NationStates Jolt Archive

G'day all,

Just been doing some research for an assignment on China's rise, and its implications regarding international security.

Does anyone have a particularly strong view on this?

Is China's rise peaceful, as they say, or are there darker motives?

Should the US be engaging or containing China?

Does China have a necessity to build up its military?

Will China overtake the US either regionally or globally in the near future, and what will be the consequences?

Your thoughts will be welcome - I think I've drawn my conclusions, but it'd be interesting to see if anyone comes up with any theories I haven't come across in my research...

They have a right to get as strong as they want with as much military as they want, just like the USA did.

G'day all,

Just been doing some research for an assignment on China's rise, and its implications regarding international security.

Does anyone have a particularly strong view on this?

Is China's rise peaceful, as they say, or are there darker motives?

Should the US be engaging or containing China?

Does China have a necessity to build up its military?

Will China overtake the US either regionally or globally in the near future, and what will be the consequences?

Your thoughts will be welcome - I think I've drawn my conclusions, but it'd be interesting to see if anyone comes up with any theories I haven't come across in my research...

This applies just as well to the US, so if you think that China should or shouldn't *blank*, then you should think the same of the US.

There are theories that china will take over the world. I don't think that will happen.:cool:

huh?

This applies just as well to the US, so if you think that China should or shouldn't *blank*, then you should think the same of the US.

I mean, huh?

G'day all,

Good evening!

Just been doing some research for an assignment on China's rise, and its implications regarding international security.

Great and groovy. I'm sure that your research will be horribly inaccurate, as the Chinese government is rather secretive, but fair play for trying.

Does anyone have a particularly strong view on this?

Most of Taiwan, I imagine, as well as Mongolia. And a few million others, too.

Is China's rise peaceful, as they say, or are there darker motives?

No country is completely innocent, but I think that China is a fairly benign force at the moment, just as long as nobody pisses its government off to a great extent.

Should the US be engaging or containing China?

That would be the last thing the US would ever get away with. There's roughly a 3:1 male:female population in China. That means it has about 500 million 'spare' men that it could use for fighting.

And look what the Truman Doctrine created. Mass poverty, and anti-American attitudes just about everywhere it blighted.

Does China have a necessity to build up its military?

Yes, because it's a neutral country most of the time, and doesn't have too many allies to rely on to help it in a war.

You could also look at the PLA's recruitment figures on a per-thousand basis, and the PLA recruits less than the US Army (IIRC).

Will China overtake the US either regionally or globally in the near future, and what will be the consequences?

Globally, and the USA will be quite poor for quite a while, like what happen to France and Britain in the post-colonial times.

And if it isn't China, it'll be India that will be the next superpower. I actually imagine that it'll be the two of them at the top for the next 30 or so years.

Some interesting facts that get lost in the shuffle....

Greatest Exporting Nation- Germany

Largest University Enrollment- US of A

Time Magazine states that China has the largest percentage (in the world) of it's students enrolled in engineering. Misleading; yes. US of A has technicaly more but percentage wise less. Since if China had only one student but choose engineering then China would overcome US of A percentage wise.

Just little facts that you should know, besides, China lives with Taiwan, India, South Korea, and other US un-incoporated territories. Enough that CHina knows it shoudl walk small for now.

And look what the Truman Doctrine created. Mass poverty, and anti-American attitudes just about everywhere it blighted.



But at the same time I am not sure that Venuzalians would like to be saying German and Argetines would not appreciate the British government. Or really for that matter having Cubans speak Spanish, Mexicans speak French, and Brazil speak Portuguese.

You take the good with the bad.....

But at the same time I am not sure that Venuzalians would like to be saying German and Argetines would not appreciate the British government. Or really for that matter having Cubans speak Spanish, Mexicans speak French, and Brazil speak Portuguese.

You take the good with the bad.....

Actively ruining countries and then not paying reperations is pretty poor, especially if you then put trade restrictions on their goods.

Bah...

Good evening!



Great and groovy. I'm sure that your research will be horribly inaccurate, as the Chinese government is rather secretive, but fair play for trying.



Most of Taiwan, I imagine, as well as Mongolia. And a few million others, too.



No country is completely innocent, but I think that China is a fairly benign force at the moment, just as long as nobody pisses its government off to a great extent.



That would be the last thing the US would ever get away with. There's roughly a 3:1 male:female population in China. That means it has about 500 million 'spare' men that it could use for fighting.

And look what the Truman Doctrine created. Mass poverty, and anti-American attitudes just about everywhere it blighted.



Yes, because it's a neutral country most of the time, and doesn't have too many allies to rely on to help it in a war.

You could also look at the PLA's recruitment figures on a per-thousand basis, and the PLA recruits less than the US Army (IIRC).



Globally, and the USA will be quite poor for quite a while, like what happen to France and Britain in the post-colonial times.

And if it isn't China, it'll be India that will be the next superpower. I actually imagine that it'll be the two of them at the top for the next 30 or so years.


Some good points there, although my figures for men to women was a ratio of 1.06-1, and my understanding of the military was that it is compulsory between the age of 18-22 for a minimum 24 months. And these are the figures of residents fit for service: males age 18-49: 281,240,272 females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Your right about India, although current estimates don't expect that until close to the end of the century, whereas the consensus is China will be there mid century at the latest.

I think China's economic rise (with India closely following) is inevitable. It is interesting though, superpowers tend to last centuries but the US has only been a great (not in a positive sense) superpower for about a hundred years, even less if you are regarding it as THE world superpower.

As much as I dislike the bullying imprielism of the US at least they hold trials, don't sell your organs, force sterilise you or let orphans rot.

I don't think their is anything darker behind China's rise than is already known. They have already stated that free elections will not be held at least for another twenty years, that they will not improve their freedom of speech.

I think the biggest worry is 1. Trouble over Taiwan, a potential war. 2. The US over-cooperating with China for economic reasons and turning a blind eye to atrocities (as it has traidiotionally done unless it suits them).

Actively ruining countries and then not paying reperations is pretty poor, especially if you then put trade restrictions on their goods.

Bah...

The European powers would've done something else? Actually, yes, they would've landed feet first on them instead of just landing on them.

bump

As someone who has a lot of close ties to China, I feel like I can throw something into this conversation.

I don't believe that there are any malicious intentions behind China's 'rise' at all. As a country that's trying to integrate itself into the global economy, it would have nothing to gain from being an aggressor and everything to gain from its current use of soft power (diplomacy, trade, expanding ties with other developing countries, etc.).

Nazi Germany - Women who had 10 or more children got a medal.

Modern China - Women who have more than one child get offical sanction.

Which country would be better prepared to engage in wars of imperial aggression?

When most soldiers in China's armed forces are single children there will be massive political opposition to any prolonged conflict that isn't necessary for the self defense of China.

Also, although China's armed forces have been improving, the actual percentage of the economy that is spent on them has tended to decrease. Not the behaviour of a country that is preparing to smack other countries around.

When you ignore the retoric and look at what is actually happening between China and Taiwan you will see that Taiwan is a vital part of China's modernisation and their economies are intermeshed. China benifits more from an independant Tiawan than it does from absorbing it as just another province. Both sides refuse to give up the trash talk, but in the past this was to the benefit of politicans on both sides who would use the fear of the other to control the population and political factions. (See India and Pakistan for more examples of mutually beneficial trash talk.) Of course trash talk is still dangerous but it is not as dangerous as foreigners who don't understand the dynamic might think.

Nazi Germany - Women who had 10 or more children got a medal.

Modern China - Women who have more than one child get offical sanction.

Which country would be better prepared to engage in wars of imperial aggression?

When most soldiers in China's armed forces are single children there will be massive political opposition to any prolonged conflict that isn't necessary for the self defense of China.

Also, although China's armed forces have been improving, the actual percentage of the economy that is spent on them has tended to decrease. Not the behaviour of a country that is preparing to smack other countries around.

When you ignore the retoric and look at what is actually happening between China and Taiwan you will see that Taiwan is a vital part of China's modernisation and their economies are intermeshed. China benifits more from an independant Tiawan than it does from absorbing it as just another province. Both sides refuse to give up the trash talk, but in the past this was to the benefit of politicans on both sides who would use the fear of the other to control the population and political factions. (See India and Pakistan for more examples of mutually beneficial trash talk.) Of course trash talk is still dangerous but it is not as dangerous as foreigners who don't understand the dynamic might think.
...it's not a situation ready to explode at a moment's notice? I find that hard to believe, but do please clarify your point.

My biggest fear for CHina and the rest of the world is not the CCP lead PRC government, which although is authoritarian, will not likely invade another country(or rogue province) because it does not want to rock the boat and risk an uprising. More worrying for me is the nationalistic nature young Chinese have these days. In the future a very nationalist democratically elected leader of a very wealthy, populated China could cause a lot of trouble in the world. Hopefully this will never happen.

This applies just as well to the US, so if you think that China should or shouldn't *blank*, then you should think the same of the US.
Then you agree that the US has the right to oppose them like other nations oppoed the US?

From what Ive heard, the Chinese economy will run into serious trouble in a few years.
Again, from what I know, the Chinese government gave out LOTS of loans a while back, they spent tons of money to establish small buisnessess and suchlike, and were pretty lenient on the payment of those loans.
So, if China hits money troubles, one of two things happens:
They let it go, and their economy crashes because the government cant run it anymore.
They call in all of those debts, and their economy crashes because the companies (or whatever you want to call them in their crazy Chinese psuedo-Communism) have no money now.
The third random option is a capitolist/democratic/whateverist revolution of some kind, but that seems less likely.

From what Ive heard, the Chinese economy will run into serious trouble in a few years.
Again, from what I know, the Chinese government gave out LOTS of loans a while back, they spent tons of money to establish small buisnessess and suchlike, and were pretty lenient on the payment of those loans.
So, if China hits money troubles, one of two things happens:
They let it go, and their economy crashes because the government cant run it anymore.
They call in all of those debts, and their economy crashes because the companies (or whatever you want to call them in their crazy Chinese psuedo-Communism) have no money now.
The third random option is a capitolist/democratic/whateverist revolution of some kind, but that seems less likely.

I don't know where you heard that. I've just read over 30 academic articles on China, and the not one of them mentioned anything even close to that. The consensus is that China will continue to steadily rise, with a massve savings account, a phenomenal supply of cheap labour and a massive untapped market.

The general consensus is that within 25-30 years, China will reach parity with the US in most areas, and perhaps will have the same standards of living with 40-50 years. It will not have a fully modernised military intil perhaps 2050-2060.

...it's not a situation ready to explode at a moment's notice? I find that hard to believe, but do please clarify your point.

Well no it's not. Or alternatively it's a situation that been ready to explode at a moments notice for the past forty years. Like I said both sides benefit from having an enemy to rag on. Sure there is danger that the ragging on will get out of control but for the most part both sides are satisfied with the status quo. When you look at their economies you will see that Taiwan has provided the brain power and business knowhow that powers a huge chunk of the Chinese economy. Thousands of Taiwanese work on the mainland managing factories. If China attacked Taiwan it would shoot itself in the kneecaps.

The attitude of the rest of the world should be, "Yeah, right." And a pretty much blanket statement that the rest of the world is opposed to war of any kind and is interested in preventing civillian casualites. (Obviously the Iraq situation makes this problematic for some countries.) Steps should be taken by the rest of the world to tone down the trash talking and to engage in elaborate face saving charades when things get out of hand. It's political kubuki 101.

China's booming economy is great. The government's saving funds is significant, much more than Korea or Japan. The loans they gave out would be paid out in no time. However, the military of China and USA is a big significant difference. China is 20 years behind in technology than the USA. They're rapid military grotwth and buildup is at there own defence, however they do not have a big military defence spending, unlike USA, Japan, and Russia. Recently, the USA commited an rare invitation to the PLA to watch a joint exercise done by the US Army to strengthen ties with the US. Perhaps the US are trying to make them raise their currency value through diplomacy.

China, however, is communist. Rumors that China will take over the world globally is possible. The Chinese language will take over the world. With the CCP around, Chinese citizens are limited to make much money. Modern China today has a limit to how many kids they can have, due to population control. With over a billion people, China is troubled with the population because it affects economic and domestic reasons, such as traffic and crime.

The Chinese Army consists of 3 million soldiers because they need their defense. They have limited allies to help in war.

From what Ive heard, the Chinese economy will run into serious trouble in a few years.I don't know where you heard that. I've just read over 30 academic articles on China, and the not one of them mentioned anything even close to that.

China does face some serious problems with its banking system, huge state run businesses, unemployment, overexposure to the U.S. dollar, etc.

However, none of them are silver bullets that will kill the Chinese economy. One can imagine a scenario where a combination of problems causes disaster, but China should be able to deal with them, although China will not always be able to maintain the rapid growth it has in the past. Growth will slow in the future, but hopefully will still be relatively rapid.

China's economy should be as large as the U.S.'s by about 2040+ at which point the average Chinese person should be about as rich as the average American was in 1950, which was fairly comfortable. Of course it all depends on how much more growth China can maintain compared to the United States. What happened to Argentina 60 years ago shows that strong economic growth isn't always maintained.

China, however, is communist. Rumors that China will take over the world globally is possible. The Chinese language will take over the world. With the CCP around, Chinese citizens are limited to make much money. Modern China today has a limit to how many kids they can have, due to population control. With over a billion people, China is troubled with the population because it affects economic and domestic reasons, such as traffic and crime.

China is communist in name only. The economy is very capitalistic and I doubt there are any limits imposed to how much money someone can make there.

"Communist" China is more free economically then "capitalist" Russia and India.

China is communist in name only. The economy is very capitalistic and I doubt there are any limits imposed to how much money someone can make there.

"Communist" China is more free economically then "capitalist" Russia and India.

Beat me to it...

The Chinese language will take over the world.

I've read that the CCP has put a lot of funding to spread the the official language of China, Mandarin, throughout the world. Their current aim is to make it the largest 2nd language of all languages. So if you're not a native Mandarin speaker, they hope that it will be the your first choice if choosing to learn another language.

Well, they've sucked me in.

Started learning it this year, boy it's tough!

The Chinese language will take over the world.

Wo shou putonghau. Mama shi daifu.

Wo shou putonghau. Mama shi daifu.

I say ???????. Mother is doctor????

I say ???????. Mother is doctor????

Okay! Okay! So my Mandarin is lousy! I admit it! Also,

Watashi wa nihongo ga heta des.

Watashi wa nihongo ga heta des.

Wo pu shi tao. :p

Or I could throw some rather mangled Hokkien at you.

Or I could throw some rather mangled Hokkien at you.

The only Hokkien I know is ka for leg because of a stupid joke about is your leg okay and Karoke.

There are theories that china will take over the world. I don't think that will happen.:cool:

maybe an Indo-Chinese alliance which is probably not going to happen

G'day all,

Just been doing some research for an assignment on China's rise, and its implications regarding international security.

Does anyone have a particularly strong view on this?

Is China's rise peaceful, as they say, or are there darker motives?

Should the US be engaging or containing China?

Does China have a necessity to build up its military?

Will China overtake the US either regionally or globally in the near future, and what will be the consequences?

Your thoughts will be welcome - I think I've drawn my conclusions, but it'd be interesting to see if anyone comes up with any theories I haven't come across in my research...

Ooooh, i'm doing this essay too! We should collaberate.

1] China's rise is peaceful because the Chinese ecnomic development model relies on strong manufacturing exports and high levels of foreign investment. Neither of which will occur if China enters a major war (which will block the coastline and diminish investment. The low civil morale of the poeple is being contained by nationalist jingoism from the government but most importantly through economic expansion and securing the self-interest of the middle-class.

2] The USA should be engaging China since it is in their interest to help influence a pro-Yankee Chinese government which will foster goodwill with the increasing power of China. Furthermore containment doesn't achieve its goal and would only drive China towards a defensive position (like N. Korea). Not to mention numerous American allies but especially the US itself have growing ecnomic ties which would be impeaded by containment.

3] China has a two million man army but the equipment is pretty akward. It also only has a green water capacity navy. Lke any ascendig power China will have an in interest in building up its power projection capacity but right now Chinese military development seems more aied at securing immediate territorial bourders (including Taiwan).

4] China will at least equal the USA at the regional level in the "near future" (my est. is around 2020) however much depends on whether or not Chinese ecnomic growth can continue and the consequences of the global oil decline (est. 2020). China had a policy aim of developing global multipolarity but it has officially given up this claim in favour of accepting American hegemony (for the time being)

5] The Consequences? These depend on the circumstances and the context in which China globally demonstrates its capacity to stand toe-to-toe with the US even if only at the regional level. This might not be a military confrontation (eg: Taiwan) but it could be some expression of economic counter-pointing to the USA. Don't forget however that China only has an exnomy about a 4-5 that of Japan currently. Whatever will happen is set to occur wihtin the next 20 years.

Ooooh, i'm doing this essay too! We should collaberate.

1] China's rise is peaceful because the Chinese ecnomic development model relies on strong manufacturing exports and high levels of foreign investment. Neither of which will occur if China enters a major war (which will block the coastline and diminish investment. The low civil morale of the poeple is being contained by nationalist jingoism from the government but most importantly through economic expansion and securing the self-interest of the middle-class.

2] The USA should be engaging China since it is in their interest to help influence a pro-Yankee Chinese government which will foster goodwill with the increasing power of China. Furthermore containment doesn't achieve its goal and would only drive China towards a defensive position (like N. Korea). Not to mention numerous American allies but especially the US itself have growing ecnomic ties which would be impeaded by containment.

3] China has a two million man army but the equipment is pretty akward. It also only has a green water capacity navy. Lke any ascendig power China will have an in interest in building up its power projection capacity but right now Chinese military development seems more aied at securing immediate territorial bourders (including Taiwan).

4] China will at least equal the USA at the regional level in the "near future" (my est. is around 2020) however much depends on whether or not Chinese ecnomic growth can continue and the consequences of the global oil decline (est. 2020). China had a policy aim of developing global multipolarity but it has officially given up this claim in favour of accepting American hegemony (for the time being)

5] The Consequences? These depend on the circumstances and the context in which China globally demonstrates its capacity to stand toe-to-toe with the US even if only at the regional level. This might not be a military confrontation (eg: Taiwan) but it could be some expression of economic counter-pointing to the USA. Don't forget however that China only has an exnomy about a 4-5 that of Japan currently. Whatever will happen is set to occur wihtin the next 20 years.

1. Agreed, China has had uninterrupted growth for 27 years, and all estimates predict this will continue for at least the next two decades. By pursuing anything other than by peaceful means would only serve to destabilise this growth. It is in China’s interest to encourage the status-quo while it is enjoying such sustainable growth. The nationalistic nature of China is of concern, but the projected years of growth ahead can be looked on as an opportunity to influence and socialise the next school of leaders and elites to accept international norms.

2. Yes, the US should do engage China. You nailed it in your summary I think. The growing interdependence of China’s economy with that of many of the world’s leading economies almost ensures that a policy of containment would be nothing but counter-productive.

3. Again, agreed here. Out of curiosity, have you found much in your research about what the “ASSASIN’S MACE” might be. Very interesting…

4. I would argue that China will surpass the US by 2050-2075 if current trends can be sustained. Although the population gap will diminish provided the US maintains it immigration intake.

5. I think the best possible outcome will be a power-sharing relationship. Although it is currently this is hard to fathom- a lot of work would need to be done to establish this, and it is unlikely to occur. It is likely to be a multi-polar balance of power, perhaps encompassing India and the EU. The chance of a war I feel are unlikely. I don’t think it is in anyone’s interest to get into armed conflict. Taiwan and China will likely remain status-quo for the medium term, and the US is backing the status-quo here also. Perhaps in the longer term there may become an issue, but it really depends on how the politics of the mainland evolves in the decades ahead.

I have no idea what the “ASSASIN’S MACE” might be since I’ve only researched the externalities of China’s ascendency.

Population in itself is only a weak factor in determining national power projection. For example Australia with a population of around 20 million enjoys a quality of life amongst the best in the world (typically Scandinavian nations which also have small populations) While 1 billion Indians for the most part live in conditions ranked in the low-end of the spectrum. It is the human capital of a nation’s population that has a strong determining capacity on the power projection capabilities of a nation. So my point is that the balance of power between China and the USA will be one based on which nation maximises their human capital the most.

Power-sharing as a concept is difficult to imagine. I am more inclined to perceive a relationship between the US and China (in a best case scenario) resembling that of current relations in East Asia; one of superficial co-operation and friendship but underlying competition. I think this best suits the American drive for international competition with the Chinese style of playing politics with a poke face. Of course the conditions of 2020 onwards are all educated guesswork and there are a multiparity of possible scenarios. I agree that the status quo of Taiwan is unlikely to change between the Chinese and Americans although what the Taiwanese themselves choose to do is a less predictable outcome.

Really, China is playing its part well. It is probably rising faster than most realise but slower than alarmists say. Expect a superpower around 2050.

3 things:
- Why should it be such a big deal whether the US is the "leader of the world". It is not as if, since (e.g.) the UK is no longer the great Global Empire they used to be, Britions have suddenly become impoverished beggars or anything. Also, people in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Japan lead lavish lifestyles without their countries being (or having been) so-called global leaders. Why all the focus on who's the biggest?
- China could no longer be considered a communist state, really. The economic reforms that have been started a few decades ago and continue still, have led to an economy that is close to capitalistic. This is in agreement with the theory of respected scholars that reforming a nation should be done in 2 stages: First economic reforms, followed by political reforms. This way, a country is better off in general, but also has a much greater opportunity for remaining stable in the long term. Examples are obvious. Wrong order (first democracy, then economic): Most of Latin America, Russia, a number of African states. Right order: Taiwain, S-Korea, Chile, etc.
- I recently spoke about this with a Chinese friend (economics PhD, he knows what he's saying), who actually agreed with the Chinese government policy. After all, he says, the population is huge and they are not used to democracy or capitalism. It is very important to slowly introduce any reforms, so people can slowly get used to them. It is difficult enough for Chinese peasants to keep up with all the changes, and giving full democratic rights immediately would dangerously destabilize the country.

Well, that was my contribution
(and LOL about the 3:1 female:male ratio: Now THAT is impressive fact distortion, but I am glad you already caught that)

All good points Citta Nuova. While nothing can excuse some of what happens in China it is foolish to expect miracles or a fully formed democracy to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus.

Population in itself is only a weak factor in determining national power projection. For example Australia with a population of around 20 million enjoys a quality of life amongst the best in the world (typically Scandinavian nations which also have small populations) While 1 billion Indians for the most part live in conditions ranked in the low-end of the spectrum. It is the human capital of a nation’s population that has a strong determining capacity on the power projection capabilities of a nation. So my point is that the balance of power between China and the USA will be one based on which nation maximises their human capital the most.


I was just reading something on this actually. Jacek Kugler argues that in the long run, the larger states will become superior.

He draws on the theories of demographic transition and on the economic convergence proposition.

Essentially what he says is that once a state becomes richer, mortality rates decline, fertility rates decrease and per capita income also increases.

Once countries go through this process, populations stabilise (as is happening in many rich western countries now), and states can than focus on managing the per capita output. So, yes, you are right in saying that the nation which maximise its human capital the most will be the the more prosperous, yet the larger state has a distinct advantage.

It's a very intersting topic, actually outside of my research scope, and the first time I've actually come across theories of the sort. Intersting though.

This applies just as well to the US, so if you think that China should or shouldn't *blank*, then you should think the same of the US.


Why?

Quod licet jovi, non licet bovi.

Having said that, I rather think China ought to become a strong and active member of the global community.

I also think they ought to get serious about becoming a Democracry, but China does things its own way, and has done so for the last 5000 years or so.