What's new

Northeast Asia Geostrategic Forum

When Mao finally died, Deng Xiaoping was ready to implement economic reform. He saw the successful economic examples of both Singapore and Hong Kong during the 1970s, and proceeded to make reforms by creating the special economic zones later in the 1980s. Deng Xiaoping did this because he wanted to restore the strength that China had lost so long ago. But to do that, economic strength would be needed. And the only way to do it was to make economic relations with the US and to gain access to the American markets.

Another point that should be made that highlights the importance of the US economy to China's economic growth was China needed US cooperation in order to join the WTO. In 1995 and 1996 was the so-called straits crisis. Taiwan was going to have their first presidential election. And one of the candidates spoke about Taiwanese identity. China was furious at that and threatened Taiwan with ballistic missiles. Even launched off a bunch of missiles that landed in the water not from Taiwan's coast. In order to protect Taiwan from the missile threat, the US sent a carrier as a show of force. Despite the US having done this, China continued to develop greater economic relations with the US. They signed the agreement in 1999 with Bill Clinton, and then achieved becoming a member of the WTO in 2001.

What did you mention in your two last posts are well covered in following interview :coffee: the reality is that both China and USA need each other... and it may still be that case for many years to come. As for question which one needs more the other, it can always be arguable, moreover that characteristic of the bilateral relationship is something dynamic, it changes over time in commensurate with the change of strength of each nation. One thing is certain, there is no Samaritan here, it's simply a mutual beneficial relationship!

Indeed if one cares to dig the geopolitical situation around the peak of the Cold War until the moment of the USSR collapse, one will grasp better the triangular relationships among USA - China - USSR and the equilibrium they played over. And today they are USA - China - Russia. The so-called great or major powers in this world more or less remain the same over decades.

~~~~~~~~~

An interview with a hardcore expert from USA... seeing China and Asia today through the sole superpower's lens

China as a Superpower – An Interview with Prof. Toshi Yoshihara

Via Erico Matias Tavares of Sinclair & Co. - Published on March 8, 2017

Prof_Toshi_Yoshihara_USA.png


Dr. Toshi Yoshihara is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining CSBA, he held the John A. van Beuren Chair of Asia-Pacific Studies and was an affiliate member of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the Naval War College, where he taught strategy for ten years.

He is the co-author of Red Star over the Pacific: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy, Indian Naval Strategy in the Twenty-first Century and Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan. He is also co-editor of Strategy in the Second Nuclear Age: Power, Ambition and the Ultimate Weapon and Asia Looks Seaward: Power and Maritime Strategy.

He holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, an MA from the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (BSFS) from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.



E Tavares: Prof. Yoshihara, thank you for being with us today. China has been very busy building up their military capabilities in recent years. Broadly speaking, what are their medium and long term intentions?

T Yoshihara: One way to gauge China’s longer term intentions is to assess what Chinese leaders are saying today. President Xi Jinping has articulated a vision for China over the next few decades. This vision has been termed the “Chinese Dream” or the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” These slogans capture goals, milestones, and timelines.

In terms of timeframe, the Chinese refer to the “two one hundreds”: i) the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021; and ii) the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 2049.

By 2021 China hopes to become what the Chinese call a “moderately well-off society.” By mid-century China hopes to be on par with other developed countries. Most measures for tracking China’s progress are socio-economic in nature: disposable income, socioeconomic equality, access to higher education, access to healthcare and so forth. To achieve these objectives, China still hews to the basic principle laid out by paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, namely, peace and development. The concept of peace and development derives from the notion that China needs a peaceful external environment to develop economically.

But there are also external components to China’s long term goals, particularly China’s relations with the rest of the world. President Xi Jinping offers some hints. He has discussed the prospects for “democratizing” the international system. This is code for a transition from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar world. As China rises, China envisions the emergence of a new global configuration in which China is a great power among other coequal great powers, including the European Union, India, and Russia, in the international system. This aligns with the “rise of the rest” hypothesis. As China gets very strong, it would also seek to amend the rules that have governed the current international order in ways that accommodates China’s interests as a great power.

China’s rise thus raises a series of important questions about the implications for Asia. What does China want in East Asia as it rises? Would China seek to become the dominant power in East Asia? Would it seek a dramatically reduced role for the United States? More troubling, would China seek a Sino-centric regional order in which many of its neighbors, including Japan, must acquiesce to its strategic prerogatives?

ET: So “power” for China is not just economic power, where they have performed spectacularly in recent decades. What they also envision is establishing themselves as a great military power to adequately achieve the goals you outlined, correct?

TY: Absolutely. China’s rise must be measured in terms of “comprehensive national power,” a phrase Chinese strategists use to asses China’s ascent. Comprehensive national power includes all instruments of national power, including political, diplomatic, economic, social, ideological, cultural, and, importantly, military power.

For decades after China opened itself in the late 1970s, China more or less accepted the U.S.-led liberal international order. Being a member of the order was essential for China’s national development. But to join the order, it struck a bargain with the United States: it would accept American primacy in East Asia in exchange for access to the U.S.-led order.

However, as China has gotten much stronger, this grand bargain has come under strain, especially over the last decade. This strain is reflected in an ongoing debate within China: should a great power like China continue to depend on the goodwill of another great power, the United States, for its economic well-being and national security? As China becomes more powerful, some Chinese believe that no self-respecting power should depend on outsiders but should rely on its own power, including military power, to determine its destiny.

ET: Is it fair to say that the bulk of their impressive military development of late is intentionally targeting U.S. capabilities in the region, and even bypass defense protocols to strike the U.S. homeland?

YT: If China seeks to revise the grand bargain it struck with the United States, if China seeks to be a great power in a multipolar world, and if China seeks to be the dominant power in East Asia, then China needs to seek a significantly reduced role of the United States in the region. If you accept these propositions, then China clearly needs the capability to counterbalance America’s military dominance in Asia today.

But there are specific contingencies, including those related to Taiwan, that have compelled China’s military modernization. In particular, the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait crises demonstrated to China that it needed military capabilities to respond to American military power. At the height of the crises, the Clinton Administration deployed two carrier battle groups in the vicinity of Taiwan as show of American resolve. Chinese leaders learned to their utter horror that they lacked credible military options to respond to this U.S. show of force. They thus concluded that they needed certain capabilities to ensure that they are not humiliated again.

Given the structural change in the balance of power in Asia and the various regional flashpoints that might involve China and U.S. intervention, it is not surprising that many Chinese military capabilities frequently match a discernible U.S. military target.

ET: Have they reached military parity with the U.S. and if so in what terms?

YT: In terms of conventional military power, China has not reached parity with the US across the board. The United States is also qualitatively superior across many measures of military power. However, such broad military parity is not necessary for China to pose serious challenges to the United States. In certain niche areas China has already achieved tremendous advances and has even surpassed those of the United States.

It is actually more useful to think about asymmetries in the competition through which China has pitted its strengths against America’s military weaknesses. For instance, China has developed a very large family of missiles that can be launched from ships, submarines, aircraft, and trucks to attack U.S. platforms and bases in the Pacific. These missiles have furnished China a competitive advantage at sea: relatively inexpensive Chinese anti-ship missiles could inflict crippling damage to a U.S. aircraft carrier that costs billions of dollars to build. And, it takes only one missile to get through to put out of action a surface combatant essential to America’s regional strategy in Asia.

Chinese missiles also threaten U.S. bases in the Western Pacific. American bases there represent massive concentrations of U.S. capital in a few key locations. This means that China can direct the bulk of its missile prowess against a few positions to do some real damage to, if not severely cripple, America’s ability to project power in the region.

China is becoming very competitive in the missile arena, in part, because it is filling a strategic vacuum left behind by the superpowers during the Cold War. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty committed both the US and the then Soviet Union (and now Russia) to eradicate entire classes of missiles prohibited by the treaty. Unconstrained by the treaty, China embarked on a missile buildup that has now made it the most potent conventional missile power in the world.

ET: North Korea is also aggressively developing their missile capabilities, which could be used to deliver their nuclear arsenal. Its economy can only survive because of Chinese support. And this situation could precipitate the occurrence of some of the scenarios you described. Is China using that country as a proxy to test the resolve of, and even wage war against, the U.S. and its regional allies? Or are they equally concerned with what’s going on in Pyongyang?

YT: China is in an unenviable position. China’s prime directive is stability including stability along its periphery. North Korea clearly falls in that category. North Korea has served as a geostrategic buffer on the Korean Peninsula. After all, Mao intervened in the Korea War to prevent a noncommunist power from being established on China’s borders. China abhors the possibility of countless Korean refugees pouring across the border owing to regime collapse or war. Perhaps even worse from China’s perspective is a unified Korea led by Seoul and aligned with the United States.

But, stability has to be balanced against other liabilities. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions could trigger broader regional proliferation across threshold nuclear powers like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. During different periods of the Cold War, all three powers have considered or pursued an independent nuclear option. North Korea’s actions are putting even more pressure on these countries to revisit the unthinkable option. A nuclear Japan would presumably be a nightmare for China.

ET: It is an odd situation that the U.S. has to deal with serious security concerns engendered by one of its key trading partners, in fact a major supplier of manufactured products. How has the U.S. government reacted to this? President Obama tried that pivot to Asia, which did not seem to be that successful. Do you sense any change in this regard with the new Trump administration?

YT: The United States has long pursued a dual-pronged approach to China. One prong is engagement. For decades, the U.S. has engaged China economically, diplomatically, culturally, and, to a lesser extent, militarily. This can be described as comprehensive engagement with China.

However, engagement is not (or should not be) an end in and of itself. It seems to me the intermediate goal is to make China a responsible stakeholder. In theory, enmeshing China in the U.S.-led liberal international order would give China an ever larger stake in the current order and thus incentivize Beijing to build on and defend the order.

The other prong is deterrence. Deterrence requires the United States to maintain significant military presence in the western Pacific to deter China from changing the status quo unilaterally. Deterrence helps to lock in the current order and to buy time so that engagement with China can do its work. Engagement and deterrence are thus very much interrelated.

But, the risk is that engagement has made China very wealthy and powerful. If fact, China has become so wealthy that it has acquired the tools, both military and non-military, to unilaterally change the status quo. This is sort of like feeding the beast. And, it undermines deterrence. This dual-pronged approach is thus in tension with each other as well.

The Obama administration’s pivot to Asia was in part designed to bolster the deterrence piece of the equation even while engaging China. The Trump administration’s strategy toward China is still unclear, but we see glimmers of his approach. By questioning China’s trade practices and by promising a military buildup, Trump may be revisiting both prongs of engagement and deterrence. It remains to be seen if modifying both prongs will be more effective in managing the relationship between China in the U.S.

ET: Certainly as part of that engagement both countries have deepening cultural ties. Many Chinese students attend American universities, including children of prominent party officials. Likewise, the U.S. has been investing significantly in China on many fronts, including learning institutes. This raises the question of how aggressive China would actually be in all these scenarios. Throughout its extensive history it has never really ventured much beyond its borders, militarily at least. In fact quite the opposite, they have been the victims of invasion, including the Mongols and even several Western powers during the “century of shame”. Can we not say that their geopolitical ambitions are driven more by defensive rather than offensive ambitions?

YT: This engagement strategy has clearly produced a great deal of people-to-people and cultural exchanges. The question is to what extent such exchanges are fundamentally reshaping Chinese perceptions towards the U.S. It is not clear to me that there is necessarily and always a positive correlation.

Let’s look at history. The UK and Germany prior to World War I were very close. Many members of the German royal family studied in Britain. Kaiser Wilhelm was the grandson of Queen Victoria. There was a great deal of economic, diplomatic, and cultural interchange between the two. Yet, Germany made strategic choices that stimulated a diplomatic and naval rivalry with Britain.

More generally, it is easy to misread the resolve of other nations. Past adversaries have grossly misread the United States. The notion that you could get the U.S. to back down by giving America a bloody nose informed Imperial Japan’s calculation when it attacked Pearl Harbor and Osama Bin Laden’s calculation when he orchestrated 9/11.

The question is whether these cultural exchanges will dispel Chinese misconceptions and biases about the United States. That’s hard to tell.

Whether China has been defensive historically is a subject of intense debate. But, even if we accept that China is primarily defensive, it is worth considering how China’s neighbors view China’s strategic orientation. Even if China genuinely believes that it is only seeking to defend its interests in East Asia, those inhabiting Asia, like Japan, might draw some very different conclusions about China’s posture.

ET: When we look back at history one of the major driving factors – and an often forgotten one – is demographics. And China appears to be in trouble here. What are your views here?

YT: As a result of the one-child policy, China is already suffering from rapid ageing and population decline. India will overtake China in terms of population size in the not so distant future. China’s labor force began shrinking in 2012. The elderly population as a percentage of the total population is rising fast. As the cliché goes, China will get old before it gets rich. This is meant as a contrast to Japan, which reached its stage of demographic decline after it had developed into an advanced economy.

What this means for China’s security is unclear. On the one hand, an aging society might become more risk averse. In a one-child society, parents may be less willing to risk losing their sole offspring in a bloody conflict. On the other hand, it is plausible that demographics might compel China to act sooner rather than later to resolve disputes before population decline constrains China’s options. In other words, China may feel it needs to hurry to settle security problems before it’s too late.

ET: The U.S. is also facing some internal issues. As everyone knows its society is incredibly divided today. Both parties can’t even agree on building a wall south of the border, much less on a broader defense policy. Is this undermining the U.S.’ ability to project power and defend its allies in a time of crisis? And how is China viewing all this?

YT: America’s allies and friends in the Western Pacific are watching the United States very closely. While they have always worried about U.S. commitments to the region, political developments in the US have only added to the anxiety.

China, too, is closely observing the U.S. As I explained earlier, China still needs a stable external environment to grow economically. That means unstable or even hostile relations with the United States could do real harm to China’s long-term goals.

For the United States, the question is whether it can maintain the longstanding consensus about its power and purpose in Asia. Since the end of World War II, the consensus has been that American primacy in the Pacific disproportionately benefits U.S. economic and security interests. To what extent this consensus will hold will be the question on the minds of everyone on both sides of the Pacific.

ET: Thank you very much for your insightful thoughts.

YT: Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

READ ALSO: Obsolete US foreign policy dangerously provokes China towards a nuclear conflict
 
.
Fascinating read thanks for that. Although I don't fully agree with it. I do agree with many parts, but not all. There are many parts to respond to. I'll go with the trilateral bit of 3 main powers, them being the USA - China - Russia. First off is Russia. I'm not so sure about putting Russia that high up. They have a nuclear arsenal so that is one factor that satisfy a list of factors that makes a power one of the great main powers of the world. But they lack economic strength.

So between China and the US, I think the key point is the ability to make a network of alliances. The US has done this in Europe with NATO and many US military generals are thinking of making the alliances in the Asia-Pacific. I find it interesting how some people already cast the Obama pivot to Asia a failure. It has only started. The key component is alliances. The US opened up to Vietnam and continue to deepen the alliances with other nations. One example contrary to that is the Philippines, where Duterte has greatly reduced intersections with the US military, although, interchange does still continue. However, under Duterte, the Philippines seems to be advancing defense ties with Japan, which is of course very close to the US. The final major piece in the alliance structure is India. In the future, India will probably be a more important power than even Russia. India doesn't like growing Chinese power in the Indian ocean and India doesn't like the close military relationship China has with Pakistan, to which, on mention of that, I mean no disrespect to the many Pakistani members on these respectable forums. So India will continue to deepen defense relations with the US, Japan, and Vietnam. China is very big and can still become more powerful. And together with Russia and Pakistan, they can form a formidable force if they coordinate something together. But I think China would need to have some more partners. And their ability to appeal for more partners is not very good. US-Euro countries-India-Japan would be a more formidable force I would say. I would finish this point with that Japan has also yet to reach their full potential. If Japan became very serious and become a nuclear power, they would easily displace Russia for 3rd strongest.

So we can go back to the point about China's appeal. Why would so many countries that are neighbors to China join together in an alliance against China? Why not say, the opposite, why not they join in a network of defense around China and they all form a major buffer around the powerhouse of China? Why couldn't China not become, say, something like what Germany is in Europe, for all of Asia? It's appeal. Lets take Japan again and the Japanese author mentioned some number of posts above. Japan is a country of freedom of expression. So no matter what the topic is, the author can write it. If Japan was a country with tight control, such a book could never be published. But Japan allows it because Japan allows and values freedom of Expression. The US does as well. It was about 2 decades ago that a similar book was published in the US by Iris Chang. I think the war was a brutal war, and Japan was expansionists, and I think was obligated to give apologies and forms of compensations like ODAs but I do not think Japan is obligated to apologize year after year and I think Japan has by now apologized sufficiently enough. I also disagree with the number of deaths by ways of massacre stated by these two books, I personally think it is quite lower. At any rate, to continue with my main point, the US and Japan also both value and enjoy full use of the internet.

This is where China loses appeal. China's government, the CCP, censors their internet. We all know this. The CCP also restricts freedom of expression. People like Liu Xiaobo are in prison. He did not hurt anyone. He did not threaten anyone and he did not steal anything. All he did was write books and talk. And he is in jail for it in 2009 and still in there. China lacks freedom of religion. Lots of church crosses were torn down in recent years. I do not think these Chinese Christians threatened to attack any one or did anything else wrong. People's homes were bulldozed on suspicion of being private little churches. The CCP does many things like these to protect its own control. A big powerful country that does these things will not be very successful in attracting the hearts of other countries. So unless China can change its internal political character, the alliance of nations around China will continue to build up and strengthen. These nations will of course continue to trade and do business with China, but they will do so from the position of defensive strength.
 
.
Fascinating read thanks for that. Although I don't fully agree with it. I do agree with many parts, but not all. There are many parts to respond to. I'll go with the trilateral bit of 3 main powers, them being the USA - China - Russia. First off is Russia. I'm not so sure about putting Russia that high up. They have a nuclear arsenal so that is one factor that satisfy a list of factors that makes a power one of the great main powers of the world. But they lack economic strength.

So between China and the US, I think the key point is the ability to make a network of alliances. The US has done this in Europe with NATO and many US military generals are thinking of making the alliances in the Asia-Pacific. I find it interesting how some people already cast the Obama pivot to Asia a failure. It has only started. The key component is alliances. The US opened up to Vietnam and continue to deepen the alliances with other nations. One example contrary to that is the Philippines, where Duterte has greatly reduced intersections with the US military, although, interchange does still continue. However, under Duterte, the Philippines seems to be advancing defense ties with Japan, which is of course very close to the US. The final major piece in the alliance structure is India. In the future, India will probably be a more important power than even Russia. India doesn't like growing Chinese power in the Indian ocean and India doesn't like the close military relationship China has with Pakistan, to which, on mention of that, I mean no disrespect to the many Pakistani members on these respectable forums. So India will continue to deepen defense relations with the US, Japan, and Vietnam. China is very big and can still become more powerful. And together with Russia and Pakistan, they can form a formidable force if they coordinate something together. But I think China would need to have some more partners. And their ability to appeal for more partners is not very good. US-Euro countries-India-Japan would be a more formidable force I would say. I would finish this point with that Japan has also yet to reach their full potential. If Japan became very serious and become a nuclear power, they would easily displace Russia for 3rd strongest.

So we can go back to the point about China's appeal. Why would so many countries that are neighbors to China join together in an alliance against China? Why not say, the opposite, why not they join in a network of defense around China and they all form a major buffer around the powerhouse of China? Why couldn't China not become, say, something like what Germany is in Europe, for all of Asia? It's appeal. Lets take Japan again and the Japanese author mentioned some number of posts above. Japan is a country of freedom of expression. So no matter what the topic is, the author can write it. If Japan was a country with tight control, such a book could never be published. But Japan allows it because Japan allows and values freedom of Expression. The US does as well. It was about 2 decades ago that a similar book was published in the US by Iris Chang. I think the war was a brutal war, and Japan was expansionists, and I think was obligated to give apologies and forms of compensations like ODAs but I do not think Japan is obligated to apologize year after year and I think Japan has by now apologized sufficiently enough. I also disagree with the number of deaths by ways of massacre stated by these two books, I personally think it is quite lower. At any rate, to continue with my main point, the US and Japan also both value and enjoy full use of the internet.

This is where China loses appeal. China's government, the CCP, censors their internet. We all know this. The CCP also restricts freedom of expression. People like Liu Xiaobo are in prison. He did not hurt anyone. He did not threaten anyone and he did not steal anything. All he did was write books and talk. And he is in jail for it in 2009 and still in there. China lacks freedom of religion. Lots of church crosses were torn down in recent years. I do not think these Chinese Christians threatened to attack any one or did anything else wrong. People's homes were bulldozed on suspicion of being private little churches. The CCP does many things like these to protect its own control. A big powerful country that does these things will not be very successful in attracting the hearts of other countries. So unless China can change its internal political character, the alliance of nations around China will continue to build up and strengthen. These nations will of course continue to trade and do business with China, but they will do so from the position of defensive strength.
I will just respond you tersely - the key points only and listed as below:

- About Political System
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

Throughout the human civilization, there are only two nations with population over 1,000,000,000 threshold, they are China and India. India has all the "freedom" that you mentioned above, but just stop short at that freedom, they're much left behind in every yardstick matters to the real life.

- Why is Russia regarded as one of Great/Major Powers?
LANDMASS, 80% larger than the No.2, Canada and beneath that landmass is abundant wealth of natural resources. Russian are also excellent in some key technologies, aside from the military ones, they excel at aerospace & few others and some basic sciences.

- Then Japan?
On the contrary, your highly regarded Japan is an island nation, and that island is far from being sizeable. Add in the demographic causes: AGING demography, DEPOPULATED nation, Fukushima Daiichi NPP problems, earthquake-prone (Pacific Ring of Fire)... Japan is facing many problems, its economy has been STAGNANT since early 1980s (after the Plaza Accord imposed on it). Search for the phrase: Japan “A Bug in Search of a Windshield”.

- USA achieved its peak power at 1960s, at that time the US was the largest oil exporter as well as leading in various industrialization. As the sole major power came out of the World War II untouched at its homeland, the USA has its industrial base intact while every other major powers were in ruins.
Today this hollowed-out power is propped by still the largest yet waning military power and the Petrodollar+World Reserve Currency (WRC)... either one fades out the other one will follow too. You have the shortsighted vision by missing out the US debt to the ROW, US$ 20 trillions (the known figure) plus other unknown debt, the annual trade deficit of US$800 billions or so, and even many more trillion deficit in terms of UNFUNDED LIABILITIES; over 90 million unemployed population; around 50 million population living on SNAP/EBT/Food Stamps and few other allowances... definitely not a great, cohesive and productive society.

Do you think any other nation can live at such bleeding without its currency having the WRC status?
But for how long the USA can sustain this bleeding?

The article above clearly mentioned an International Order established by the USA post-WWII, no wonder the USA has more nations stick around it... some can be the true friends like the Five Eyes Countries, or perhaps your Japan, but many others are just seeking economic benefits and security reasons (they don't want to fall into Saddamized or Gaddafied)... they just stick around the center... so far until now :-)

- China is offering the One Belt, One Road mutually beneficial cooperation centering around the Asia and Europe (Eurasia) yet reaching out the entire globe. Time will unfold on how successful this grand economy initiative, just look at its progress year by year. There is also the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to support the OBOR; then grand project such as CPEC (still related to OBOR), the railway project to link the SEA with China etc.

And GDP alone is much a lax measurement, GDP can includes anything, even drug business and prostitution can be counted as part of the GDP and in fact some developed nations are counting this gray economy. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is closer to reality.

Hint: Please look at the World Map to gain more accurate judgement wrt the understanding upon the Great/Major Powers.

That's all for now.
 
.
I will just respond you tersely - the key points only and listed as below:

- About Political System
Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

Throughout the human civilization, there are only two nations with population over 1,000,000,000 threshold, they are China and India. India has all the "freedom" that you mentioned above, but just stop short at that freedom, they're much left behind in every yardstick matters to the real life.

- Why is Russia regarded as one of Great/Major Powers?
LANDMASS, 80% larger than the No.2, Canada and beneath that landmass is abundant wealth of natural resources. Russian are also excellent in some key technologies, aside from the military ones, they excel at aerospace & few others and some basic sciences.

- Then Japan?
On the contrary, your highly regarded Japan is an island nation, and that island is far from being sizeable. Add in the demographic causes: AGING demography, DEPOPULATED nation, Fukushima Daiichi NPP problems, earthquake-prone (Pacific Ring of Fire)... Japan is facing many problems, its economy has been STAGNANT since early 1980s (after the Plaza Accord imposed on it). Search for the phrase: Japan “A Bug in Search of a Windshield”.

- USA achieved its peak power at 1960s, at that time the US was the largest oil exporter as well as leading in various industrialization. As the sole major power came out of the World War II untouched at its homeland, the USA has its industrial base intact while every other major powers were in ruins.
Today this hollowed-out power is propped by still the largest yet waning military power and the Petrodollar+World Reserve Currency (WRC)... either one fades out the other one will follow too. You have the shortsighted vision by missing out the US debt to the ROW, US$ 20 trillions (the known figure) plus other unknown debt, the annual trade deficit of US$800 billions or so, and even many more trillion deficit in terms of UNFUNDED LIABILITIES; over 90 million unemployed population; around 50 million population living on SNAP/EBT/Food Stamps and few other allowances... definitely not a great, cohesive and productive society.

Do you think any other nation can live at such bleeding without its currency having the WRC status?
But for how long the USA can sustain this bleeding?

The article above clearly mentioned an International Order established by the USA post-WWII, no wonder the USA has more nations stick around it... some can be the true friends like the Five Eyes Countries, or perhaps your Japan, but many others are just seeking economic benefits and security reasons (they don't want to fall into Saddamized or Gaddafied)... they just stick around the center... so far until now :-)

- China is offering the One Belt, One Road mutually beneficial cooperation centering around the Asia and Europe (Eurasia) yet reaching out the entire globe. Time will unfold on how successful this grand economy initiative, just look at its progress year by year. There is also the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to support the OBOR; then grand project such as CPEC (still related to OBOR), the railway project to link the SEA with China etc.

And GDP alone is much a lax measurement, GDP can includes anything, even drug business and prostitution can be counted as part of the GDP and in fact some developed nations are counting this gray economy. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is closer to reality.

Hint: Please look at the World Map to gain more accurate judgement wrt the understanding upon the Great/Major Powers.

That's all for now.

We are exchanging lots of points so it would be very difficult to address all points.

But first about the video. There certainly is nothing wrong with another country wanting to try a different political system. Maybe there is something better than democracy.

Although there are many different kind of democratic systems. The US and South Korea both have a presidential democracy. But a difference between the two is that the US has a bicameral legislature whereas South Korea has a unicameral legislature. Back in the US, two political parties have dominated the political scene for decades. In South Korea, political parties tend to emerge and fade away, politicians shuffle around a bit, and form a new political party. In other words, it is not only the system, but each and every democratic countries' culture and circumstances result in a different shape of democracy. Furthermore, different from the US and South Korea and are Great Britain and Japan, which have a parliamentary style democracy. It is pointed out that not all democracies survive, and that there are fewer at the time of the making of the video than some earlier point of time. Thailand seems to struggle with it, as does Brazil. Democracy is hard to do. But its the ideal of wishing to live in a society where government does not have so much control. Now, people may prefer strong government control. Strong government control can still command strong economic performance. But strong government control means it is easier for the government to make its people be expansionists. It is interesting how the US is pointed out so often that they did wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and else where. But take a step back for a second. When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.. the US was left as the dominant power, by far. The US was extraordinarily powerful. If the US truly had an expansionists agenda, they would have done far more than the Persian Gulf, Balkins, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at other periods of time when a country had such a powerful advantage. Those countries expanded tremendously. The US appears aggressive only because of what can be seen, but all things considered, the US is actually not nearly as bad as it could potentially be and how bad some people make it out to be.

But going back to China in the presentation. Yeah, no problem, if China wants to lock up people like Liu Xiaobo, and continue going about politics in a non-democratic way, then fine, so long as China is fair to its neighbors.

That video was made in 2013, before China started the massive land reclamation in the South China Sea. The 9 dash line is old claim that resonates with the age of Imperialism as it was designed to counter the imperialistic ambitions of France and Imperial Japan in those days. If the CCP central committee was really that smart, they would recognize that times have changed and adjust their 9 dash line claim. Work out a deal with Vietnam over the Paracels. If Vietnam is not offering any compromise, then be my guests and apply PRC power to control all of the Paracel islands. But the Spratly islands and Scarborough Shoal are very clearly not be entitled to China, nor all that water territory as well. Of the 3 large airbases that China built in the Spratly islands, one of them is within the Philippines EEZ. It is a gross violation of what the Philippines rightfully owns. Also since 2013, China has steadily been increasing pressure on the Senkaku islands. Those are not Chinese, they are Japanese. During the 1950s and 1960s, China even recognize them as Japanese territory. But then suddenly, China put a claim on them in 1971/1972. Purely expansionists. Last year Chinese Coast Guard ships intruded into the territorial waters of the Senkaku islands over 30 times. And they have been increasing the number of Coast Guard ships making the intrusions as well, from 2 ships, to 3, and now moving up to 4 at a time. Salami slicing aggression is what it is. China is applying a "might makes right" while at the same time "we need so and so for our defense". The two notions are logically incompatible when coupled together but are used separately on different occasions to justify China's expansion.

At any rate, there are two metrics that do cast some doubt about China's future economy. One is debt. China has a lot of debt. The other is foreign exchange reserves. The last couple of years of growth were dependent on foreign reserves.
chinaexchange.jpg

Still a lot of reserves, but the judge is still out as to whether or not reserves will be maintained or experience another plunge. China had more foreign exchange reserves at the time of the TED presentation than it does today.


Finally finished in response to the video part and moving on to a few other points. Russia is a power. They demonstrated military capacity with cruise missiles launched by aircraft, surface ships, and submarines. And air support campaign in Syria. And they continue to develop new weapons. And of course they have their nuclear arsenal and are one of the main powers in outer space. And yes, they have geography. But a real critical component is economy. Russia made the decision to conduct the Ukraine operations, to which the West applied sanctions. Russia's economy has been hit hard. Russia's economy has moved passed the hardest part, and they have slowed down the negative growth rates, but it is still difficult to see any positive growth rate in their GDP still. The modest economic performance affects the military. It seems likely that they will not be able to produce as many T-14 tanks as they would like. And they won't be able to produce as many PAK-FAs as they would like. Russia's military industry is sort of depending on China not replacing it. If China is able to make their own aircraft engines, then they no longer need Russian engines. If China is able to develop their own missile defense systems, they won't need Russian ones. And of course China makes exports versions of their equipment. Russia is already spending over 5% of their GDP on the military at about 65 billion USD.

On to Japan, yes, geographically they are smaller. But actually not as small as one might think. They have a number of islands in the Pacific south of Japan's main islands. So if including influence over sea territory, Japan has quite a wide area. Granted Russia still has more geography. But I would say economics is a more important factor. On GDP growth, Japan while very modest, is still doing better than Russia these days. And on GDP size alone, Japan is much larger. Japan spends just 1% GDP on the SDF which comes at about 40 billion USD. If Japan goes to 2% of GDP to defense, it puts them at 80 billion USD, already far ahead of Russia's 65 billion. I don't think people really understand what a serious Japan actually means. Go to 3%, and it becomes 120 billion USD, nearly twice that of Russia's..

GDP PPP is a metric useful for some cases. It helps better visualize the costs of everyday living in one's own country. But it doesn't account for exchange rates. Exchange rates affects the ability to purchase goods from abroad. So if a country needs new machinery from Germany, or new materials from Japan, then they have to make the purchase at the exchange rate. In short, high tech machinery and equipment is only available in the advance economies, and if the currency of a country is weak, then it'll be very expensive to purchase those advance technologies. Russia has a weak ruble right now and they need advance machinery from Germany or from elsewhere. They first have to get past the sanctions, and then they have the disadvantageous cost of the weak currency. Of course it means their own goods are cheap to export. But this is only a good situation on the short time. Because as technology continues to advance, the weak currency will make it more difficult to acquire the necessary tooling and such to continue making newer goods and what they currently sell will in time become no longer valuable on the market. On the flip side, countries with a strong currency can purchase foreign goods very easily and save money for other projects.
 
.
CCTV 4 中文国际 – FOCUS TODAY 今日关注 20170323
大杀器集结半岛 朝发攻击航母视频 美“战略忍耐”结束?

This whole segment is dedicated to the Korean Peninsula.
  • WMDs are gathered on Peninsula. DPRK releases video of attacking carrier.
  • US intends to cut DPRK's foreign financial links. DPRK: It's no use threatening DPRK
  • US' "strategic patience" is over?
  • ROK media: DPRK's another missile launch fails. ROK and US escalate warning
  • Why does DPRK take frequent actions right after its engine ignition test?
  • US considers expanding financial sanctions against DPRK
  • US Secretary of State: To consider "all possible options" to make DPRK denuclearized
  • DPRK: US-ROK military drill is the root of intensified situation
  • DPRK responds to US: DPRK possesses the will and capability to cope with war
  • US, ROK reveal battle plans on DPRK. Foreign media: Using force on DPRK may kill millions
  • US media: US and ROK make multiple secret battle plans against DPRK
  • US, ROK and DPRK provoke each other. Who will benefit from it most?
  • DPRK releases video of "attacking US carrier". Long-range ballistic missile shows up
  • After carrier and nuclear sub, US strategic bomber shows up in US-ROK drill
  • US military's strategic bomber shows up over the Korean Peninsula
  • DPRK claims in the video to have got ready to fight against US in "any war"
 
.
Here's a bilingual (CN-EN) program by CCTV, this segment highlights the Shinzo Abe's strategic ambition to remilitarize Japan and project its military power far beyond the island nation, by systematic efforts to amend its current constitution, removing all the pacifist reins from the historical stipulation post its defeat in the World War Two.

Abe is deviously exploiting the increased tensions in Korean Peninsula to promote his hard-line nationalistic and militaristic aspirations. Just as Abe benefited from DPRK issues to gain his first premiership in 2007, he's again trying to capitalize at most from the current Peninsula development and is even actively putting efforts to maintain the high tensions there to prop his plans in domestic Japan. An interesting watch!

[Chinese Perspective] Abe's Springtime “Military Offensive” 2017-03-25
 
.
Nihonjin1160 (can't remember the number), hello, welcome back
 
.
Lets compare the defense budgets of China and Japan over the past years.
budget02.gif


budget01.png

Do note that the graph for Japan is in Yen. Generally, 5 trillion yen equals about 45 billion US dollars

So we can see that the defense budget of Japan was actually bigger than China's from 2000 to 2006. In 2007 they were about the same. Then in 2008, China's was bigger. In 2009, Japan's defense budget was still going down while China's went up a lot. Japan's still went down in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 While China's went up by large amounts in each year. So despite having the same size budget in 2007, after only 5 years, China's defense budget became about 110 billion US dollars vs Japan's 40 billion US dollars. China's defense budge became almost 3 times bigger than Japan's in only 5 years. Japan has a lot of catching up to do and China does not like it because China does not want competition. So they label Japan as "re-militarizing" to give it an evil sounding spin. Chinese propaganda.
China does not belong to the Japan's league.

As one of the major powers, China is eyeing on the USA!

It's the rest of Asia that must be watchful upon the return of the militaristic and aggressive pre-WWII Imperial Japan... if the Asia wanna avoid the past painful and devastating aggression.

Moreover if one calculates China's spending on per capita basis, the sum is still pretty small.
 
.
Military budget spending on a per capita doesn't really effect how much money its put into the armed forces.

As of now, the Philippines trust Japan and the US much more than China, despite Duterte. And JS Izumo will visit the Philippines soon.
pulse-t1-011217.jpg

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/12/17/pinoys-trust-us-distrust-china-and-russia-pulse-asia
Duterte is just being strategically smart in dealing with China. He still cannot accept China doing land reclamation on Scarborough Shoal.
Quite funny on how you quoted the poll from the same FAKE NEWS (TM) manufacturer that told the American people repeatedly that Hillary Clinton would definitely win the election and Donald Trump was a hopeless candidate :D:P

I wanna believe that Santa Claus is real and the unicorn does exist but I simply cannot :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
.
CCTV 4 中文国际 – FOCUS TODAY 今日关注 20170324
日“准航母”舰队成形 剑指中国潜艇意欲何为

This whole segment is dedicated to Japan and Its new Izumo-class Kaga "quasi carrier".
  • JP "quasi carrier" fleet takes form
  • What's its intention of targeting at China's subs?
  • "Kaga", main warship that once invaded China reappears. JP media: "Eight-Eight Fleet" targets at China
  • "Kaga" has high sonar performance which improves JSDF's anti-sub capability
  • "Kaga" can carry out activities continuously at sea for a long time
  • "Kaga" will participate in Japan's vigilance and monitoring activities in surrounding areas
  • JP: "Kaga" quasi carrier is commissioned. Ship with the same name once invaded China
  • China's MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs): Be vigilant against revival of Japanese militarism
  • Reuters: "Kaga" is commissioned. Japan may launch more military operations overseas
  • JP media: Commissioning of "Kaga" improves US and JP's capability of coping with China's subs
  • With 4 "quasi aircraft carriers", Japan's "Eight-Eight Fleet" targets at China directly
  • Japan: PLA Navy's three warships enter West Pacific by way of Miyako Strait
  • China's three warships sail cross Miyako Strait, being photographed by Japan
  • China's warsplanes fly over Miyako Strait. Japan scrambles warsplanes for response
  • Why does JP always overreact to normal training of China's warships and warsplanes?
  • It's vital to enhance PLA's integrated combat capability in complicated situation around
  • Hyping "China threat", JP intends to expedite arms expansion, constitutional amendment
  • Abe talks about South China Sea again in Europe, declaring joint drill with UK, France and US
  • JP media: Japan, France, UK, US will hold joint maritime drill in Japan for the first time
  • JP media: Joint maritime drill held by four countries aims to contain China
  • Abe claims to "pay high attention" to China's maritime activities. What's his intention?
 
. .
S. Korean prosecutors to seek arrest warrant for Park

Xinhua, March 27, 2017

b8aeed990a581a42c5910d.jpg

Ousted South Korean President Park Geun-hye arrives at the prosecutors' office in Seoul, South Korea, March 21, 2017. [Photo/Xinhua]

South Korean prosecutors on Monday sought to arrest former President Park Geun-hye in a corruption investigation.

The special investigation headquarters of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, tasked with the probe into the corruption scandal embroiling Park, said in a statement that the warrant to arrest Park was sought for concerns about possible attempts to destroy evidence.

The statement said Park had denied most of criminal charges despite the collection of multiple evidences.

The Constitutional Court decided on March 10 to remove Park from office. The ousted president was grilled by prosecutors over the scandal on March 21.
 
.
After 15 Years of Warfare in Mideast, Pentagon Shifts Strategy to Russia, China

© AP Photo/ Abdul Khaliq

Military & Intelligence
02:11 29.03.2017(updated 05:43 29.03.2017) Get short URL

After 15 years of direct involvement in military conflicts in the Middle East, the American military is working on a new strategy that would focus on other "existential threats" to the United States which include Russia and China.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The military strategy of the United States currently being developed seeks to shift emphasis from the Middle East to global existential threats that include Russia, China and violent extremist organizations (VEO), a senior Department of Defense official told Sputnik on Tuesday.

"We have been focused on the Middle East for 15 years and so we are now developing a military strategy that turns to threats posed by Russia, China and VEO’s in that order," the official said.

The official noted that the US military strategy under development encompasses threats known as the "4+1."

Besides Russia, China and VEOs, the US threat equation also identifies North Korea and Iran as threats.

However, the official explained that while "Russia and China are existential threats to the United States, North Korea and Iran currently are not."

The official pointed out while the US defense leaders put much thinking in the 4+1 threats, they are also considering other contingencies.

"For example, we wonder how we would respond to a crisis in both the European and Pacific areas of operation and a simultaneous humanitarian disaster in the homeland," the official added.

The US military strategy developed by the Defense Department supports the President’s national security strategy.

President Donald Trump must produce his national security strategy by June 20.

The national military strategy represents the best advice that senior military commanders can provide to the Secretary of Defense, the defense official also noted.
 
.
Twice-weekly charter flight launched between Pyongyang & Dandong in
NE China, expected to facilitate tourists and businessmen


Sanctions my @$$ :D:P

Needless to say, China and any other nation [that posses such power and capability like Russia] have every rights to rise and stand up firmly against the unilateral USA's wishes, which is trying to impose the exceptional US rules on the rest of the world!

This world just does not belong to the USA alone and is not its properties either to arbitrarily paint as it wishes...
 
.
Twice-weekly charter flight launched between Pyongyang & Dandong in
NE China, expected to facilitate tourists and businessmen


Sanctions my @$$ :D:P

Needless to say, China and any other nation [that posses such power and capability like Russia] have every rights to rise and stand up firmly against the unilateral USA's wishes, which is trying to impose the exceptional US rules on the rest of the world!

This world just does not belong to the USA alone and is not its properties either to arbitrarily paint as it wishes...


The best way to counter US militarism is to further promote development.

***

DPRK capital, northeast China city open charter flight
(Xinhua) 14:00, March 30, 2017


Pyongyang International Airport staff prepare to welcome passengers from Dandong as they arrive in Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), March 28, 2017. Pyongyang and northeast China's city of Dandong Tuesday opened a twice weekly charter flight. (Xinhua/Cheng Dayu)

PYONGYANG, March 28 -- The capital of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) Pyongyang and northeast China's city of Dandong Tuesday opened a twice weekly charter flight.

About 50 passengers, mostly Chinese tourists and businessmen, flew in here on an Air Koriyo plane from Dandong to the warm welcome of Pyongyang International Airport staff.

The opening of the charter flight will facilitate visits by Chinese tourists and businessmen to the DPRK and connect Pyongyang with Chinese cities after a stopover in Dandong, said tourist officials here.

Air Koryo has regular flights to Beijing and Shenyang, which is also in northeast China. The charter flight to Dandong is its third flight line to China.

Dandong, located at the border with northwest DPRK along the Yalu River,is a booming border town mainly engaged in border trade with the DPRK.

14499603232493881525.jpg

Pyongyang International Airport staff welcome passengers from Dandong as they arrive in Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), March 28, 2017. Pyongyang and northeast China's city of Dandong Tuesday opened a twice weekly charter flight. (Xinhua/Cheng Dayu)
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom