swerve Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I don't think there are any sea lanes to be kept clear and secure these days, by the way, apart from the piracy problems. But I'm sure the Chinese are acutely aware that India could cut off all their oil imports from the Middle East any time the Indians chose to. Any tanker headed from the Persian Gulf to China has to pass India.
Ken Estes Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 But I'm sure the Chinese are acutely aware that India could cut off all their oil imports from the Middle East any time the Indians chose to. Any tanker headed from the Persian Gulf to China has to pass India.183979[/snapback]True, but I don't see how these regional competitors will fight limited wars or commerce wars without fear of escalation. I don't see anybody interested in getting into a war with China of any sort, and to clamp a naval embargo on her shipping and not think consequences are surely coming [and not just naval] seems bizarre. India certainly sees itself as a future Indian Ocean regional hegemon, but to what end, other than one-upping the Paks? I really think that peace has broken out, wars remain far too expensive [now at any level] to use as a means to a political end. China is, like 1914 Germany [oops], geographically satisfied, and unlike 1914 Germany has little colonial ambition or fear of falling behind a neighboring great power. Taiwan will see generational solutions. This is pure navalism and a luxury fleet in the making.
pikachu Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 If I may add, China is Pakistan's closest ally, even more so than the US. In that case, any future Indo-Pakistani conflict may well involve China. In such a conflict, India may well feel annoyed enough eventually by China's continuing to supply Pakistan with arms and ammo that they'd consider using control of the Indian Ocean as leverage against China. Not so much a direct attack on Chinese shipping, but a sufficient "justifiable" disturbance. Blockading Gwadar, for instance (it IS a Pakistani port). Doesn't need to be India vs. China.
JOE BRENNAN Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 There seems to be a general assumption that China will be the number one economy in the world in the next 50 years. I don't see it. Remember when Japan looked invincible? The Chinese are picking all the low hanging economic fruit right now. Getting from 2nd world to 1st world will be a lot more difficult.183844[/snapback]One big difference between China and Japan is the former has >10 times as many people as the latter, or IOW ~4.4 times as many as the US rather than ~40% as many. What you and others have said about the difficulties China might face is very valid insofar as raising its *per capita* GDP to equal that of the US, much less valid when speaking of total GDP, IMO. The most recent CIA figures as PPP GDP of China $5.6tril, US $11.75tril, growth rates 9 and 4.4% respectively. That trend crosses in around 17yrs. US consensus trend growth is more like 3.5% at most, although China's must slow from 9% too. Then there are the vagueries of Purchasing Power Parity calcs. But it still illustrates the rough timeframe, which is much less than 50yrs for China's total, not per capita, GDP to overtake that of the US at current trends. Back to per capita measure if China reaches 1/3 the US GDP per capita it will probably have a bigger economy (its population will probably grow more slowly than the US, so 1/4 isn't necessarily enough depending how long it takes). Now it's roughly 11% the US level. To give a rough comparable South Korea's per capita was around 17% that of the US in 1975, reached 1/3 around 1990, tripled over the 1975 % by 2000. So we're not talking unprecedented. Of course China could fall into a prolonged period of stagnation or even unrest and negative progress over unsolved problems like state owned corporations' insolvency, related bad loan crisis, coasts v. interior or north south inequality, unrest along the path toward liberty v the Communists, etc. Nobody can predict the future. But assuming the US will be able to afford to outspend China militarily if China fully emerges as a world power (meaning it's *not* preoccupied within massive internal problems such as mentioned), would be an unwise assumption IMO. Joe
Rocky Davis Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Mike acquitted? What offense and which Michael? Eastes? Steele? Donnelly? Other Michaels I should know? I'm confused!
Matt L. Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 One big difference between China and Japan is the former has >10 times as many people as the latter, or IOW ~4.4 times as many as the US rather than ~40% as many. What you and others have said about the difficulties China might face is very valid insofar as raising its *per capita* GDP to equal that of the US, much less valid when speaking of total GDP, IMO.<snip>184127[/snapback] Where I was going with the Japan analogy (which I neglected to explain) was the perils of extrapolation. People are always drawing lines off into infinity and don't seem to realize that the further you get from you last data point, the less reliable it becomes - quickly becoming worthless. The loony left is often the biggest culprits here. The global oil supply will be exhausted by 1990, the world's population will be unable to feed itself by 1975, etc, etc. (I just made up the dates - whatever they were, it was useless information) The US is much more likely to maintain it's 3-4% growth than China it's 9%. China is essentially expanding into an open space at the moment. That space is not infinite. Japan got fantastic growth rates by running their economy in an unsustainable way. It caught up with them. I would say China's growth is more socially unsustainable than economic (Japan). I believe your numbers, Joe. I just doubt the trend line will continue for the next 20 years. Of course, one doesn't ignore the possibility. OTOH, you have to keep things in perspective. Extrapolators always see disasters on the horizon - it's not a good way to make policy. Regards, Matt
Jeff Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I was going to put that in but post was already too wordy. The driver is retention of total ability to build aerospace/seapower in the future (with a completely open mind how each mission might be fulfilled eventually, not absolute assumption of all legacy platforms), production as well. 183836[/snapback] Here's an article about the hearing focusing on the designer issue. Everyone is very aware of Britain's problems with the Astute after a reasonably short hiatus. Flagging Submarine Design System Called Dangerous Problem For U.S. By ROBERT A. HAMILTONDay Staff Writer, Navy/Defense/Electric BoatPublished on 6/14/2005 Groton — The country is “on the precipice of a national disaster” if it continues to allow the weakening of submarine design capability at Electric Boat, the Navy officer in charge of submarine construction programs testified Monday. Rear Adm. John D. Butler, program executive officer for submarines at Naval Sea Systems Command, said that for the first time since before World War II, the Navy does not have a submarine design project on the boards. “These are skills that do atrophy and don't come back just because you hire skilled engineers,” Butler said. “I have this national asset of submarine designers, and no work for them.” The design force at Electric Boat has dwindled to near-dangerous levels, Butler and Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of the office of Naval Reactors, told the congressional Projection Forces Subcommittee, which conducted a field hearing at the Naval Submarine Base. Donald said it takes about 4,000 engineers and designers to develop a modern submarine, and in the past that peak workforce was achieved by maintaining a core of about 2,000 personnel and using each of them to mentor a new designer. “Presently, our force of submarine designers engaged in design work is about 2,200,” Donald said in written testimony, “and is headed toward less than 1,000 by the end of 2007. The expertise resulting from our long-term investment is, today, atrophying.” Their comments echoed a similar concern raised last week by retired Adm. Bruce DeMars, a former head of Naval Reactors, who told the Naval Submarine League annual symposium that the submarine design force is “in extremis.” “The submarine design base is a national asset and must be preserved,” he said. At the same forum, EB President John P. Casey noted there are some prospects the shipyard is pursuing, including $600 million in funds for an “undersea superiority system” that the president has proposed in his defense budget. “There are opportunities to apply and leverage the talent that we have,” Casey said. But he also acknowledged that keeping the submarine design force intact is one of the biggest national security issues today, “and within a year or so we're going to be at a decision point on it.” Subcommittee members questioned whether Tango Bravo, a joint project between the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, might keep some of the expertise alive. Tango Bravo will invest $97 million over the next four years investigating technologies that would drive down the size and cost of submarines, such as external weapons, new propulsion systems and automated systems. But Butler said at this point Tango Bravo is only a technology demonstration — designers won't get involved until the project determines the concepts are feasible. “The bottom line is, it's not a design ... and we won't be moving forward with it as a design until 2009,” he said. Donald noted that Tango Bravo might not result in any new design, so much as modifications to the existing design for the Virginia class of submarines under construction at Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. “If the Tango Bravo technologies pay off, if there are some that are truly viable, there's no reason we can't use them in Virginia,” Donald said. He noted that would help amortize the development costs of Virginia over a larger number of hulls. Despite the grim outlook for the EB design force, the president of the Marine Draftsmen's Association at the shipyard, John A. Worobey Jr., said he was encouraged by the attention that seems to be focused on the problem. “We know the Navy has been aware of it, after seeing the help that Great Britain needed,” Worobey said. “It just a matter of coming up with the cash, with the projects. I really hope this hearing today has opened some eyes.” The Astute-class nuclear submarine program in the United Kingdom started after a several-year hiatus in construction and design, and was soon in such trouble that at the request of the U.S. Navy, an EB team was brought in to help fix it. Today an EB executive runs the program. Butler said there are options that Congress could exercise to maintain the design-force industrial base. Among them are a design project aimed at modifying the Virginia design to drive out some of the cost and make it easier to produce, and preliminary design work on a new class of ballistic missile submarine to replace the Ohio class, which will go out of service starting in the mid-2020s. “That would give us the work we need to keep our designers busy,” Butler said.
JOE BRENNAN Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) Where I was going with the Japan analogy (which I neglected to explain) was the perils of extrapolation. People are always drawing lines off into infinity and don't seem to realize that the further you get from you last data point, the less reliable it becomes - quickly becoming worthless. The US is much more likely to maintain it's 3-4% growth than China it's 9%. China is essentially expanding into an open space at the moment. That space is not infinite. 184134[/snapback]The difference as I alluded to for South Korea, is that history already has many examples of countries closing the per capita GDP gap from where China is (and South Korea was) to say where South Korea is (or was even 15+ yrs ago), relative to the US. And at only 1/3 our per capita, China will have substantially bigger economy than we do. Again the difference in Japan extrapolations was that "Japan is coming" books, if they predicted outright absolute GDP leadership by Japan, had to assume Japan substantially exceeding our per capita level, pulling away from the general level of highly developed countries. That would have been unprecedented and a real extrapolation. In China's case it's just China following the well blazed trail of per capita GDP growth of culturally similar countries (Korea, Taiwan, Japan going back to the period of the 50's-60's, not the 80's etc) to a point only around 1/4-1/3 the highest levels in the developed world; then their population size makes them biggest. That seems pretty predicable to me, insofar as anything is (nothing is totally) unless something major changes, which it could. But the reasonable default assumption is they do get that big. I didn't say 17 yrs, that's just where it points right now, but it's unlikely to be anything like 50 (again if you average the paths of several other countries to get to 1/3 of top rich country level) unless there's a major setback. And stuff like the Asian financial crisis is not major, that's turning into a blip on the chart of the countries involved. Major like real internal meltdown, and while that can't be entirely discounted, it can't be the prudent default assumption, about anybody. It could be that China's pure size introduces other external constraints like total world resource availability (which a South Korea or Taiwan didn't), but then those would slow US growth too (which the rise of the other countries didn't). Joe Edited June 14, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN
Josh Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Anyone know what current percentage of the PRC's GDP goes to miilitary spending?
Matt L. Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 <snip>It could be that China's pure size introduces other external constraints like total world resource availability (which a South Korea or Taiwan didn't), but then those would slow US growth too (which the rise of the other countries didn't). Joe184144[/snapback] I was going to mention that, but I was having trouble articulating it so I gave up. Anyway, that is a huge factor. China's ascendancy will change the whole system. As far a comparability with S. Korea or one of the other "Asian Tigers", I'm not so sure they are as comparable as it would appear at first blush. The fact that PRC is an order of magnitude (and then some) more populous is a problem. Scaling what happened in ROK to Chinese size is essentially another form of extrapolation. Added to that, the lack of democracy and human rights, 49% agricultural workforce (CIA factbook - 8% currently for S. Korea although I don't know what it was), among other things that are different. Regards, Matt
Matt L. Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Anyone know what current percentage of the PRC's GDP goes to miilitary spending?184152[/snapback] 4.3% courtesy of the CIA factbook S. Korea 2.8%Taiwan 2.6%India 2.5%Russia ?Japan 1%USA 3.3%UK 2.4%
JOE BRENNAN Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) As far a comparability with S. Korea or one of the other "Asian Tigers", I'm not so sure they are as comparable as it would appear at first blush. The fact that PRC is an order of magnitude (and then some) more populous is a problem. Scaling what happened in ROK to Chinese size is essentially another form of extrapolation. Added to that, the lack of democracy and human rights, 49% agricultural workforce (CIA factbook - 8% currently for S. Korea although I don't know what it was), among other things that are different. 184157[/snapback]I don't think size is such a major factor except as it relates to unknowns like resources, which again won't specifically retard *China's* growth if they happen. In the end big or even medium sized economies deal mostly with themselves. Even as export "tigers" big economies like Japan don't have a huge % of their GDP imports and exports, and as development progresses the meeting of internal demand tends to be more and more important. And there's not a strong correlation in general that big countries achieve relatively low per capita GDP's and small ones high. The comparison to Korea is now, at 50+% of US GDP per capita to China at 11%. If you compared Korea at 11% (ca. 1970) to China now you'd find them more similar, though China is more stratified. Nothing in the South Korean economy of 1970 was as advanced as aspects of China now, China produces almost 70% of laptops for example. On the other hand the rural pop % would have been lower in Korea, though much higher than it is now. Of course the ROK was not a democracy in the 1970's, not in fact until after it passed the level China needs to to be biggest economy. No two Asian or any other countries are the same, but there's a fairly well defined channel of Asian development that China now and recently doesn't seem to deviate from in any extreme way, comparing the further along countries to what their economies looked like when at China's stage. Therefore though no one can predict the future it's quite reasonable to project along that general channel of Asian development, and again the end point of China having the world's biggest economy is not terra incognita in terms of the level of development. To *not* have the world's biggest, it has to somehow stall out well below the GDP per capita level Korea reached 15yrs ago, substantially less than now. If China reaches the same relative per capita GDP to the US Japan had in 1941, it will have a bigger economy than the US. Again all your arguments would make more sense to me if the debate was whether China would soon or ever get as far per capita as the US or Japan or Korea. But to say it can't get to a level still way below that, as a basically similar culture (to Japan and Korea, not to mention Taiwan): I still can't see why one would assume that as their base case. Joe Edited June 14, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN
FlyingCanOpener Posted June 14, 2005 Author Posted June 14, 2005 Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in fact a Navy League was just recently established in the PRC by a retired admiral to lobby for all those interests the good old Navy League did in Imperial Germany. 183933[/snapback] Think they would let me join? I'd love to be an early adopter of a bandwagon just for once...
Heirophant Posted June 15, 2005 Posted June 15, 2005 Actually, I believe some 70%+ of Chinese still live in the countryside, engaged in what are essentially non-industrial activities (to include fishing and forestry). This doesn't mean these people are less educated in general, just that they have heretofore been left out of the commercial and industrial expansion. In order to attract more investment, the PRC govt. often lumps together urban per capita incomes with the better-off rural ones, thus by definition increasing the numbers of people with "non-rural" purchasing capacity to well over the nominal assumed ~30% - and calling that whole grouping urban/suburban. I state this merely as data. I have no idea if such low levels of per capita industrialization as China has now means "big problems in continued development" or "still untapped potential" - it could mean neither or even both. There is one crucial differance between the classic "Asian model" of development and China' s, and that is at similar levels of per capita GDP, China has proven much more open to massive imports of foreign goods and capital (though their domestic savings rate is also very high) - much more so than Japan, South Korea or Taiwan. China buys as well as sells a lot. I am not sure if such openness and willingness to integrate with the rest of the world plays any part in the sustainability of their development, but it might.
Gabe Posted June 15, 2005 Posted June 15, 2005 Interesting article from Asia Timeshttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GF15Dh02.html Koizumi follows his heartBy J Sean Curtin TOKYO - The current low in Japan-China relations has set off a fierce public debate in Japan about how to deal with the Middle Kingdom and the restless ghosts of Tokyo's wartime past. An ever-widening rift is opening up between those who believe Japan must respect Chinese sensitivities over Tokyo's brutal wartime actions, and neo-nationalists who claim that Japan has nothing for which to apologize. Serious divisions are now emerging within the governing coalition, and Japanese society is polarizing. The outcome of this bitter struggle is likely to profoundly shape Japan's dealings with China, as well as determine how ties between Asia's two largest economies will develop. The focal point of national debate is Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's annual pilgrimage to the war-tainted Yasukuni Shrine and the status of 14 class-A war criminals enshrined within the Shinto establishment, which honors Japan's 2.5 million war-dead. To the nationalist camp, such visits are patriotic and the men classified as war criminals, including wartime premier General Hideki Tojo, are heroes. Moderates feel it is inappropriate for a prime minister to pay homage at an institution that deifies leaders who were directly responsible for immense suffering in China. The intensity of exchanges between the two sides over the issue is itself harming Sino-Japanese relations, as neo-nationalists use increasingly inflammatory and extremist rhetoric. In recent weeks, right-wing members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) have vigorously aired their revisionist interpretation of history, which seems specifically designed to enrage Beijing. The discourse has become so incendiary that eight former prime ministers have publicly demanded better relations with China and asked Koizumi not to visit Yasukuni. However, these pleas have failed to pacify LDP diehards. Masahiro Morioka, an LDP lawmaker who passionately supports Koizumi's Yasukuni visits, said on national television, "Class-A war criminals are treated as bad people because of fear of China." Taro Aso, the nationalist Internal Affairs and Communications minister and a potential successor to Koizumi, told Asia Times Online, "The designation of who was a class-A war criminal was something that was determined while Japan was under US occupation, and was not determined under Japanese law." The increasingly ultra-nationalist tone of the debate is forcing moderates to hit back as already battered relations with China deteriorate even further. The New Komeito Party, the dovish junior partner in the governing coalition, has denounced the LDP revisionists, criticized Koizumi's Yasukuni excursions and created tensions in the coalition. One New Komeito lawmaker, Junichi Fukumoto, told Koizumi in parliament, "I want you to think about how Jewish people would feel if the German chancellor visited the grave of Adolf Hitler." Beijing has also been venting its anger, reminding Japan that many Chinese still live with the emotional scars of the war. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan explained, "It left huge traumas to innumerous Chinese families." The business community, deeply worried about the impact the debate is having on bilateral economic ties, has also been speaking out. "The issue isn't visiting Yasukuni, but to recognize that the war criminals are there," said Hiroshi Okuda, chairman of Japan's biggest business lobby, the Japan Business Federation. The overwhelming majority of Japanese firms operating in China now believe that political tensions are seriously impeding the expansion of economic links. In 2004, bilateral trade flows totaled US$170 billion, making China Japan's biggest trading partner. Strong Chinese growth created huge demand for imported goods, which has fueled export growth for Japanese companies. The Yasukuni issue has the potential to disrupt booming commerce, something that would obviously damage both economies. Despite criticisms from all quarters and the huge economic risk, Koizumi has strongly hinted he intends to visit Yasukuni this year, an action that would almost certainly bring Sino-Japanese relations to a dangerous low. Former premiers hit out Relations have now deteriorated to such a dangerous level that former Japanese leaders feel compelled to try to avert a crisis. In an unprecedented move, House of Representatives Speaker Yohei Kono convened a summit of five of Koizumi's predecessors, all of whom advised him against visiting Yasukuni. Speaking on behalf of Kiichi Miyazawa, Tomiichi Murayama, Ryutaro Hashimoto, Yoshiro Mori and Toshiki Kaifu, Kono said, "We cannot overlook the rapid deterioration in Japan's relations with China. It cannot be denied that one of the reasons behind this is Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni." The statement also got the backing of three other former prime ministers, Yasuhiro Nakasone, Morihiro Hosokawa and Tsutomu Hata. Kono, a former foreign minister, also publicly reminded Koizumi that only Nakasone had visited the shrine while prime minister in 1985, and that none of his other living predecessors had do so. Due to Chinese protests, Nakasone visited the shrine just once, while Koizumi has been four times since taking office. A confident-sounding Koizumi casually dismissed the collective advice of every single one of his predecessors, telling reporters, "This is nothing new." He added in a cheerful tone, "I have heard these opinions individually." His seeming indifference to the grave concerns of Japan's former helmsmen prompted Nakasone to publicly advise Koizumi not to visit the shrine. He said, "I understand the prime minister visits the shrine out of his personal beliefs. However, a prime minister should also think how his conduct will affect the national interest ... a separate enshrinement of class-A war criminals will take time, I think it would be an admirable political decision to stop visiting the shrine." Public shift Recent polls indicate that the public has shifted firmly against Koizumi going to Yasukuni this year. A new Kyodo News poll found 57.7% thought Koizumi should not visit Yasukuni, up 16.9 percentage points from December 2004, while those who support the visits stood at 34.3%, down by 16.7 points. According to an earlier NHK news survey, 48% of Japanese oppose Koizumi's continued visits to Yasukuni, while 40% support them. Takenori Kanzaki, leader of coalition partner New Komeito, reiterated his party's call for Koizumi to refrain from visiting Yasukuni. Kanzaki warned that further Yasukuni visits "would have a negative impact to the foundation of the ruling coalition". However, he hedged his comments by adding, "A decision on whether to maintain the coalition will not be made on the Yasukuni issue alone, but on a more comprehensive judgment." Even the ultra-conservative Japan War-Bereaved Association, which has supported and encouraged Koizumi's visits, has begun to sound cautious. "It is necessary to give consideration to neighboring countries and obtain their understanding," it urged Koizumi in an unusually conciliatory statement. Koizumi responded, "I'm always giving consideration," but did not rule out paying homage at the shrine this year. Rising public concern over the Yasukuni issue is exposing bitter divisions within the LDP. Former chief cabinet secretary Yasuo Fukuda, who has long demanded better relations with China, recently embarrassed Koizumi by pointing out the sheer absurdity of the current situation in which Chinese and Japanese leaders are barely on speaking terms and rarely meet. He told parliament, "It is abnormal not to be able to hold a normal summit with China. If we can talk frankly, we could hold a sufficient conversation on important issues." Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura publicly denounced Fukuda and other LDP lawmakers who take a "soft line" on China. He said, "It's odd that Mr Fukuda has made such remarks," and attacked Takeshi Noda, the LDP head of the Japan-China Society, saying, "Japan-China relations are heading in the wrong direction because of the presence of such a person [as Noda] flattering Chinese officials." Rhetoric angers ChinaMasahiro Morioka, an LDP lawmaker and an aide to the health minister, took the neo-nationalist argument to new heights when he claimed the postwar prosecution of Japanese war criminals was illegal and there was nothing wrong with them being honored at Yasukuni. "There are no grounds to say winners are right and losers are wrong. There is no need to apologize [for the war]," Morioka said in comments broadcast on national television. "That is the truth of the class-A war criminals, and Japan needs to tell this to not just China and South Korea, but to the world," he declared. "Koizumi has paid his respects at Yasukuni shrine every year. I think that is a very good thing," Morioka added. Explaining his ideas about the wartime leaders, he claimed, "Class-A war criminals are treated as bad people because of fear of China. They were categorized by a one-sided tribunal led by the occupation forces. Saying it's bad to enshrine class-A criminals at Yasukuni Shrine is to turn a blind eye to future troubles." China angrily denounced Morioka's comments, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said Chinese people "express righteous indignation and severely condemn" the remarks. However, Koizumi brushed aside Morioka's comments and China's criticisms, saying, "The lawmaker was making personal comments and it's best not to make too much of it." Prominent cabinet minister Taro Aso told Asia Times Online that he felt China was deliberately exploiting the Yasukuni issue. He said, "I think what China is saying about the shrine raises the question why they bring this issue up. Are they just saying it to make things difficult for Japan?" He added, "In many respects, this shrine is like Arlington Cemetery in the United States. So I think it is a very natural thing for someone like me to go there to pay their respects." Breaking a long silence, the granddaughter of General Tojo entered the debate. Yuko Tojo stated on TV that she opposed the removal of her father, who was executed as a class-A war criminal, from the list of those enshrined at Yasukuni. She said, "It's an issue of state and not a problem of a private individual. It's also not an issue of whether to withdraw enshrinement after a foreign country made a claim. It will be tantamount to admitting that the last war was a war of aggression. Japan didn't fight wars of aggression. Only China now says so." Appearing with Tojo on the same television show, former Yasukuni priest Tadashi Yuzawa defiantly said removing the class-A war criminal "will never happen, no matter how times change". Hisahiko Okazaki, a former Japanese ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand, recently wrote a lengthy and highly influential article in the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper articulating the views of neo-nationalists such as Tojo, Morioka and other LDP revisionists. He concluded, "Concerning the Yasukuni problem, Japan should not budge an inch. Any concession would be calamitous, endangering the security and prosperity of Japanese in the future." If Koizumi follows Okazaki's advice and ignores the calls for restraint from his predecessors, the business community and the public, then Japan and China will find themselves on an extremely dangerous collision course. J Sean Curtin is a GLOCOM fellow at the Tokyo-based Japanese Institute of Global Communications.
gnocci Posted June 15, 2005 Posted June 15, 2005 (edited) Chinese Factory Worker Can't Believe The Shit He Makes For Americans FENGHUA, CHINA—Chen Hsien, an employee of Fenghua Ningbo Plastic Works Ltd., a plastics factory that manufactures lightweight household items for Western markets, expressed his disbelief Monday over the "sheer amount of shit Americans will buy." "Often, when we're assigned a new order for, say, 'salad shooters,' I will say to myself, 'There's no way that anyone will ever buy these,'" Chen said during his lunch break in an open-air courtyard. "One month later, we will receive an order for the same product, but three times the quantity. How can anyone have a need for such useless shit?" Chen, 23, who has worked as an injection-mold operator at the factory since it opened in 1996, said he frequently asks himself these questions during his workweek, which exceeds 60 hours and earns him the equivalent of $21. "I hear that Americans can buy anything they want, and I believe it, judging from the things I've made for them," Chen said. "And I also hear that, when they no longer want an item, they simply throw it away. So wasteful and contemptible." Among the items that Chen has helped create are plastic-bag dispensers, microwave omelet cookers, glow-in-the-dark page magnifiers, Christmas-themed file baskets, animal-shaped contact-lens cases, and adhesive-backed wall hooks. "Sometimes, an item the factory produces resembles nothing I've ever seen," Chen said. "One time, we made something that looked like a ladle, but it had holes in its cup and a handle that bent down 90 degrees. The foreman told us that it was a soda-can holder for an automobile. If you are lucky enough to own a car, sit back and enjoy the journey. Save the soda beverage for later." Chen added: "A cup holder is not a necessary thing to own." Chen expressed similar confusion over the tens of thousands of pineapple corers, plastic eyeshades, toothpick dispensers, and dog pull-toys that he has helped manufacture. "Why the demand for so many kitchen gadgets?" Chen said. "I can understand having a good wok, a rice cooker, a tea kettle, a hot plate, some utensils, good china, a teapot with a strainer, and maybe a thermos. But all these extra things—where do the Americans put them? How many times will you use a taco-shell holder? 'Oh, I really need this silverware-drawer sorter or I will have fits.' Shut up, stupid American." Chen added that many of the items break after only a few uses. "None are built to last very long," Chen said. "That is probably so the Americans can return to buy more. Not even the badly translated assembly instructions deter them. If I bought a kitchen item that came with such poor Mandarin instructions, I would return the item immediately." May Gao of the Hong Kong-based labor-advocacy group China Labour Bulletin said complaints like Chen's are common among workers in China's bustling industrial cities. "Last week, I took testimony from several young female workers from Shenzhen who said they were locked in a work room for 18 straight hours making inflatable Frisbees," Gao said. "Finally, the girls joined hands on the factory floor and began to chant, 'No more insane flying toys for Western pigs!' They quickly lost their jobs and were ostracized by their families, but the incident was a testament to China's growing disillusionment with producing needless crap for fat-ass foreigners." Continued Gao: "As Chinese manufacturing and foreign investment continue to grow, and more silly novelty products are invented, we can expect to see more of these protests." In the meantime, Chen continues to stew in bitterness. Though he dislikes his work, competition for manufacturing jobs in Fenghua is stiff and he must support his wife, mother, and 2-year-old son. "My cousin Yuen is self-employed," Chen said. "He disassembles old computers that are acquired from overseas and extracts the traces of valuable gold and silver from the circuit boards. He asked me to join him. The work is very toxic, but at least I would not be looking at suction-cup razor holders and jumbo-dice keychains all day." Chen added: "For now, I must refuse the job. Somehow, the only thing more depressing than making plastic shit for Americans is destroying the plastic shit they send back." (http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4124&n=1) Edited June 15, 2005 by gnocci
Section 8 Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 What the Chinese academia's take on this topic: June 15, 2005 Why does US preach "China military threat"? The wave of "China military threat theory" whipped up by the US military is a dangerous practice, involving its attempt to obstinately place China in a "rival" position. The "China military threat theory" not only injures China's security, it all the more involves the price paid for the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the price paid for US misled security. On June 4, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delivered a lengthy speech at the Asia-Pacific security conference held in Singapore, with bombastic words attacking China's military development as "threatening" the military balance in the Taiwan Straits and Asia as a whole. At a time when the US army is about to conclude the large-scale counter-terrorism war stage and to usher in a new strategic adjustment, the backdrop and intention of these words uttered by Rumsfeld make people feel worry. US again searches for enemies The global counter-terrorism war launched by the United States has come to an end for the time being and America is now faced with an opportunity for strategic adjustment in security. In the opinion of the United States, the forces of terrorism, having been severely attacked by the more than three years of global anti-terror war, have been greatly weakened, although the counter-terrorism struggle will remain for a long time to come, it is still the traditional countries that constitute strategic threats to the United States. The White House anxiously hopes to continuously advance its global hegemonic undertaking, to this end, strategically it needs to take China as a new "adversary", in order to realize its security strategic shift. US Right-wing forces and military are accustomed to regarding China as the "target", so as to consolidate its power and position in the US political circles. Many people in the US Right-wing forces and military have all along clung to the Cold War mentality, and held fast to the principle of containment in their policy toward China. They summed up all the problems encountered in US economy, society and security as "China threat", setting up all kinds of obstacles in the way of the development of Sino-US relationships. At the same time, in agitating "China threat", the US army aims to create excuses for directing the spearhead of its strategic disposition adjustment in the Asia-Pacific region against China. In recent years, the United States has plans to quickly beef up its navy, land and air forces in East Asia and the West Pacific region, the US army's think-tank energetically advocates examining the situation of its troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific region, encircling and blocking China and strategically clamping down the military activities on the Chinese coasts. Besides an aircraft carrier formation permanently stationed in Guam and Hawaii, the US army increased its West Pacific formation stationed in Japan's Yokosuka to two, at the same time, it deployed two fleets carrying preset weaponry and logistic materials. US ground force also transferred the First Army Command from the US proper to Japan's Kanagawa to intensify its military hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. As early as the 1990s, the United States moved part of the logistic command of its Pacific navy to Singapore, as a result, US troops in the Asia-Pacific joined Japan, S. Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines and Singapore together. Uniting Japan to list China as primary enemy Bruce Wright, commander of US army in Japan, disclosed in his speech delivered in Tokyo on May 11 that the US and Japanese governments had begun studying establishment of a Japan-US "joint operational command center" in the Yokota base of US troops in Japan, in order to strengthen bilateral military cooperation. Wright said that the US and Japanese governments would hold in Japan a "conference of leaders on the command and management of joint operations" at the end of June, formally beginning preparation for the establishment of the "joint operational command center", adding that the "joint operational command center" would introduce a "joint operation commanding and managing system" which will quickly transmit through satellite the intelligence and instructions obtained through the early warning satellite to Japan's Self-Defense Forces charged with missile interception task. US and Japanese military officers said with one voice that the agreement reached jointly by the Japanese and US sides on the common use of the Yokota base is a component part of US global military strategic adjustment. According to Japanese media reports, the Japanese and US governments have decided to begin formulating a "joint operational plan" and other military programs dealing specifically with Taiwan Strait disputes as well as the Korean Peninsula. A Japanese scholar recently pointed out that Japan is shifting the focus of its military disposition from north to south and from east to west, the former is aimed at China, and the latter at the DPRK. He said, "this is that Japan listed China as the primary enemy for the first time after World War II." Agitating "China threat" actually threatens the Asia-Pacific region In addition, another important issue we cannot neglect is the intention harbored by the US military in instigating the "China military threat theory" and its influence. Firstly, the US military stirred up the "China military threat theory" is intended to create a tense atmosphere and estrangement in the Asia-Pacific region, disrupt the security cooperative mechanism being arduously deliberated by various East Asian countries and maintain US dominant authority in this region. In recent years, frequent and fruitful economic cooperation and trade relations in the East Asian region has made it necessary and possible for the establishment of a security mutual trust framework, and this tentative idea has been accepted by most East Asian countries. The situation now taking shape in the field of security cooperation in the East Asian region has aroused the uneasiness among some Americans. They fear that they would thus lose their dominant power over East Asian security affairs and which would be replaced by China. Secondly, so-called "China military threat theory" actually may produce dual effects on the Taiwan Strait situation: One is pulling and raising the "Taiwan independence" forces and morale and thus offsetting the blows given to "Taiwan independence" forces by the recent cross-Strait political interactions. This could give a wrong signal to "Taiwan independence" forces, so that the "independence" forces may feel more emboldened with US backing, the result would possibly damage peace on both sides of the Straits; the second is to press Taiwan to pass the arms purchase plan at an early date, this would meet the interests of US arms dealers and maintain and "consolidate" the "partition" status quo of the two sides of the Straits. Thirdly, the "China military threat theory" will damage the fragile Sino-US relationship of military trust. These words and deeds of the US military reflect their attitude on the strategic issue, and indicate that they do not pay attention to the Sino-US relations of limited military mutual trust. US experts on the issue of Chinese military affairs reach a wide-ranging consensus on China's armed forces: China's army lags at least 20 years behind the US army, they play up "China military threat", which is indeed too exaggerative. The wave of "China military threat theory" whipped up by the US military is a dangerous practice, involving the attempt of obstinately placing China in the "opponent" position. We must keep sufficient vigilance against this. Time will prove that the "China military threat theory" not only injures China's security, it all the more involves the price paid for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the price paid for the misled US security. Only when China and the United States reduce suspicions, abandon confrontation and expand mutual trust, can they shoulder the common task of meeting future security challenges. The article on the 11th page of Global Times, June 13, is translated by People's Daily Online. The author is a research fellow with China's Academy of Military Sciences.
Ken Estes Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 The China 'threat' has often taken on comic proportions. This was not the intent of the DOD training film "Red Chinese Battle Plan" which showed how Chinese were infiltrating and insinuating themselves in 'Communist insurgencies' worldwide, but especially in strategic points of Africa and South America. The red arrows on the screen then grew and crossed seas and oceans to come together on the US frontier from at least three different directions [one was the traditional North American invasion route axis Manchuria-Siberia-Baring Str-Alaska, etc., but they didn't know we had already deployed King Sargent there to foil their evil plans]. Clearly it was 1950s stuff that I was seeing at USNA in 1967. The last such instance f such claptrap I recall was SecState Henry Kissenger's worries about Cuban and Chinese interest in 'strategic' Angola, whence our enemies would sit astride the western world's tanker routes, able to strangle us at a moment's notice.
Section 8 Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 What Colin Powell, the much beloved figure in Tanknet , said about this issue recently: China not a threat, but watch Taiwan issue, warns ex-US diplomat PowellBANGKOK (AFP) Jun 13, 2005 Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said here Monday that China is emerging as a mighty economic power and not a military threat, but warned a conflict could erupt unless the Taiwan issue is resolved peacefully."I, for one, do not see China as an enemy that is emerging, as a threat that is emerging, but as a nation taking its rightful place in the world," Powell told about 200 guests at an Asian leadership forum in Bangkok. "What the Chinese have learned is that power no longer comes out of the barrel of a gun. It comes out of the power of being part of the international system." The statements by US President George W. Bush's first-term top diplomat came a week after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bluntly warned China is spending much more on a major military buildup than officially acknowledged, putting at risk the military balance in the Asia Pacific region. A Pentagon study due to be released this month concludes China's defense budget is now the largest in Asia and third largest in the world, Rumsfeld said in Singapore. "We are watching their military build up with great interest, but I do not yet see that military build up turning into a threat, either to other nations in the region or certainly to the United States," Powell said. "The big fly in the ointment is Taiwan. If at anytime China believed that Taiwan was about to declare independence or become independent, they would ignore all their economic and political interests, and we would have a conflict over that issue." China sees Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary, and has warned it will invade if the island moves towards formal independence. Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian called for an arms build-up after Rumsfeld issued his warning. Powell assessed China's military capability as "still far behind anything that the United States would present to that part of the world... and it will be 20 years before the Chinese could even get to where we are now." China's political system remained "very controlled", however, and trade disputes, human rights concerns and proliferation issues were points of contention, he said.
Jeff Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 "We are watching their military build up with great interest, but I do not yet see that military build up turning into a threat, either to other nations in the region or certainly to the United States," Powell said. "The big fly in the ointment is Taiwan. If at anytime China believed that Taiwan was about to declare independence or become independent, they would ignore all their economic and political interests, and we would have a conflict over that issue." 184684[/snapback] Those two statements seem to conflict. I was just at a family funeral yesterday and one of my relatives does a lot of business in China and he felt very strongly that the Chinese would never risk their economic contacts with Taiwan and the US for a war. I hope he's right but history is full of dumb moves for the sake of national ego or miscalculation.
Ken Estes Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I hope he's right but history is full of dumb moves for the sake of national ego or miscalculation.184875[/snapback] Really Jeff? Dropping all pretensions of previous clashes of ours, I really wonder. This feeds the notion of Rogue States, etc. I think most moves toward war by states represent serious calculations maybe based upon faulty intelligence or serious agendas to which intelligence does not matter. Saddam certainly thought he had calculated correctly in 1982 and 1990, was proven false only after unpredictable [to him] moves by his opponents. Likewise, the Falklands must have appeared ripe for the taking by militarists in B. Aires. And so it goes. National ego easily becomes national interest, no?
Jeff Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 Really Jeff? Dropping all pretensions of previous clashes of ours, I really wonder. This feeds the notion of Rogue States, etc. I think most moves toward war by states represent serious calculations maybe based upon faulty intelligence or serious agendas to which intelligence does not matter. Saddam certainly thought he had calculated correctly in 1982 and 1990, was proven false only after unpredictable [to him] moves by his opponents. Likewise, the Falklands must have appeared ripe for the taking by militarists in B. Aires. And so it goes. National ego easily becomes national interest, no?184891[/snapback] Not sure that what you said was much different than what I said. Was WWI a careful calculation based on a correct reading of situation? Hitler in Poland? Korea? Your examples of Iraq? Seem to be pretty serious mistakes with not a little bit of ego and nationalism thrown in to spice it up. It seems to me that the ubiquitous beef with unprovoked aggressive wars is that they are bad mistakes for poor reasons. That certainly seems to be the concern of Powell when he says of the PRC "they would ignore all their economic and political interests". Why? For the sake of ego in respect to Taiwan? Seems like a big price and a lot of blood for something that doesn't need to end that way and if many here are correct, a losing effort to boot.
Jeff Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 A mention of a Rand study FWIW. I will never read "Rand Corporation" without hearing Dr. Strangelove saying "A study by zee Bland Corporation" Rand: China closing military gap with U.S.By Martin SieffUPI Senior News AnalystJun. 16, 2005 at 9:32PM China's military capability is catching up with that of the United States according to a Rand Corp. study. A Rand report quoted by the Russian newspaper Pravda Thursday said the gap was expected to further narrow in the next few years. Pravda said excerpts from the report drawn up for U.S. intelligence chiefs detailed China's military breakthroughs and development over the past few years. The newspaper said the report had probably been leaked to the public to increase support for higher budget allocations for the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. Pravda also said publication of parts of the report had sent a warning to China to take more vigorous action to raise the value of its national currency, the yuan. It said the published reports may also have been meant to derail the European Union's plans to lift its arms embargo on China.
A2Keltainen Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [T]he DOD training film "Red Chinese Battle Plan" The film can be downloaded here: http://www.archive.org/details/RedChine1964 There are also a lot of other interesting movies available for download at; http://www.archive.org including the classic: http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951
Ken Estes Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 The film can be downloaded here: http://www.archive.org/details/RedChine1964 There are also a lot of other interesting movies available for download at; http://www.archive.org including the classic: http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951185247[/snapback]Hey, great! Many tanks! Ken
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now