China's Peaceful Rise

[JasonJ]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

I obviously meant avoidable above btw.

I think it is best if China pursues only peaceful reunification, but either way it is not worth a major war.

Of course it is best if China kept its pursuit to non-military means but if China ever does feel it is worth a major war, than more so for Japan or anyone else that helps Taiwan. The PRC has included many times the threat to use force in their rhetoric about eventual unification with Taiwan. In this case it shall be worth a major war for those that decide to come to Taiwan's aid. In such a scenerio, if other countries aid Taiwan, then the PRC would have to blockoff Taiwan from the outside. Japan's lower island chain is a key link to Taiwan. JGSDF anti-ship missiles are already deployed on those islands and new long range missiles are in development so as the lower Okinawan island based missiles will be able to engage hostile PLAN vessels along much water area in vincinity of Taiwan. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, KV7 said:

The main fact here is that China can currently get basically anything it wants without major war, just by biding it's time and letting it's economic power go to work.

For Germany in the 1900s their situation was more dire, because France, the UK, and the US all had economic zones they could essentially close to Germany. This is not at all the case for China, who face no notable obstruction by any power regarding their foreign investment program.

If there is a sustained peace and a continuation of relatively free trade, US hegemony is essentially over, which is why we need to worry that the US will not tolerate such a peaceful order.

Indeed the Project for a New American Century hacks are explicit about this - the US in their mind should use it's military power to stifle China economically, via at the least some new Cold War. Luckily they are on the back foot though after the failure of their last chess move - the WOT.

Yes, I entirely agree with this. Where it falls down I think, is that Xi seemingly wants it all to happen on his watch. How often have we seen a nations rise completely derailed by ambition from its leader?

I think its changing. Supposedly the British Government has just blocked moves by China to invest in our energy market (they were funding a nuclear power station some years ago), as well as effort to block them buying up defence industry they want to get their hands on. So it is slowly changing. Not nearly nearly quickly enough or widely enough I would be the first to admit.

Its hard to predict how America is going to tolerate the slide in its own influence. Its wholly dependent on who we get next. I think at the moment its beyond prediction.

It really warrants a George Kennan containment style effort, more fiscal and trade than military as subsequently transpired through the cold war. Unfortunately it requires the Western Nations aligning their thinking for more than a few years at a time. It wasnt easy even in the cold war, its probably all but impossible now.

[KV7]

The difficulty that the west can make for China is via trade policy, but mostly here via restrictions on technology transfer, but this is something that does not have a military, but rather industrial policy solution, and one which is being pursued.

The UK restrictions etc. are a sort of triviality, because the really big gains to be made are in the developing world.

The 'west' here faces an inevitable decline in relative power because there is nothing that can plausible be done to halt economic convergence, and in such a world it will be population, and less so past technological leads, which will be most important. And this underlines the geopolitical difficulty of 'economic containment' of China - the US and it's overly enthusiastic allies cannot reasonably flip more than a few of the countries with the greatest growth potential into some anti-Chinese stance, because this block cannot offer anything sufficiently enticing and the regime change operations cannot plausibly be successfully extended to dozens of countries at once, given that it has failed even when applied to some restricted set of targets. The advantages of trade and cooperation with China are simply too great for developing countries to spurn it.

Edited July 29, 2021 by KV7

[JasonJ]

58 minutes ago, KV7 said:

The difficulty that the west can make for China is via trade policy, but mostly here via restrictions on technology transfer, but this is something that does not have a military, but rather industrial policy solution, and one which is being pursued.

The UK restrictions etc. are a sort of triviality, because the really big gains to be made are in the developing world.

The 'west' here faces an inevitable decline in relative power because there is nothing that can plausible be done to halt economic convergence, and in such a world it will be population, and less so past technological leads, which will be most important. And this underlines the geopolitical difficulty of 'economic containment' of China - the US and it's overly enthusiastic allies cannot reasonably flip more than a few of the countries with the greatest growth potential into some anti-Chinese stance, because this block cannot offer anything sufficiently enticing and the regime change operations cannot plausibly be successfully extended to dozens of countries at once, given that it has failed even when applied to some restricted set of targets. The advantages of trade and cooperation with China are simply to great for developing countries to spurn it.

Containment in the military aspect does not mean anti-China. That is a rather important point for ASEAN and ROK since the economic and trade reasons you pointed out weigh heavier, Japan too really. So those countries don't want an anti-China posture. But as long as they are enabled enough and collaborate enough, then a military power balance can be maintained so China won't be able to use military advantage as leverage as the future brings along new diplomatic exchanges and agreements. So all continue trade with China as has been but just without falling into a disparity in military power.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

The difficulty that the west can make for China is via trade policy, but mostly here via restrictions on technology transfer, but this is something that does not have a military, but rather industrial policy solution, and one which is being pursued.

The UK restrictions etc. are a sort of triviality, because the really big gains to be made are in the developing world.

The 'west' here faces an inevitable decline in relative power because there is nothing that can plausible be done to halt economic convergence, and in such a world it will be population, and less so past technological leads, which will be most important. And this underlines the geopolitical difficulty of 'economic containment' of China - the US and it's overly enthusiastic allies cannot reasonably flip more than a few of the countries with the greatest growth potential into some anti-Chinese stance, because this block cannot offer anything sufficiently enticing and the regime change operations cannot plausibly be successfully extended to dozens of countries at once, given that it has failed even when applied to some restricted set of targets. The advantages of trade and cooperation with China are simply too great for developing countries to spurn it.

I dont disagree. But if we dont get our own house sorted out, we cant really lecture the developing world not to be suckered by China.

I dont know if I believe in inevitable decline or not. Things dont look great, but really the heavy lifting has to be done by China, and not putting a foot wrong. This decade or so they have been depending on the momentum of the previous decade. In alienating America, Europe, pissing off the pacific rim AND buggering up the world economy via Covid, they have not put a foot right of late. Even Chinese Generals have been taking to newspapers to tell Xi to lay off his rhetoric vis Taiwan, lest he screw things up.

Its still all to play for at the moment.

[KV7]

I am not arguing that Chinese hegemony is inevitable, I mean that the contraction of the western share of GDP is inevitable, because there is little that can be done to stop the poorer countries from catching up. China is assisting them here but I don't think the process can be stopped even if there is considerable effort given to frustrating Chinese trade and investment policy.

The problem for those in the west who want to frustrate China economically is then much harder, because they need for example some plan to get much of Africa, Latin America etc. to spurn economic interaction with China, because US and UK sanctions would increasingly not be enough.  But this is a basically impossible task for the reasons I outlined above.

[JasonJ]

Well yeah, many of those points well made. A large and economically powerful China is here to stay. And they have a 1.4 billion population so that means a lot of engineers and industries that can hold up domestic capability. But if deem necessary like the recent UK example with blocking China from nuclear energy program or the recent 5G related limitations, one of the earliest was the US government prohiting NASA to collaborate with China, and other sorts of limits like that, then it does reduce availability to China a lot of available technology which means all sorts of gizmos made in even small places like Sweden and such are made unavaible which means more that the PRC has to make for itsrlf and a smaller global market that can provide PRC tech companies revenue. So it is a cap that keeps things manageable.

Edited July 29, 2021 by JasonJ

[KV7]

Yes the US can hurt Chinese technological development, and they have. The complication is that there is also a Chinese response.

The Xi program is now widely seen as necessary in China to a large extent because of the Trump trade war and similar policy measures - these have pushed China to consider the US as an unreliable trade partner and have in response accelerated industry policy programs. Without the trade war, the Chinese would have been far more comfortable with reliance on imports of high end semiconductors for example.

One of the most plausible mechanisms for Chinese collapse was some sort of misguided liberalisation, but that is now off the cards for some time. And for this reason the more astute Chinese nationalist are therefore quite pleased by Trumpism, because it has reduced the risk of some Gorbachev style (though the analogy here isn't very good) path to ruin.

Edited July 29, 2021 by KV7

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, KV7 said:

The Russian nuclear arsenal is also a deterrence against US escalation, though somewhat weakly. Russia and the US have nothing to fear from China, because their capacity for economic growth means that all of their objectives are best obtained via a sustained peace.

This is a summary of the current Russian attitude,

As Russia Talks Nuclear Weapons with U.S., It Forges Closer Military Ties with China (newsweek.com)

 

The Russians are indifferent to US attempts to bring China into strategic nuclear talks.   They do not view the Chinese arsenal as a threat to them and are deepening military ties.   The US seems to be viewing the rise of China as a far greater threat to their global position than the Russians view it for themselves in their Asian near abroad. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

'The latest interaction between Russia and China comes after the two nations hailed the 20th anniversary of their Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation earlier this month.'

'Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping hailed the occasion during a virtual call last month while officially extended the treaty for another five years. In a 5,000-word joint statement, they touted a relationship "based on equality, deep mutual trust, commitment to international law, support in defending each other's core interests, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity."

 

Deep mutual trust, in 5 year chunks only. Doesnt quite fit does it? Even Molotov/Ribbentrop had no stated time limit on it.

 

"While not being a military and political alliance, such as those formed during the Cold War, the Russian-Chinese relations exceed this form of interstate interaction," the statement said. "They are not opportunistic, are free of ideologization, involve comprehensive consideration of the partner's interests and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, they are self-sufficient and not directed against third countries, they display international relations of a new type."

 

Oh boy, I can see this is going to turn out to be a major disappointment. 😁

 

[Josh]

20 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Josh is indicating that the US would have full control of the escalation cycle with China.  The presupposes a number of things, one of which is what Putin's position would be on such matters.  Setting aside Stuart's observations as having no bearing on the situation, the question is, what is Putin's attitude towards the war Josh is outlining?

 

If you’re implying Putin would use nuclear weapons in a Sino-American war that didn’t otherwise involve Russia and risk a strategic exchange, then I would say I find that exceedingly unlikely.

[KV7]

12 minutes ago, Josh said:

If you’re implying Putin would use nuclear weapons in a Sino-American war that didn’t otherwise involve Russia and risk a strategic exchange, then I would say I find that exceedingly unlikely.

Correct, though the US would have to worry that a launch will lead to Russia mistakenly thinking it is under attack. I suppose this depends on the Russian launch on warning posture.

[KV7]

There is also some chance of a Nixon bluff:

https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack

[glenn239]

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

If you’re implying Putin would use nuclear weapons in a Sino-American war that didn’t otherwise involve Russia and risk a strategic exchange, then I would say I find that exceedingly unlikely.

I think it's about as realistic to suppose the United States would get a blank cheque from Russia for a war against China as it was for Germany to imagine in 1914 that it could get a one-off against France with Britain neutral. 

[glenn239]

40 minutes ago, KV7 said:

Correct, though the US would have to worry that a launch will lead to Russia mistakenly thinking it is under attack. I suppose this depends on the Russian launch on warning posture.

By that logic if Russia nuked Israel, the US would remain out of it.  Do you think that's likely?  I don't.

[Josh]

I think the US-Israeli relationship is qualitatively different. Russo-Sino corporation hinges on being mutually antagonist to the Western world in general and the US specifically; there’s little else. If Pakistan nuked India, would the US nuke Pakistan? I rather doubt it, worlds largest democracy not withstanding.

[Nobu]

13 hours ago, KV7 said:

This sort of decisive action is unlikely, but some factions may be pushing for it..

If the United States could encourage the occurrence of a calamitous event that would delay or even reverse China's rise, while maintaining the deniability enjoyed by those who are attacked first, the possibility would be worth examining at the very least.

Such events are not exactly uncommon in Chinese history, as their experience in this past century alone has shown.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Nobu said:

If the United States could encourage the occurrence of a calamitous event that would delay or even reverse China's rise, while maintaining the deniability enjoyed by those who are attacked first, the possibility would be worth examining at the very least.

Such events are not exactly uncommon in Chinese history, as their experience in this past century alone has shown.

[Josh]

The CCP has a bit of a track record for shooting itself in the foot. The Great Leap and Cultural Revolution, and soon they will reap One Child. Xi assuming one man rule by itself could lead to exactly the kind of political instability he most fears if a very clear and thought out plan of succession isn’t arranged. More over the incredibly aggressive tone of Chinese nationalists and Wolf Warriors doesn’t seem to represent a culture of biding time for the inevitable. I could easily see China jumping the gun and either accidentally or even intentionally engaging in a war before it had clear superiority.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Josh

[Nobu]

A consideration of the potential benefits of a premature Chinese invasion of Taiwan might be the 1000-pound Godzilla in the room marked "win-win" in the Pentagon 

[KV7]

If you look at their commitments overseas so far, they appear to be very restrained and timid. If they were on an assertive path, I would expect to see something mild well before something major. So far they have not even sent some token force to Syria or Afghanistan or similar.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well they are already playing tongue hockey with the Taliban. It may only be a matter of time, particularly if the Taliban find its not quite so easy to beat the Afghan people into submission as they did last time.

They are getting VERY upset about the HMS Queen Elizabeth battlegroup in their waters. Im fully expecting them to try and reciprocate at some point.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/beijing-warns-counter-measures-royal-050139716.html

 

[KV7]

They have much more room to move in Afghanistan. Along with Pakistan they can push for some negotiated settlement and reconstruction. It will be a PR success story if they can show that they have done a much better job than the US occupation.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Maybe nothing or almost nothing happens. In this country there is actually no need to organize anything with a state structure.  Everything that has to be done has so far been successfully regulated by the tribal elders in their respective regions.

I think that's why every well-intentioned attempt to organize a state has failed so far. Nobody really needs him.

[Nobu]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

The CCP has a bit of a track record for shooting itself in the foot.

I'd expand that to include China and Chinese in general. I'd also consider this to be preferable, as I don't think they would be any less of a problem had their current rulers lost their civil war instead of winning it.