China - emerging threat, peaceful riser, or paper tiger?

[Dracon II]

East across the straights to Tiawan. Obvious choice, but they have to build a navy first, that will take decades.

Not just a navy, but a navy to match the USA's, a competent airforce to defend againsts carriers, and... well they have the numbers to actually occupy Taiwan, but getting across the strait through US Carrier fleets is another matter altogether.

North into Siberia. Russia has nukes...

A few skirmishes across the border perhaps, but no real war I'd say...

West into Iran. I think this is a possibilty. China goes for the oil.

Iran and China have quite a cosy relationship... and if the USA and Europe increase their pressure on the regime... they'll flee further into the PRC's orbit, thus making an invasion unnecessary.

Southwest into India. Can't think of a good reson to do this, but they did Tibet, soo...

I think invading Tibet was as much about keeping it out of India's influence than it was about expansionism. India has nukes as well.... that would be a costly war for the Chinese... but they could persuade the Pakistanis and maybe the Burmese to support them on the flanks.

South into Southeast Asia, but they've been there and done that and Vietnam is a tough nut to crack.

ASEAN and China are falling closer together anyway, economically speaking that is....

[Lancer]

Do you think Iran would allow the passage of Chinese forces invading other oil rich moslem countries?

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Lancer
Do you think Iran would allow the passage of Chinese forces invading other oil rich moslem countries?

Couldn't be sure. I don't know a great deal about Iran. I think their relationship with China is perhaps more one of convenience than of genuine amiability. I'm not sure what the Regime's view is of Han domination of muslim provinces such as Xinjiang... but I'd say it's ignored as long as Chinese investment pours in.

If they were faced with the prospect of China installing regimes in the middle east... I think that perhaps they'd demand the installation of Islamist regimes? If control of the Middle East was a clear battle between the US and China then I'd imagine Iran would be happy to accommodate passing passing Chinese soldiers.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lancer
West into Iran. I think this is a possibilty. China goes for the oil.

To get to Iran, China would first have to go through Pakistan and/or Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

[Dracon II]

True. And the Americans are already in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Not an easy option for the PRC.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dracon II
I'm no offensive realist, but I think that the hegemonic stability thesis does have credibility. I don't think we're in hot water yet... but if these new powers emerging into the world system aren't sufficiently integrated into the existing framework and given their place in the sun... there'll be trouble.

And what do you perceive as the existing framework? Is it international cooperation or one nation acting on its own.

Within a framework of international cooperation, the rise of East Asia can be accomodated. In a world of Bush unilateralism, conflicts will occur.

So the question of whether China will be a paper tiger or threat will really depend on what the U.S. does in terms of foreign policy. If the U.S. decides that China is a threated that must be isolated then China will likely respond aggresively, and in doing so create a self-fulfilling prophecy for the U.S.

If the U.S. treats China with respect and as a partner, it is more likely that China will respond similarly.

[DaShi]

Preemptive US blaming.

[Odin]

Great, more unprovoked US-bashing from Tingkai. China is a totalitarian oligarchy, it does not deserve respect.

[Sandman]

I want to know where this 'China is going to invade somewhere, anywhere' notion is coming from.

They recovered Hong Kong and Macau with diplomacy, even though they could have easily just invaded them. They've not attacked anywhere for decades. They keep a smallish stock of nukes, even though they could afford more. They've been settling border disputes, signing non-aggression pacts and setting up resource deals.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Odin
Great, more unprovoked US-bashing from Tingkai. China is a totalitarian oligarchy, it does not deserve respect.

You're starting to sound paranoid, like that strange little boy who gets his jollies off by regularly insulting me, even though I have him on my ignore list.

There was nothing in my post that can be construed as U.S.-bashing. What I wrote simply reflects the reality of international relations: that a country's foreign policy reflects that of other nations, particularly the policies of the world's only super-power.

[DaShi]

I never insult you, I only give accurate descriptions of what I see. But you've got to admit your post is funny.

Anyway, glad to see you can't resist peeking.

[Dracon II]

And what do you perceive as the existing framework? Is it international cooperation or one nation acting on its own.

Well, ideally the the UN, the Bretton-Woods institutions, and regional trading blocs.

So far, the institutions most flexible and responsive to change have been the international economic structures and trading blocs (WTO, ASEAN, EU, G7[8] etc). However, one of the most important pillars; the security council, is wholly inflexible... and is quickly becoming an anachronism, as it is still limited to the victorious powers of world war 2. Emerging Great Powers will want to have a say in the security council, or else they will simply ignore it.

A lot rests on how globalization is effected by the growth of a multipolar world. The rage at the moment seems to be regionalism, which is fine, as long as it is not at the expense of globalization.

I believe the best option is expanding the security council, and making it a "concert of powers"; like the concert of Europe in the 19th century. I just hope we don't need another Napoleon to realize the necessity of such an institution.

[Spiffor]

I'm not sure if China will be exceedingly expansionistic. China will certainly want to have Taiway, and there could be some nasty pressure about the control of Siberia, as well as a willingness to secure strategic areas.

However, I don't think China has colonial Europe's or current America's wet dream of spreading its system on the whole world. I don't think there is a feeling of "yellow man burden" in China, which can tone down the agressiveness a fair bit.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dracon II

And what do you perceive as the existing framework? Is it international cooperation or one nation acting on its own.

Well, ideally the the UN, the Bretton-Woods institutions, and regional trading blocs.

So far, the institutions most flexible and responsive to change have been the international economic structures and trading blocs (WTO, ASEAN, EU, G7[8] etc).

But one of the most important, the IMF, has been extremely unflexible and as a result has caused major problems around the world.

Read Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and its discontent. He explains how free-market ideologues have created more problems than good solutions.

It will be interesting to see whether Asean can do more than just being a club. But it really needs to be replaced by an organization representing countries from India to Australia to Japan.

The WTO is plagued by agreements that protect developed economies whiel harming developing economies. Apparently, the US is considered an under-developed nation according to WTO rules. More on that later.

Originally posted by Dracon II
However, one of the most important pillars; the security council, is wholly inflexible

True, the vetos should be eliminated, but that is unlikely to happen.

Originally posted by Dracon II
A lot rests on how globalization is effected by the growth of a multipolar world. The rage at the moment seems to be regionalism, which is fine, as long as it is not at the expense of globalization.

True. Regional trade groups are a necessary step towards greater globalization simply because it is easier to get an agreement among a few nations than the entire world. Japan, India and China will likely look at a creating a free trade zone because of the benefits this creates.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm not sure if China will be exceedingly expansionistic. China will certainly want to have Taiway, and there could be some nasty pressure about the control of Siberia, as well as a willingness to secure strategic areas.

However, I don't think China has colonial Europe's or current America's wet dream of spreading its system on the whole world. I don't think there is a feeling of "yellow man burden" in China, which can tone down the agressiveness a fair bit.

On a related note, there is a theory that Chinese culture lacks an Alexander the Great icon -- the great man who tries to conquor the world. So the idea of conquoring the world isn't part of Chinese culture. A debatable concept.