To follow in Germany's and France's footsteps, can China build an Asian Union (modeled on the European Union) in Asia?
To find out, we need an organization to conduct a poll of the Chinese people, Mongolians, and Kazakhs. If you read the news, half of the male Central Asian population is jobless. There are no construction jobs available in Russia anymore (due to the fall in the oil price and Western sanctions). If we offer them a $20,000 guaranteed standard-of-living in writing, China will never have to worry about its western border ever again. NATO would have to fight through one thousand miles before reaching Xinjiang's westernmost border.
If Uzbekistan and Tajikistan join the Asian Union, the European Union/NATO will not have the opportunity to control China's gas supply. The Uzbeks and Tajiks also have a 50% unemployment rate.
All I'm asking is let's float the proposal to their populations. A re-poll should be taken every ten years, because China's living standards are increasing at $10,000 per decade. Puerto Rico refuses to leave as a US commonwealth. Many of the British territories all over the world also refuse to leave the British commonwealth.
I want to create a Chinese commonwealth or a United States of China. I prefer the soft-power approach to neutralize the expanding European Union/NATO. I think the EU/NATO will reach Kazakhstan in about 30 years. I think Putin can hold the EU at bay for 15 years (two terms as president and one more as prime minister before he becomes too old and retires) and it will take another 15 years for the EU/NATO to work its way through Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and finally the Stans.
A long term proposal, which can be put into exercise. If it works, it works, if it does not, well, at least we know it does not.
Thinking long term, I find the proposal plausible. But the key word, as you say, is "long term" (along with "soft power approach"). The long term involves China itself reaching a higher per capita status, which by itself is soft power and may constitute a tremendous incentive for the nations that might want to join a union.
It is obviously a proposal and other than China's achieving a certain GDP per capita level, is also conditioned on Russia. For that, Putin must stay in power and stand by China's side when the framework is laid out. Russia is also one of the key nations to keep the West at bay and busy, like it does miraculously in Syria. This will enable larger breathing space for China to continue its trail-blazing reforms.
The Isolationists say things are fine. Why burden China with a new project? The Isolationists would be right only if the world was static (ie. not changing). However, the European Union/NATO keeps adding new members. The battle for Ukraine shows the European Union's and NATO's determination. This means the world is dynamic (ie. changing) and not static.
I am not aware of a debate in China's political elites as to making a choice between isolationism and globalism (opening up). But still your scenario reminds of the debate in pre-WWII US, between isolationists and expansionists.
Eventually, expansionists trumped over and we have our world order from that strategic shift.
There is no such visible debate in China because the conditions are different. (History is bound not to repeat in an exact form). If such a debate is to take place, conditions must dictate it.
Hypothetically, that would be a world war. In this hypothesis, the world would bi-polarize, and get into a major (non-nuclear or limited-nuclear) war. China would be eventually forced to take a side (and that would be the side Russia takes as Russia would be the major power of the one of the two sides.
Both sides would eventually be in ruins but the side that China took and participated in a meaningful way would emerge triumphant. From the ruins of a major war, and being on the winning side rather unscathed, China would form both a political and security union centered in East Asia.
I guess, save such a catastrophic but opportunistic development, such isolationist-globalist debate won't happen in China so long as Russia holds.
In my view, presently, Chins is best forming a solid relationship with Russia while, at home front, keeping building up the economy and the military. Asian Union can be thought of and discussed on paper, but, its actual practice must be reserved for a much promising time.
***
Russian-Chinese Relations Reach ‘Unprecedented High’ Level / Sputnik International
The meeting between Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart was held ahead of the trilateral talks between the foreign ministers of Russia, India and China scheduled for Monday evening in Beijing.
China-Russia Cooperation Strengthens Global Stability, Contributes to Regional Security
BEIJING, February 2 (Sputnik) — Relations between Russia and China have reached an unprecedented high level, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.
“Our relations are now on the unprecedented high levels,” Lavrov said, adding that he hopes the bilateral cooperation between the countries will expand.
At the same time, Wang Yi said that “During the past year, our countries’ foreign ministries have made strong efforts to implement the agreements reached by the leaders of our countries.”
The meeting between Lavrov and Wang was held ahead of the trilateral talks between the foreign ministers of Russia, India and China scheduled for Monday evening in Beijing.
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the three sides will discuss on Monday the most acute problems, including threats to the global security and persistent difficulties in the world’s economy. Apart from the above, the sides are expected to focus on the Ukrainian crisis, conflicts in the Middle East, and the Iranian nuclear program.
Read more:
Russian-Chinese Relations Reach ‘Unprecedented High’ Level / Sputnik International
NATO's Grand Plan
I only have a few more posts that I want to write.
1. NATO's Grand Plan
2. "Pivot to Asia" is a classic military diversionary tactic
3. Concentric Layers of Defense
4. Why is the US/NATO resorting to military instead of economic power?
5. Why does the West want Kazakhstan so badly? Full-benefits analysis.
To appreciate China's security, it is necessary to understand NATO's Grand Plan. Let's look at the map.
In 2008, the EU/NATO attempted to bring Georgia into the EU/NATO club. Unfortunately, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was too aggressive and killed 10 Russian peacekeepers. This precipitated the Russo-Georgian War and derailed Georgia's membership in the EU/NATO.
If Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had not been a loose cannon, the NATO plan would have continued in the following manner. The EU and NATO would have expanded into the following countries.
1. Azerbaijan (the land bridge across the Caucasus would have been complete)
2. Kazakhstan (EU gains control of Kazakh oil and gas supplies to China. EU also gains control of pipelines to China.)
3. Uzbekistan (EU gains control of transit pipelines for Turkmenistan gas to China)
4. Turkmenistan (EU gains control of China's 30 billion cubic meters per year gas supply. Turkmenistan gas has been contractually increased to 60 billion cubic meters per year for 2018.)
5. Mongolia (Western-most Mongolia almost touches Eastern-most Kazakhstan and is the EU's/NATO's final target.)
With the Stans and Mongolia under Western control and inside the NATO alliance, NATO has China's western and northern flank surrounded. Also, NATO would have all of southern Russia surrounded as well.
If the West had been able to execute NATO's Grand Plan, both Russia and China would have been surrounded by NATO forces.
Excellent analysis.
The threat is there and real. And it makes more and more sense for China to deepen strategic relations with Russia. Militarily, Russia currently deal with NATO. China, on the other, is doing economically fine. In this way, Russia and China are complementary nations.
