same way, the fact that the US had been more or less benign during the hard times China went through over the modern history (although one can bring about many instances when China was subject to unfair treatment such as sanctions on key technologies) does not rule out the present day (especially post-pivot) hostility the US holds against China. In this case, Chinese government cannot seek comfort in old good days, but, live in the day and respond to the present day (and future) challenges.

I guess same goes with any country.



I guess these are reciprocal policies other than the fact that the US has in fact blocked certain business transactions on national security grounds. The Chinese only took action with US telecommunication companies doing business in China after the US barred Huawei from the US telecommunication-infrastructure market. Other policy measures you mention such as currency, by the way, are like a double-edged sword. There are things US likes about cheaper Chinese currency and there are things, it does not. What is apparent is that, if the US is not taking action on these matters, it is because its own interests dictate so. But the US has potential to harm China the most. That's what really matter in strategy-making.



China will naturally propose strategies to push the US out of its proximities (as a beginning) since it feels to be surrounded by the US. That's what I mean by existential threat. That is, capabilities. I cannot read your intentions, but can have a healthy assesment of your capabilities, which would be my yardstick to develop my own counter strategy. China cannot really rely on US good will. And as Chinese government develops policies and the Chinese support it, they will seem hostile to the US. But remember, what propels the Chinese actions is the US military presence in the areas that are so close to China. The Chineses side sees that, now that the Cold War is over, the Cold War strategic structuring should be over. Or, does the US want to replace the Red Soviets with Red China? Most Chinese think the US is in search of an enemy to legitimize its military grip across the region. But, to deligitimize the US action, China cannot simply disarm itself or stop seeking to push the US farther away from the immediate peripheries. It will just do the opposite, which, in turn, will seem hostile to the US.



I think you sum up the gist of our disagreement very perfectly. And I am afraid it will remain a disagreement (a very deep one) as (although I would not call it victimhood since the Chinese side is often reactionary--they will not coment on the US action if they do not find it targetting China such as the proposal to name the street where the Chinese Embassy is located after some dissident celebrity). China only reacted after the Huawei affair, the indictment of 5 PLA generals, etc. Victimhood suggests resigning oneself to fate. I do not see China of the past 30 years resigning itself to the facts on the gorund, but actively working to change them. So, let's say, US action justifies Chinese reaction.

I think, on this, we will have to agree to disagree.



I think "psychopathic" in the sense that it has been quite reckless and fatal for couple of decades. I guess its international intervention track record proves that statement. Would that be "psychopathic" or just hard core realism (is there any difference between the two, I am not sure) is to be discussed. But, from outside, at least to many Chinese, US foreign policy is seen rather destructive and hostile.



Unlike what is believed, there is access to most US media. Especially apparently anti-China pieces in NYT, Bloomberg etc. are spread like a wild fire in the middle of a tornado. Obviosuly, human being are conditioned (or gets more excited) by the negative, rather than positive, hence, the potential positive news of China in the US media might not receive a similar attention that negative reportings do. You can see a million direct links to many anti-China (perceived or real) articles published on major US networks on Weibo and others. Intellectual curiosity and means are right there. Maybe already too much of it.



Hence the need to separate people from governments. Most Chinese could in fact not care any less about what is going on in the US media or the US government. They have no reason to get obsessed with the US or any others as they go by their lives daily. PDF is an indicator of nothing. Just as many anti-China posters from the US do not indicate a general inclination of a whole nation, same goes with some other members waving Chinese/Taiwanese/HK/MC flag. As for the respective regimes, yes, just as the US regime hopes to create a certain dose of China-hatred (and other-hatreds) to justify their policies, China may bu using public sentiment to promote certain foreign policy objectives. US hand is no cleaner in this respect. I guess our discussion will end if you are convinced that the US does not "make hatred a self-fulfilling prophecy" to promote its own foreign (often private interests driven) policy.

See, our convictions/perceptions of each other are in fact so much alike. You just become surprised when Chinese members state that "the US make hatred a self-fulfilling prophecy" when you direct a similar accusation at China. What is surprising is that some people are so self-righteous -- to the extend that they no longer hold a critical view of themselves.

There is no more internal conflict in China than there is in the US. In fact, the world is awash with US collapse theories (because of internal racial strife, poverty etc) and each has their own reasons. What you are doing seem sadly to be just adding your name to the list with China replacing the US as the next candidate for a collapse. That could not have been any further from truth.


Existential threat in the sense that it can harm China the most. The people will not certainly evoporate, the land will remain as it is, but, the US action threatens China's territorial sovereignty, national political security, and economic prosperity. That's existential in the sense that nations exist.

And that's why I mentied "potential" not necessarily imminent existential threat. Having capability is enough for national strategy to consider it an existential threat. If some other replaces the US with all the basis surrounding China, then, the US is no longer an existential threat. Strategy making is built on the worst case scenario.



I do not deny there is anti-US rhetoric as there is anti-China rhetoric. Again, existential threat only in the sense of potential. I do not personally see it coming. The balance of power does not simply allow that. Other than that, sure, at times, criticism is the best friend and adversaries might be the most useful tools to point out shortcomings. That kind of constructive criticism is always welcome for China.



Same goes here. In fact, I stoped buying US collapse theories after I spent some three years in the US. Hopefully, as people visit each other's nation, they will come to appreciate the good sides and learn not to really interfere in each other's internal affairs. Certain issues are only to be dealt with by and among the nation. Outside interference is often costly and fatal. I guess US tourists find nothing but hospitality in China since we like to think them as regular citizens coming to enjoy the country and have good time. Just leave China's internal affairs to the Chinese (we do the same with you), and talk about our accomplishments, including military. That's fine and fair.

Excellent counterpoint, thank you. I think the negativity of certain media outlets, as reflected by certain users on this forum, has influenced me to see certain things that may not be fair to generalize about China. I'll endeavor to treat them as individual instances, rather than a reflection of overall Chinese thinking.

Just one quick clarification:

What you are doing seem sadly to be just adding your name to the list with China replacing the US as the next candidate for a collapse.

When did I suggest that China was headed for collapse? If you interpreted my comment about "internal conflict" to mean that I thought China would collapse, that was not my intent. I was simply referring to the issue of Xinjiang and the "mass events" that seem to take place with some frequency in China, but I see those as no more of a cause of Chinese collapse than the Occupy Wall Street protest would cause America's collapse.

 

[Zhukov]

China is tailgating Japanese warplanes, playing chicken with Vietnamese ships and questioning America's toughness. Yet it isn't Chinese strength that most worries US President Barack Obama. It's Chinese fragility.

As China's economy grows at its slowest pace in 24 years, the country's domestic strains are drawing increased attention. While Americans stew over the prospect of being eclipsed by a new superpower, their president frets about instability in the world's second-largest economy.

"We welcome China's peaceful rise," Obama said in a recent radio interview. "In many ways, it would be a bigger national security problem for us if China started falling apart at the seams."

Though no one expects that to happen any time soon, if ever, President Xi Jinping confronts an array of potential triggers for unrest. After more than three decades of growth that has raised per capita income to more than 17 times its 1978 level, China's breakneck pace of change is speeding up.

"China is undertaking massive transformations that are necessary for modern society, but in every case are socially destabilising," said Kenneth Lieberthal, who handled Asian affairs in Bill Clinton's White House. "And they're doing every one of them at a pace, scope and scale no country has ever tried before."

The United States has a great deal riding on the outcome. China is the single largest holder of US debt with US$1.3 trillion in Treasury securities, and Sino-US trade last year topped US$562 billion, up 38 per cent from five years earlier. In an extreme scenario, major turmoil could spark massive refugee flows or even endanger control of China's estimated 250 nuclear warheads, said Lieberthal, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"That's not a future you want to contemplate," he said.

Most analysts don't anticipate China facing such a situation. The country's power and prosperity seem to expand by the day and are at relative heights last witnessed two centuries ago.

Awareness of China's weak spots nonetheless shapes US policy, said Ely Ratner, former lead political officer on the State Department's China desk. The US cooperates with China on developing clean energy, equipping a sometimes-rival to meet its domestic goals. And while the US irritates Chinese leaders by talking about human rights, Washington does not back direct challenges to Communist Party rule.

"The US very much wants to support China's stability and economic growth," said Ratner, with the Centre for a New American Security. "We don't engage in certain activities that would undermine their economic and political stability, in part because it wouldn't be in our interest."

The cooperative dimension of the relationship will be on display on July 9 and 10 during the next session of the strategic and economic dialogue. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Secretary of State John Kerry, Vice- Premier Wang Yang and State Councillor Yang Jiechi will be co-chairmen.

As US officials arrive in Beijing for the talks, forces unleashed by China's pell-mell modernisation present new challenges. More than one million people each month are migrating from farms to cities, leaving behind everything they know for an uncertain future.

Since 2004, China's urban population has grown by 200 million, akin to the population of Brazil, and the government plans to shift more people to the cities. By 2030, China will have 1 billion city-dwellers, up from 731 million today, according to the World Bank.

While the movement from rural to urban areas generally increases income, it's socially destabilising and alienating, Lieberthal said .

Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, China's Communist Party has preserved social stability with a mixture of economic growth and authoritarian muscle. The foundation of public order is an implicit bargain: The party retains its monopoly on power in return for providing an ever-better standard of living.

That bargain is now under pressure. Environmental damage - air pollution that a government adviser this year labeled unbearable, along with water shortages - undercuts the notion that life is improving. In the eastern city of Zhongtai, 60 people were arrested last month after protests against a proposed waste incinerator turned violent with police and private cars overturned, according to state-run People's Daily.

The government is engaged in a transition to a new economic model, which will require a downshift to slower, more sustainable growth than the 10 per cent annual average between 2005 and 2011.

"A lot of the stability in China is growth-dependent, so the Communist Party's legitimacy base is rather narrow," said Yasheng Huang, founder of the China Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a bi-national business education endeavour. "The probability of instability increases fairly substantially when growth slows down."

In the first quarter, the economy eased to a 7.4 per cent annual growth pace en route to 5 per cent by 2026, according to the State Council's Development Research Centre and the World Bank. That comes after a three-decade expansion that lifted some boats higher than others: China's wealth gap is wider than in the US, according to a recent University of Michigan study.

Economic reforms aimed at giving market forces a decisive role in allocating resources will make losers of individuals and institutions that have profited from the current system. Allowing prices of labour, capital and energy to rise may "challenge the commitment of top leaders to the reform process," wrote economist Barry Naughton, a China specialist at the University of California, San Diego.

The task is complicated by the need to wean the economy from its dependence on credit. Since the 2008 financial crisis, China's debt has risen to 245 per cent of gross domestic product, according to a June 12 report by Standard Chartered Bank.

China's leaders have their own worries. Xi has unleashed an anti-corruption drive targeting high-ranking party and military officials in what may be the broadest crackdown in the party's history.

Among recent victims of the corruption purge is Liu Tienan , former deputy director of the economic planning ministry, whom prosecutors said would be tried on charges of accepting bribes. Liu, 59, accepted what prosecutors said were "extremely large" payments.

Still, the party has managed to hold together a country of 1.3 billion people journeying from deprivation to prosperity. Martin Whyte, a Harvard University sociologist, compared survey data on Chinese attitudes in 2009 and 2004 and found no evidence of what he called the "social volcano" view.

"Popular acceptance of current inequalities remains widespread, despite continuing increases in China's income gaps," he concluded.

China's wealth has translated into a stronger military and more assertive regional posture. Chinese fighter jets have buzzed Japanese surveillance planes over disputed East China Sea islands while Chinese naval vessels have jostled Vietnamese boats in waters that both sides claim in the South China Sea.

In late May, Chinese bravado bubbled over at a regional security conference in Singapore. Major General Zhu Chenghu, a professor at China's National Defence University, warned US allies in Asia not to count on a strong American presence in the region, likening the US response to the Ukraine crisis to "erectile dysfunction".

Rather than indicating genuine concern over China's stability, Obama's comments may reflect an effort to soothe Chinese leaders' suspicions about his decision to devote more attention to Asia, said Andrew Nathan, a China specialist at Columbia University in New York.

Chinese leaders see Obama's so-called "rebalance" as a sign he wants to prevent the emergence of a rival superpower. By underscoring the American stake in a unified, prosperous China, Obama may be trying to ease such worries.

China's leaders are aware of their vulnerabilities. Though the government stopped releasing official protest tallies in 2005, it's clear that public disturbances happen daily. Sun Liping, a professor at Tsinghua University, estimated that there had been 180,000 protests, strikes, riots and other "mass incidents" in 2010, twice as many as in 2006.

"They face some very serious social order challenges," said Murray Scot Tanner, senior research scientist in the China studies division of CNA Corp., a research group in the US state of Virginia. "And some of them appear to be getting worse."



China's potential weakness now worries West more than its strength | South China Morning Post

Lolz
Typical Americo-Japanese Heart burns Evident

The real Butt hurt for the champions of 20th century is there countries are now developed and they cannot grow more then 3% nows.
And its long way china steps into fully developed high income category upto which it will grow 6 to 7 % and by that time it will be ions ahead of the west.

Its a new world. Start living with harmony peace and Cooperation. Americans should learn from the British how they simply gave there supermacy away and started living in peace. It should not follow soviet path of hanging on to Superpower phobia when in reality its loosing it.

 

[Genesis]

Sure, if I were Chinese and I believed that America were preventing a fast solution to the SCS issue, I would be angry at the US as well. Of course, as an American, I have to ask what it is we're doing to prevent a fast resolution. I have seen Chinese users here vaguely claim that we are "encouraging" the ASEAN nations to resist China, but I wonder if proof of that can be provided, and I wonder what form that encouragement is taking. Clearly, it's not military backing, because we don't have defense treaties with those countries; so what kind of support for extending the conflict do the Chinese believe we are providing?

This is a genuine question. I have not followed the issue closely, so I don't know what the US is doing there, if anything.

American mutual defense treaties and American commitment to Asia. Now the defense treaties are done pre-conflict and the commitment thing is questionable at best.

However, being the current super power with a finger in every pie, that's the price you pay, getting dragged into everything whether you like it or not. But I will say a return to the Philippines did happen post-conflict, so it's not like America is completely dragged into it involuntarily.

The weapons sales to these countries, including the province of Taiwan, doesn't help. Before anyone say Taiwan is a country, even Taiwan don't recognize Taiwan as a country, it's Taiwan province, and Fujian Province, and the Republic of China.


Now as to the American commitment to Asia, and Asia Pivot, it's one thing if we are actually planning on using force, then this pivot would mean less than nothing, but we are not, and it's a battle of wits, and will.

America's stance right now is making the Philippines more confident, though they shouldn't be, and is directly responsible for them holding out. If America were to declare officially and unofficially they are leaving or that they will not fight China, unless China launches attack on Guam or an American base, Philippines would fold like a tent.


To sum up, selling weapons, mutual defense treaties, pivot to Asia.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

American mutual defense treaties and American commitment to Asia. Now the defense treaties are done pre-conflict and the commitment thing is questionable at best.

However, being the current super power with a finger in every pie, that's the price you pay, getting dragged into everything whether you like it or not. But I will say a return to the Philippines did happen post-conflict, so it's not like America is completely dragged into it involuntarily.

The weapons sales to these countries, including the province of Taiwan, doesn't help. Before anyone say Taiwan is a country, even Taiwan don't recognize Taiwan as a country, it's Taiwan province, and Fujian Province, and the Republic of China.


Now as to the American commitment to Asia, and Asia Pivot, it's one thing if we are actually planning on using force, then this pivot would mean less than nothing, but we are not, and it's a battle of wits, and will.

America's stance right now is making the Philippines more confident, though they shouldn't be, and is directly responsible for them holding out. If America were to declare officially and unofficially they are leaving or that they will not fight China, unless China launches attack on Guam or an American base, Philippines would fold like a tent.


To sum up, selling weapons, mutual defense treaties, pivot to Asia.

Obama is a clown, no disagreement there--I have no idea what he was thinking with the Philippines move, especially considering the Philippines has made it very clear that they are not interested in a high-level defense pact. The Philippines already kicked us out once, so I have low expectations for this limited move. It's not enough for the US to benefit strategically, it's not enough to assure security for the Philippines, but it is enough to anger China. But it is the nature of clowns to act like fools.

As far as Taiwan, the US is stuck. Abandon Taiwan, and no ally will ever trust us again. Fully arm Taiwan, and incur the wrath of China. So instead, the US gives crumbs to Taiwan, which angers both Taiwan and China. No good solution there, and ironically, our best hope is that China and Taiwan work out their differences and come to their own solution. I thought Taiwan-China relations were getting better these last few years, but perhaps I was mistaken.