People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

[shiv]

Firstly, I respect your right in calling bluffs. I just didn't enjoy the condescending tones you used to do it with.

Secondly, a bluff implies an intention to "fool" or deceive. Whereas I was giving my honest held personal opinions, and I take offence to you implying that I was "bluffing".

Thirdly, if you call every bluff, you're gonna hit one hand that had two aces. Not a good poker strategy.

I apologize for personal hurt caused. No insult intended - I tend to come down harshly if I think some lines are crossed but that is a personal failing.

As I see it: If you read Indian history you find accounts of hundreds of kings. Kings who kept prices down, roads safe and trade routes open were thought of as great kings. They were even more highly regarded if they also promoted the arts and literature. Kings who exploited people too survived for a while. Other kings who dd not exploit people but were bigots also survived for a while. But the latter two types were most at risk from opponents and were frequently thrown out. Ultimately all died, but the ones who were regarded and remembered as the best were those who kept the economy strong and also promoted a free liberal society. The weatlh disappeared but the arts, music, poetry and literature have survived.

China now has an oligarchy that has been "good" to China economically. The CPC has barely outlasted the period of one great ancient dynasty. The CPC is behaving like a king who is trying to keep all Chinese happy. But he is a bigoted king. He uses coercive methods to suppress some people in the name of economic development. As long as economic development is progressing well - cause for complaints are few. People in his kingdom are compelled to do certain things in a certain way as dictated by the king in exchange for economic development. Liberal arts, literature and commentaries on society that the king does not like are discouraged.

History teaches us that if the king is really just, his line will last a long time. The CPC is an "experimental king" who is repeating some of the good things and some of the mistakes of past kings. He still has a chance to correct himself. Kings (and queens) in the past who have kept their people happy have had support for external campaigns - like Caesar and Queen Victoria. Kings who have waged external campaigns in the face of hunger, misery and unrest at home have been pulled down violently - such as the French and Russian monarchies.
For a king such as the CPC success in external campaigns against powerful external enemies will require genuine grassroots support from the Chinese people who should willingly suffer privation, poverty and misery while a war is being fought with an external enemy. That means that the people have to be convinced that it is a just war. Or else the king will have a revolt.

Many examples exist. Bush the king used his nations wealth to wage external wars after convincing his people that those wars were just. His people are now poorer and are asking how and why they got into those wars - which they have not won yet. But a democratic king is replaced before he can kill the kingdom. Not an autocracy. Teh Pakistan army has tried to wage a religious war against India for decades and the people are paying for it. Other than ragtag jihadis - Pakistanis are hardly rallying behind their government in external military campaigns. And China's other friend North Korea is another example.

So the CPC will have to tread carefully. If the CPC is confident of the support of most of is people - it will successfully be able to fight military prolonged campaigns against powerful foes, as the Chinese economy takes a hit and people become poorer. Otherwise it will be suicide for the CPC. Either way the Chinese people will tilt the balance on the capability of the CPC. The CPC tries to keep a check on information about the real state of the Chinese people from the Chinese themselves. That is why its actions are suspect.

No one knows whether the CPC understands its weaknesses or not. The CPC could very well imagine that all Chinese people are happy to support wars with India, Japan, the US and actually start a war. Too many ill informed and idiotic kings have done that in the past. What is worse is to talk aggression and not start a war. That is stupidity. That makes foes suspicious and strong - and a powerful foe may in future get a stupid leader who starts a war that China does not want.

The CPC is behaving with a degree of international stupidity that is difficult to believe as stemming from anything other than self delusion of the CPC. That is not a happy sign.

[shiv]

[quote="DavidD"

You're being overly cynical, which makes you no better than the overly gullible persons you criticize.[/quote]

I never claimed superiority. I am merely pointing out the fact that everyone else is no better informed than I am.

[shiv]

Isn't that proof of an extremely intelligent strategy? That your enemies are actually "feeding" you, despite antagonizing actions?

<snip>

Now, let me ask YOU a question. What is UNintelligent about the Chinese strategy? In what ways have this strategy weakened China? Specifically, has this strategy slowed China's development vis-a-vis the alternatives? Actually, you don't even have to answer them, what I really want to know is what YOU think China should do differently, and how would that benefit China more? Give us some of your thoughts, so that we can be the critic for once.

My previous post has some of the answers. China's policy of belligerence is making its foes arm themselves and make anti-China alliances. The Chinese economy and the wealth of the Chinese people are tied up with the world economy. China does not need a war, but by being belligerent (and believing that is "intelligent") China is setting itself up for a war against a mad adversary who is powerful because they were afraid of Chinese power. China is behaving with other countries the way North Korea behaves with South Korea. North Korea is so screwed up they can do anything. China will only reduce its own wealth if its antagonizes its neighbors. If that adversary becomes politically unstable they may start war with China.

Canada and Mexico are not gearing up for war against the US.

Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Myanmar are not gearing up for war against India.

Look at China. Russia is a nuclear armed giant with whom China has fought a border war. China has fought wars with Japan, Vietnam and India. Russia has nukes. India has nukes. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have US nuclear cover.

How many friends does China have for neighbors? How much do these friendships contribute to the Chinese economy? Pakistan? North Korea?

China's trading partners are called her foes. Failed states who depend on beggary are called friends. There is a terminology problem here as far as I can tell.

[TonyMontana]

I apologize for personal hurt caused. No insult intended - I tend to come down harshly if I think some lines are crossed but that is a personal failing.

Apology accepted without reservations. I had always enjoyed your posts and am looking forward to reading more of them.

As I see it: If you read Indian history you find accounts of hundreds of kings. Kings who kept prices down, roads safe and trade routes open were thought of as great kings. They were even more highly regarded if they also promoted the arts and literature. Kings who exploited people too survived for a while. Other kings who dd not exploit people but were bigots also survived for a while. But the latter two types were most at risk from opponents and were frequently thrown out. Ultimately all died, but the ones who were regarded and remembered as the best were those who kept the economy strong and also promoted a free liberal society. The weatlh disappeared but the arts, music, poetry and literature have survived.

The Benevolent Emperor has been the dream of every Chinese since Qin. The Chinese are quite realistic about their previous Emperors and judge them as they are.

For a king such as the CPC success in external campaigns against powerful external enemies will require genuine grassroots support from the Chinese people who should willingly suffer privation, poverty and misery while a war is being fought with an external enemy. That means that the people have to be convinced that it is a just war. Or else the king will have a revolt.

I personally believe that China will not initiate a war in the near future.

No one knows whether the CPC understands its weaknesses or not. The CPC could very well imagine that all Chinese people are happy to support wars with India, Japan, the US and actually start a war. Too many ill informed and idiotic kings have done that in the past. What is worse is to talk aggression and not start a war. That is stupidity. That makes foes suspicious and strong - and a powerful foe may in future get a stupid leader who starts a war that China does not want.

I disagree with that part. Who in their right mind would attack China today? I'm pretty confident that the PLA today can defend China from any immediate neighbours. If talking aggression gets what you want, is it a bad thing? When it doesn't work, the Chinese will try something else. We're pragmatic if anything else.

The CPC is behaving with a degree of international stupidity that is difficult to believe as stemming from anything other than self delusion of the CPC. That is not a happy sign.

As you said, the CCP is still a young dynasty by Chinese standards. Especially the "New China" after 1989. So they are still learning to use their new found money and strength. I still hope for a Chinese renascence.

That being said, you have to give credit where it's due. China has came a long way since Mao and even 1989. Look at the suppression of Tibetians in the recent uprising. Mild by our old standards. China is a work in progess. Give us time.

[Dhiman]

Long ago I categorized several ways in which people communicate with each other and gave those categories names which are well known on this forum. One is a "torn shirt versus open fly discussion. The other is a "You farted" statement.

LOL, I thought farting was pretty much the only thing that TM has been doing in his posts here.

I like the determination with which you and David defend every action of CPC but please remember CPC exists coz of China but vice versa is not true. A government who afraid of its own people is generally not a good government.

Correct.

That's EXACTLY wrong. The best government is one that is afraid of its own people. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When a government is no longer afraid of its own people, it will feel free to wantonly wield its power and cause suffering with no regard of consequences. I'm surprised that a citizen of a democratic nation would make this foolish statement, as fear of the people is the cornerstone of democracy. The whole objective of democracy is to keep the government always fearful of the people it governs and therefore wary of their needs, because the people may oust them from office with a vote at any time. IMO, that makes democratic governments TOO fearful of the people and prone to simply follow the directives of the largely sensationalist and short-sighted masses, but that's topic for another discussion.

LOL, given your treatise on "fear" and "democracy", I almost expected you to add "uncertainty" and "doubt" somewhere as well to make it a full FUD=democracy What happened to exercising the will of the people, representative form of government, and checks and balances?

[TonyMontana]

China's trading partners are called her foes. Failed states who depend on beggary are called friends. There is a terminology problem here as far as I can tell.

You mistaken words spoken for dometic consumption by nationalists in all camps with cold hard cash of trade.

I leave you with a qoute from Miami Vice. (sh!ty movie I know, but the idea is relevent)

I paraphrase:" We can all shut each other's eyes real quick now. But no one will make any money."

[TonyMontana]

LOL, I thought farting was pretty much the only thing that TM has been doing in his posts here.

Inhale. You're the victim.

[Sidhant]

...continuing a discussion from the China Military thread.

When did anyone say the same doesn't apply to India? Does India have a China-Pak type of relationship with any of its neighbors? Bangladesh? Pakistan? Myanmar? Bhutan? Nepal(perhaps)? Sri Lanka? The key of this strategy is not to make "friends" with your neighbors, but make subjects out of them. Right now, by and large, the "friendly" neighbors of China are subordinate to China's will. They are, in a sense, conquered. The goal is to make the same happen with the likes of Japan, India, etc.

Who wants an ally like Pakistan, is India a nuclear proliferation, does India wants subjugated and conquered allies? The answer for the last two questions is no. So if you stop looking from CPC prism, why does India needs an ally which is a practical time bomb. Apart from ("pukistan") which other neighbor is actually a subordinate of China. Even the small neighbor like Tibet is rebelling despite thousands of Chinese boots on the ground. Subjugation is not just putting the boots on the ground, it happens when the spirit of the people is killed and they submit to the rule, otherwise as per the Chinese logic US has already won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, the saying still holds. It makes no difference how strong your neighbors are, they're all enemies that need to be subjugated. If they were weak, they would've already been "conquered". China is not intentionally picking on the strongest neighbors, it's mere incidental that only the strongest neighbors are left to resist China's push to increase its influence.

Oh so now the baby dragon is showing its teeth . This CPC thinking is known to all on this forum and I am sure the rest of your neighbors also would be cognizant of this thinking, the idea is good no doubt about it. My question is why did CPC shed its mask of peaceful, benevolent and responsible super power which it wore so magnificently till so long when it was not yet ready to give that decisive blow to any of its foes. What divine or Heaven Mandated(may I say?) power did CPC got that it had to show its true face so early in the game. What objective has been achieved and what countries have been subjugated with this new mystical power?

You're missing the point. The point is not to build an actual alliance. The goal is to build an "alliance" like the U.S.-Canada "alliance", where it's more of a protector-protectee relationship and all important decisions are made by the protector. The strength of the countries you're allied with matters little. In fact, most strong nations would resist this type of "alliance" and therefore it's actually useful to keep them weak. Do you think the U.S. would ever let Canada or Mexico become a military power? The farther away a nation is, the more useful an actual alliance would be, but still, you would preferably want to make sure that you're still the "protector" of the relationship.

okay so China==USA ( since when??) and Pakistan==Canada . Does Canada has any other Daddy apart from USA? Pakistan has 3 daddys British who brought it to existence and currently China and USA. US and Canada also share similar culture, language and traditions. What is common between CPC and Pakistan elites except for India. Oh sorry wait a min, both share similar mentalities of subjugating other cultures and tribes, both are dictatorships (China having a sophisticated one), both need to hire mercenaries to do their dirty work, both like to proliferate nuclear weapons, blatantly lie in front of the whole world and the list can go on and on. So yes CPC has a natural ally in Pakistan I stand corrected .

That's EXACTLY wrong. The best government is one that is afraid of its own people. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When a government is no longer afraid of its own people, it will feel free to wantonly wield its power and cause suffering with no regard of consequences. I'm surprised that a citizen of a democratic nation would make this foolish statement, as fear of the people is the cornerstone of democracy. The whole objective of democracy is to keep the government always fearful of the people it governs and therefore wary of their needs, because the people may oust them from office with a vote at any time. IMO, that makes democratic governments TOO fearful of the people and prone to simply follow the directives of the largely sensationalist and short-sighted masses, but that's topic for another discussion.

Oh yes sir that is correct, the best government is the one which is so afraid of its people that when a large group of students agitated and protested at a T square the government panicked and pulled the trigger (I would resist using the emoticon here in order to respect the brave souls who lost their lives while raising their voice for freedom from the tyranny called CPC). Thank god Indian government is not that scared of its own people.

[Sidhant]

Self Deleted the duplicate Post

[shiv]

Who in their right mind would attack China today? I'm pretty confident that the PLA today can defend China from any immediate neighbours. If talking aggression gets what you want, is it a bad thing? When it doesn't work, the Chinese will try something else. We're pragmatic if anything else.

All analogies are never perfect. But I will use an analogy. I like dogs and know dogs myself. I am bigger than all dogs I have ever seen. Still I do not provoke any dog unnecessarily because provocation may hurt me.

China is provoking a whole lot of nations. That makes them ready themselves for war. Would they start war against china? Not if they are in their "right mind". But if something was to go wrong with their mind - they might start a war with China. And because of a history of Chinese belligerence - they have armed themselves well and will hurt China.

How can they do that you might ask. Its very simple. Anywhere in this world and at any time in history you find that if one nation fights a war against another nobody says "A was peaceful, B started the war". It is always stated that "A&B fought a war". So no matter who provokes war history and other nations will note that China fought a war with a small neighbor. Even if that neighbor was foolish enough to start the war and lose it. And that makes every nation look at China and say "Hey we don't want to have China fight with us and let her get off easily. We too will arm ourselves"

So what China is doing is gradually provoking a situation in which there are a lot of neighboring countries with a lot of macho generals with shiny new arms spoiling for a fight - not just the Chinese. Historically this situation (neighbours heavily armed and ready to fight) has never led to stability - it has led to war. War has never resulted in happiness for the countries involved of for its people. But the situation we are looking at in future is a direct consequence of the CPC behaving with belligerence with neighbours. The CPC is too used to pushing its own viewpoint on everyone in China so I would be surprised if any Chinese saw it this way. But that is one way that others see China.

Anything that looks good today can be called pragmatism. But it might well be astigmatism.

[TonyMontana]

Anything that looks good today can be called pragmatism. But it might well be astigmatism.

I understand your view point. Let's look at the alternative. What if China was nice to everyone. (What does nice even mean in geopolitics?) How would the world be different? Where would China be? Honestly interested in your views.

Further, would you say that India has been nice to your neighbours? Where did that get you?

If countries around China are building up strength in their military, it's up to China to match them as well. That's how arms races works. I get a feeling from some posters on BRF, correct me if I'm wrong, India expects to be given a lot of stuff. UNSC seat. Your land back. Respect.
No one is gonna give you anything for free. If you can't trade for it, but you want it, what other options does that leave you?

[TonyMontana]

All analogies are never perfect. But I will use an analogy. I like dogs and know dogs myself. I am bigger than all dogs I have ever seen. Still I do not provoke any dog unnecessarily because provocation may hurt me.

I train my own dogs for pig hunting, so I would like to think I know a little about dogs too. There is a huge difference in provoking a dog and showing dominance to a dog. There is alway a pack leader in any pack. A dog that knows it's place in the pack is a happy dog. And it's up to the leader of the pack to establish that dominace. Some dogs like my boxer/ridgeback are so stuborn and has such a high pain treashold that the best way to train them is reward based techniques. Other dogs respond well to corrective techniques. They only way to find out is try both and see what works better.

Like dogs, you can't expect other nations to "help you hunt" out of love and a notion of friendship. That don't exist in dogs, nor does it in geopolitics. You, as a pack leader need to set boundaries of behaviour and enforce them consistently.

That being said, if you beat a dog too much, of cause one day he might bite you out of fear. But if you don't enforce discipline enough, other dogs would want to take over the pack, as is with nature. A good balance is the difference between a good trainer and a bad one.

Which one is China? Too early to tell.

[DavidD]

My previous post has some of the answers. China's policy of belligerence is making its foes arm themselves and make anti-China alliances. The Chinese economy and the wealth of the Chinese people are tied up with the world economy. China does not need a war, but by being belligerent (and believing that is "intelligent") China is setting itself up for a war against a mad adversary who is powerful because they were afraid of Chinese power. China is behaving with other countries the way North Korea behaves with South Korea. North Korea is so screwed up they can do anything. China will only reduce its own wealth if its antagonizes its neighbors. If that adversary becomes politically unstable they may start war with China.

Canada and Mexico are not gearing up for war against the US.

Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Myanmar are not gearing up for war against India.

Look at China. Russia is a nuclear armed giant with whom China has fought a border war. China has fought wars with Japan, Vietnam and India. Russia has nukes. India has nukes. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have US nuclear cover.

How many friends does China have for neighbors? How much do these friendships contribute to the Chinese economy? Pakistan? North Korea?

China's trading partners are called her foes. Failed states who depend on beggary are called friends. There is a terminology problem here as far as I can tell.

Once again, you focused more on criticizing China's policies rather than proposing your own policies. Of course, your statement on what China has done wrong offers some insight on what you think is the right way for China to do things, but I'd rather you state it clearly than have me infer it. Allow me to criticize and/or praise(probably a bit of both) your suggestions, rather than your criticisms.

Anyhow, I'll reply to some of your points. Canada(when it was still a French colony) and Mexico have already fought wars against the U.S.. They lost and were subsequently subjugated. It's inevitable that similar things will happen between China and its neighbors(as in the occurrence of conflicts, not necessarily the winner), though the "wars" will likely be more modern, involving more economical and political battles rather than simple military ones due primarily to nuclear deterrence.

[Dhiman]

Anything that looks good today can be called pragmatism. But it might well be astigmatism.

I understand your view point. Let's look at the alternative. What if China was nice to everyone. (What does nice even mean in geopolitics?) How would the world be different? Where would China be? Honestly interested in your views.

I don't know!, but what I can tell you for sure is that "normal" entities don't usually think in terms of "nice vs. bad", or "victim vs. aggressor", or "fear vs. brave" etc. So the question, at least in my mind is: whether China wants to be "normal" and help the world become more "normal" or continue back pedaling?

In any case, in your post, you first 1) concocted the term "nice" to refer to behavior of countries, then 2) questioned whether your own self-concocted term "nice" is relevant in geopolitical context, and then 3) wondered what will happen if china was nice when you are not even clear on the relevancy of your own self-concocted term? Given that we are now "calling farts", I would say this is a major one.

Further, would you say that India has been nice to your neighbours? Where did that get you?

Why don't you tell us: 1) whether you think India lives upto your term "nice" and 2) where did it get us.

[shyam]

Anyway, I have a OT, basic question.
we injuns have a habit of seeking higher power blessing when taking exam or when starting something new or during crisis. How do Chinese commoners react during times of stress? Do they pray god or seek higher power to guide them?

No. We just work harder. The older folks might invoke Chinese folk mythology, ie demi-godes etc, but to be honest, I don't think even they believe it. Of cause that depends on one's religious inclinations. Most mainland Chinese I know are atheist.

Some Chinese working harder...





Or, may be they are elderly people.

Let me make this statement here, "Civilizationally, China IS India's backyard."

[Pulikeshi]

They lost and were subsequently subjugated. It's inevitable that similar things will happen between China and its neighbors(as in the occurrence of conflicts, not necessarily the winner), though the "wars" will likely be more modern, involving more economical and political battles rather than simple military ones due primarily to nuclear deterrence.

Just curious - are you aware of the work of Morgenthau or Mearsheimer?
US has two large neighbors and subjugating them allows it to be a regional power.

Asia as a concept is an European creation. I prefer to call it Brihat (greater) Asia.
Brihat-Asia includes Europe and Asia and everything in between.
Now, in Brihat-Asia tell me how many countries does China need to subjugate to become
an uncontested regional power?
Immediate neighbors for China: Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, North/South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan,
Tajikistan, and Vietnam.
That is seventeen of them. So looks like you still got to deal with a few still.
Then what? World domination? Sounds like a sad movie plot, but it will be educational.
What region would China become an uncontested power that will allow it to become a
world power?

Here is what is being said officially, in complete contrast to what you are saying:
(I guess the CPC is not telling you everything )

China: We're no threat to our neighbors

[Dhiman]

Let me make this statement here, "Civilizationally, China IS India's backyard."

LOL. Somebody needs to keep the world "sane" given that all the paranoids (China, Pakistan, etc) running around and making those around in the hope that everyone else will also be as paranoid.

[shiv]

correct me if I'm wrong, India expects to be given a lot of stuff. UNSC seat. Your land back. Respect. No one is gonna give you anything for free. If you can't trade for it, but you want it, what other options does that leave you?

Not India. A few people on BRF and some Indians expect that the world will "reserve a seat" for India as superpower or in UNSC. I disagree with them, but the world sometimes does respond to beggars so there may be something in that strategy despite my contempt for it. Look where it has taken Pakistan and NoKo?

But we are talking about China here. Dog analogies can only go so far.

I can't speak for 1.4 billion Chinese but I am willing to guess that they all want a good life first. After that they may want world dominance. I don't know.

Do all Chinese have a good life? In the absence of free information from China the only way to figure this out is to look at it indirectly. What are the requirements of a "good life?". The US claims that they have "world class" standards for their people. Has China reached the per capita consumption of the US yet? Or that of Norway? Not by a long shot. So on the surface it appears that "a good life for all Chinese" is work in progress.

What are the requirements of a good life? I think it is possible for a small oligarchy like the NoKo party to have a "good life" compared to most of it's people. The same holds true for the Pakistan army. But for a large majority of people to have a good life you need peace and trade. Peace and trade go hand in hand. War does not always improve trade. China is most certainly choosing the path of peace and trade - which are the best routes to take. China is also choosing to arm itself against all possible foes - historic foes like Japan, current political adversaries like the US and new, previously non existent foes like India. In turn these nations will arm themselves against China.

Clearly, the objective of peace can only be taken so far by preparing for war. Preparation for war against Japan can be explained on historic enmity. Preparing for war against the US can be explained by saying that the US is a geopolitical foe that directly threatens the core of the Chinese system. Preparing for war against India certainly looks odd to me. The basis for such preparations is (to me) far fetched. First China occupied Tibet, and now China says that part of India was part of Tibet. So China chooses to make a new enemy.

What China is doing is making powerful and new enemies who oppose China while expressing the intent to develop peacefully. For the viewpoint of a person sitting outside China the advantages of this strategy do not make sense because it negates the very premise mentioned earlier. A good life for the Chinese requires peace and trade.

Over a thousand years ago, China was a great exporter of goods that went overland via the silk route. Robbers who controlled those routes controlled trade. Some export went by sea. Nations like the Portuguese who later controlled sea lanes controlled exports from China. Today you find that geography has not changed. China remains connected by land to most of the world. But the Silk road is closed. And Chinese imports in terms of raw materials have gone up by a great deal. Mostly they come via the sea and china's sea lanes are far from secure. The CPC knows this and they know that for the volume of trade that China needs, the control that China exerts on sea lanes is negligible. At every point - some powerful nation or other controls the sea. And the land route is closed. Even if Chinese exports do not need the land route like a 1000 years ago. oil could come in if that route were open. China is trying desperately to expand its land and sea routes to keep her trade flowing. That is why we hear of possible land links though Myanmar to the sea, through Russia to Norway, through central Asia to Turkey. Through Pakistan to Gwadar.

The logistics lines via Myanmar and Pakistan are tenuous. In fact if China could agree to trade via India its routes via Pakistan and Myanmar would also be a lot safer and more practicable. But China is paying for the past mistakes made by Mao and Zhou en Lai. China is also facing the consequences of cosying up to Nixon using Pakistan as pimp. To me it seems that it would be in China's long term interests not to piss India off. With more poverty and more chaos, Indians have less to lose than China. Mao could speak of losing 300 million Chinese in a nuclear war in the 1960s. India is still that way. And India does not trust China. China too knows that India cannot be trusted because of that. That closes one door for China. It closes a door for India too - but it opens the door for the US to exploit rivalry between China and India. The US does not manufacture toys and TV sets. China does. The US gets them cheap from China. What the US does is to export high tech arms to all of China's adversaries. India is now joining that bandwagon.

How much is China gaining from all this? China gains "honor and prestige" by talking fluff like "being top dog" an domination over neighboring dogs. But the primary concerns of "good life" by trade and peace are only being delayed and an advantage handed to someone else. Something is not right in the attitude of the CPC. There is a fundamental psychological gap that the CPC is trying to fill that is different from what other nations are trying to do. It's not "the same as everyone else". Will write more thoughts later.

[DavidD]

They lost and were subsequently subjugated. It's inevitable that similar things will happen between China and its neighbors(as in the occurrence of conflicts, not necessarily the winner), though the "wars" will likely be more modern, involving more economical and political battles rather than simple military ones due primarily to nuclear deterrence.

Just curious - are you aware of the work of Morgenthau or Mearsheimer?
US has two large neighbors and subjugating them allows it to be a regional power.

Asia as a concept is an European creation. I prefer to call it Brihat (greater) Asia.
Brihat-Asia includes Europe and Asia and everything in between.
Now, in Brihat-Asia tell me how many countries does China need to subjugate to become
an uncontested regional power?
Immediate neighbors for China: Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, North/South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan,
Tajikistan, and Vietnam.
That is seventeen of them. So looks like you still got to deal with a few still.
Then what? World domination? Sounds like a sad movie plot, but it will be educational.
What region would China become an uncontested power that will allow it to become a
world power?

Here is what is being said officially, in complete contrast to what you are saying:
(I guess the CPC is not telling you everything )

China: We're no threat to our neighbors

No, I'm not familiar with their works, could you tell me about them?

As for the immediate neighbors of China, you have to keep in mind that Russia is a west/Europe-centric nation while China is an east-centric nation. Other than Russia and to a lesser extent the former Soviet republics to the west of China, your list is about right. There's a long way to go for sure, but yes, the goal is to subjugate them all. It may sound like a movie plot, but when you come down to it, it's really that simple--expand your power, one step at a time, with the ultimate goal of world domination(ala the U.S.).

What is being said officially is in no contrast of what I'm saying. Whether that goal is threatening to China's neighbors depends on how you define "threatening". Is American domination of its neighbors threatening to them? If it is then yes, China is a threat. I mean, do you really expect China to willingly let its neighbors dictate the safety of its trade lanes?

[Pulikeshi]

DavidD,

If you had read Mearsheimer he actually predicted pretty accurately what China will do:
(He also had some thoughts on what other powers will do in return)

“The Rise of China Will Not Be Peaceful at All”

The 'tragedy of great power politics' will have to play out...

However, I see Asia differently (Brihat-Asia) as I explained in my other post.
The Eastern part of Brihat-Asia China will try to dominate. The Central part India -
as it is a pivot between the Western part of Brihat-Asia and the Eastern.

China cannot dominate all of Brihat-Asia to become an uncontested regional power.
Here China is not similar to the US, but is more like a European power.
What China (or for that matter India or Japan) can do is to prevent other regional powers.
China has done to India by supporting Pakistan, Maoists, etc.
What more can China do? India has time, powerful friends, demographics and destiny on its side

[Dhiman]

How much is China gaining from all this? China gains "honor and prestige" by talking fluff like "being top dog" an domination over neighboring dogs. But the primary concerns of "good life" by trade and peace are only being delayed and an advantage handed to someone else. Something is not right in the attitude of the CPC. There is a fundamental psychological gap that the CPC is trying to fill that is different from what other nations are trying to do. It's not "the same as everyone else". Will write more thoughts later.

Shiv sir,

I seriously think that GoI needs to divide the world into three groups of country: sane, insane, and borderline and deal with it according to that. As an example (and without going into lengthy reasons and justifications), I would give the following as example:

Sane: Brazil, South Africa, Norway, Canada, Bhutan, ...
Insane: Pakistan, North Korea, ...
Borderline:: USA, China, Saudi Arabia, ...

Further each country could be given a 1-10 status score and 1-10 score for direction of movement towards "Sanity". It nothing else, it will help GoI to craft more consistent foreign policy IMVHO. I still see hope for China and hence the "Borderline" category. China for all practical purposes may be just copying US "borderline" behavior and there is no other "top dog" (in terms of power) to mimic otherwise.

Setting up an alliance of sanity would be critical in dealing with insane and borderline cases in future.

[Pulikeshi]

Must watch for folks posting on this thread (sessions go 1-11):
(its a bit dated, but helps the discussions here on Manage thread...)

China Threat Debates

[Johann]

One of the few places that Mao showed any real smarts was in refusing to confront both superpowers at once.

From 1949-1968 he confronted the Americans, while occasionally irritating the Soviets, but generally allying with them
From 1969-1976 he confronted the Soviets, while occasionally irritating the Americans, but generally allying with them

The great losers in global struggles are people who take on too many enemies at once.

Napoleon went to war with both Russia and Britain, and despite his brilliance, they ground him down, and then used the spare capacity they developed to fight him to establish world-spanning empires.

Germany in both world wars chose to initiate two-front wars, and lost both (something Bismarck always avoided). So did Japan. In any case they helped create the new super powers

The Soviets in the 1966 chose to turn the ideological competition with the PRC in to a military competition during a period of confidence, and came to regret being caught between NATO and not one but two Far East enemies in the form of Japan AND the PRC (a mistake Stalin never made).

Even Mao, with all of his megalomania and aspirations for world revolution didn't think the PRC could make it far with Hoxha's Albania (a place that rivaled Kim Jong Il's DPRK in looniness and misery) as its sole reliable partner. Deng's approach was opening up to the world, avoiding isolation and making money from the global economy even while fighting Soviet encirclement. Both disliked getting in to confrontations without support of other powers, preferably a coalition, whether Socialist or Capitalist.

If the CPC continues on the current path of getting in to competitions and confrontations with so many of its neighbours at the same time it WILL face the same fate. India, Japan, the United States and ASEAN represent far more wealth, manpower and technology than the PRC will ever muster, even with the help of rogue regimes like North Korea and Pakistan to distract the US, Japan and India. In fact they're like to help turn India in to a greater power as in previous cases.

One thing that is interesting is that the PLA seems to be driving quite a lot of the PRC's aggressiveness, yet almost none of the current PLA brass has any combat experience (crushing Chinese students and Tibetans with tanks is not combat, just particularly brutal crowd control); perhaps this is part of the problem. Earlier generations of CPC leadership had first hand experience fighting the KMT, the Japanese, and the Americans (both Mao and the Americans were unprepared for each other's ferocity; there's a reason the Korean war was not repeated). This was the problem with the American Neo-Conservatives as well although they were civilians. Power without a sense of its limits and costs is a dangerous thing.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 13, 2010
Editorial
A Taiwanese template for China: Taipei Times

As the emerging middle class and the number of people who have received higher education in China grow, Chinese society is reaching a turning point, as these groups pay more attention to public affairs and demand a greater part in decision-making.

This makes a clash with the one-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost inevitable.

As social tensions increase, China will have to move toward political reform.

I am not sure about the conclusions.

[Venkarl]

One of the few places that Mao showed any real smarts was in refusing to confront both superpowers at once.

From 1949-1968 he confronted the Americans, while occasionally irritating the Soviets, but generally allying with them
From 1969-1976 he confronted the Soviets, while occasionally irritating the Americans, but generally allying with them

The great losers in global struggles are people who take on too many enemies at once.

Napoleon went to war with both Russia and Britain, and despite his brilliance, they ground him down, and then used the spare capacity they developed to fight him to establish world-spanning empires.

Germany in both world wars chose to initiate two-front wars, and lost both (something Bismarck always avoided). So did Japan. In any case they helped create the new super powers

The Soviets in the 1966 chose to turn the ideological competition with the PRC in to a military competition during a period of confidence, and came to regret being caught between NATO and not one but two Far East enemies in the form of Japan AND the PRC (a mistake Stalin never made).

Even Mao, with all of his megalomania and aspirations for world revolution didn't think the PRC could make it far with Hoxha's Albania (a place that rivaled Kim Jong Il's DPRK in looniness and misery) as its sole reliable partner. Deng's approach was opening up to the world, avoiding isolation and making money from the global economy even while fighting Soviet encirclement. Both disliked getting in to confrontations without support of other powers, preferably a coalition, whether Socialist or Capitalist.

If the CPC continues on the current path of getting in to competitions and confrontations with so many of its neighbours at the same time it WILL face the same fate. India, Japan, the United States and ASEAN represent far more wealth, manpower and technology than the PRC will ever muster, even with the help of rogue regimes like North Korea and Pakistan to distract the US, Japan and India. In fact they're like to help turn India in to a greater power as in previous cases.

One thing that is interesting is that the PLA seems to be driving quite a lot of the PRC's aggressiveness, yet almost none of the current PLA brass has any combat experience (crushing Chinese students and Tibetans with tanks is not combat, just particularly brutal crowd control); perhaps this is part of the problem. Earlier generations of CPC leadership had first hand experience fighting the KMT, the Japanese, and the Americans (both Mao and the Americans were unprepared for each other's ferocity; there's a reason the Korean war was not repeated). This was the problem with the American Neo-Conservatives as well although they were civilians. Power without a sense of its limits and costs is a dangerous thing.

Johannji....every sentence you wrote in your post has its own volume of history. You have cited so many historical events that I could not combine them and draw a conclusion from an Indian point of view...may be I am naive and confused to do it...Please enlighten me.... If the intention of your post is not in the Indian PoV...ignore my post.

[Philip]

When will Wen get ji-boot? The Chinese PM in revent times has had parts of his speeches blacked out,indicating that all is not well in Mandarin town. This is an unprecedented development.Is a power struggle brewing between "hard and soft" elements in the CP?

Chinese prime minister censored by Communist party
Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, has seen parts of his speeches blacked out by Chinese censors at least four times in recent months, it has emerged.

Chinese prime minister censored by Communist party
Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, has seen parts of his speeches blacked out by Chinese censors at least four times in recent months, it has emerged.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Published: 9:57AM BST 13 Oct 2010
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao Photo: AP

The revelation came in an open letter from a group of 23 veteran Communist party reformers to China's National People's Congress.

The reformers argued that China's Propaganda department is now so powerful that it controls even the country's top leaders.

Related Articles
Chinese Nobel laureate's wife slams 'illegal house arrest'
Wen Jiabao promises political reform for China
China riots: Twitter and YouTube frustrate 'censorship attempts'
Shoe protester cleared after protest at Chinese premier
Protest at Cambridge 'prostituting' itself to Chinese 'dictator'
Cambridge student 'threw shoe towards Chinese Prime Minister'

"Not only the average citizen, but even the most senior leaders of the Communist party have no freedom of speech or press," the letter said, before listing the occasions when Mr Wen's remarks about political reform had been censored inside China.

"On August 21, 2010, Premier Wen gave a speech in Shenzhen called, 'Only by pushing ahead with reforms can our nation have bright prospects'. [However] Xinhua News Agency's official news release omitted the content in Mr Wen's speech dealing with political reform," it said.

Again, on September 22 and 23, Mr Wen saw his comments on political reform on his trip to the United States dropped from news reports in China. A rare interview with CNN, in which Mr Wen pledged to fight for political reform despite "some opposition" from within his party, has also been blocked inside China.

"We would ask, what right does the Central Propaganda department have to muzzle the speech of the prime minister? What right does it have to rob the people of our country of their right to know what the prime minister has said?" asked the signatories. The letter, which was posted on Sina, one of China's most popular websites, was itself quickly deleted.

Li Rui, Chairman Mao's personal secretary and a former member of the Communist party's Central Committee, was one of the signatories calling for China to allow free speech and to abolish state control of the media.

Mr Li said that even an essay that he had written for the People's Daily, China's party newspaper in 1981, had been deleted from a recent book by censors. "What incredible folly it is that an old piece of writing from a Party newspaper cannot be included in a volume of collected works!" said the letter. "What kind of country is this? Such strangling of the people's freedom of expression is entirely illegal," said Mr Li.

The letter described the secretive operation of the Propaganda department. "If we endeavour to find those responsible [for the censorship] we are utterly incapable of putting our finger on a specific person. They are invisible black hands, often ordering by telephone that the works of such and such a person cannot be published, or that such and such an event cannot be reported in the media. The officials who make the call do not leave their names but you must heed their instructions."

Other signatories included Huang Jiwei, a former editor of the People's Daily, and Zhong Peizhang, a former senior official at the Propaganda department.

[Pulikeshi]

One thing that is interesting is that the PLA seems to be driving quite a lot of the PRC's aggressiveness,...

The question is why? Do you suspect its just 'inexperience' and overconfidence?
Will it cause China to make a mistake as the PLA drives them into multi-front confrontations?

Perhaps, this is what the Indian Prime Minister alluded to in his worry about the
change of guards in 2012 and what it foretells for the region.

Good summary post...

[RajeshA]

One thing that is interesting is that the PLA seems to be driving quite a lot of the PRC's aggressiveness,...

The question is why? Do you suspect its just 'inexperience' and overconfidence?
Will it cause China to make a mistake as the PLA drives them into multi-front confrontations?

Perhaps, this is what the Indian Prime Minister alluded to in his worry about the
change of guards in 2012 and what it foretells for the region.

Good summary post...

Published on Sep 20, 2010
By Bhaskar Roy
CHINA: The Military and Leadership Power: South Asian Analysis

Both Party General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) Hu Jintao, and his predecessor Jiang Zemin had to virtually buy the support and loyalty of the PLA. Given this, they had to give into the various demands of the PLA not only in terms of modernization by also in terms of state and foreign policy. This is marked by the increasing voice of the PLA in such matters.

The question being asked is did the Chinese vessel deliberately collide with the Japanese boat under orders? These incidents give an opportunity for the PLA to test all the aspects “Three warfares”. The outcome will definitely affect adversely by the stability of the Asia Pacific region.

Politically, these developments give a huge boost to PLA at least domestically. While China’s ambition is well known, are these provocations linked to Hu Jintao’s domestic politics? Hu Jintao may go down in history as the architect of China’s power projection.

[Hari Seldon]

One thing that is interesting is that the PLA seems to be driving quite a lot of the PRC's aggressiveness,...

The question is why? Do you suspect its just 'inexperience' and overconfidence?

The simpler occam-ish explanation is .... neither.

The truth could be a lot simpler - the PLA has grown too strong to fear defeat.

Maybe the PLA has figured out, with typical wonderful calibrated precision how far it can push and no further? Or maybe this is the act of calibration and measurement only?

Time will tell....it always has, so far.

[Johann]

Johannji....every sentence you wrote in your post has its own volume of history. You have cited so many historical events that I could not combine them and draw a conclusion from an Indian point of view...may be I am naive and confused to do it...Please enlighten me.... If the intention of your post is not in the Indian PoV...ignore my post.

Sorry I was so long-winded! The short of it is that history tells us the PRC is taking on more enemies at one time than it can handle. Unless they stop they will not just antagonise India, but actually help make it far more powerful in the long run; that is what Napoleon did to Britain and Russia, and Hitler did to America and the USSR, and what the Soviets did to the US and China. What is the lesson for India? Conciliate with China if it is alone in dealing with problem behaviour from the PRC and Pakistan, but if it has powerful partners in tackling one or both, then don't hesitate to put pressure on them until they change for the better.

The caveat of course is that the PRC is one of the few dictatorships that has regular leadership changes, and PLA leadership also rotates - The CPC-CMC leadership could well change back to its earlier strategic prudence.

Current PLA leadership is old enough to have begun service during the Cultural Revolution when Mao smashed the party and state bureaucracy and used the Army to run the country. Deng had enough authority as a PLA veteran to return the army to the barracks, but current political leadership is much younger, and entirely civilian which makes them very deferential to these tough Maoist-era enforcers. Things may change as officers who were shaped in the Deng-era rise to the top. It is something to watch for.

[RajeshA]

Current PLA leadership is old enough to have begun service during the Cultural Revolution when Mao smashed the party and state bureaucracy and used the Army to run the country. Deng had enough authority as a PLA veteran to return the army to the barracks, but current political leadership is much younger, and entirely civilian which makes them very deferential to these tough Maoist-era enforcers. Things may change as officers who were shaped in the Deng-era rise to the top. It is something to watch for.

Published on Oct 11, 2010
By Michael Wines
U.S. Alarmed by Harsh Tone of China’s Military: New York Times

The Pentagon is worried that its increasingly tense relationship with the Chinese military owes itself in part to the rising leaders of Commander Cao’s generation, who, much more than the country’s military elders, view the United States as the enemy. Older Chinese officers remember a time, before the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 set relations back, when American and Chinese forces made common cause against the Soviet Union.

The younger officers have known only an anti-American ideology, which casts the United States as bent on thwarting China’s rise.

“All militaries need a straw man, a perceived enemy, for solidarity,” said Huang Jing, a scholar of China’s military and leadership at the National University of Singapore. “And as a young officer or soldier, you always take the strongest of straw men to maximize the effect. Chinese military men, from the soldiers and platoon captains all the way up to the army commanders, were always taught that America would be their enemy.”

The younger generation in PLA is brimming with confidence and nationalism. I don't think your prayer would be heard.

[Johann]

Rajesh,

The question is not whether the PLA's officers have an enemy, or great ambitions. America has been enemy no.1 (again) ever since the USN sailed through the Taiwan Straits in 1996 when the PRC was trying to militarily intimidate Taiwan.

The question is how smart or how stupid will the CPC and CMC be in pursuing their goals.

Mao said power flows out of the barrel of a gun, but he also said politics must control the gun, and not the other way.

China was not just a communist dictatorship during Mao's Cultural Revolution, it was a military supervised communist dictatorship, much like North Korea today. Without someone of the stature of Mao or Deng to control them officers from that era are not easily directed. Post-Maoist era officers are no less nationalistic, but they didn't have the experience of having the party and state subordinate to them, so the General Secretary and the Politburo might be able to play a larger role in national-security decision making.

The nature of civil-military relations inside the CMC and Politburo matters. Rampant militarism leads to overconfidence, overstretch, and eventually failure.

It may not be a bad thing if the CPC makes the mistakes of previous hegemons in the making, so don't take what I wrote about generational changes as my 'prayers'. I am an agnostic at this point.

[Altair]

The younger generation in PLA is brimming with confidence and nationalism. I don't think your prayer would be heard.

Absolutely. 4 Chinese Su-27 combat planes refueled in Iranian Air space before leaving to Turkey. Hope Unkil got the SMS.

[Venkarl]

No apologies needed Johannji...thank you for explaining...I do believe in "learn from history to succeed today and make a history for tomorrow"...which makes your post more intriguing for me to think over..anyways..

Conciliate with China if it is alone in dealing with problem behavior from the PRC and Pakistan, but if it has powerful partners in tackling one or both, then don't hesitate to put pressure on them until they change for the better.

So by not letting them stop and by letting them antagonize India, helps India to become far more powerful in the long run. And if I can safely say --becoming powerful can/will fetch powerful allies...then can I assume that it will take care of behavior problem?

OTOH...if our conciliation with China is to nip Pakistan...Chinese won't do that for nothing? what does India have to offer Chinese? and those offers not being self-goals?...on what aspects or matters can India conciliate with China with Pakistan as target? or should the conciliation effort not target Pakistan for now?

sorry too many Qs...just can't stop on this..

[RajeshA]

The nature of civil-military relations inside the CMC and Politburo matters. Rampant militarism leads to overconfidence, overstretch, and eventually failure.

It may not be a bad thing if the CPC makes the mistakes of previous hegemons in the making, so don't take what I wrote about generational changes as my 'prayers'. I am an agnostic at this point.

I am betting on Hyper-Han Nationalism.

As and when the economy of China dips for a few years below 6% or so, there will be loud voices that America is doing this to hurt China and does not want to see China rise. Nationalism will grow. There will be a bad mood in the Politburo and on the streets. There will be more intimidation in the Pacific and of India.

China has spread out so far and wide. If America and China really get into a serious Cold-War, and the smallest of skirmishes could precipitate that, then China can forget its export markets. Nationalism is going to be the undoing of PRC.

[Johann]

OTOH...if our conciliation with China is to nip Pakistan...Chinese won't do that for nothing? what does India have to offer Chinese? and those offers not being self-goals?...on what aspects or matters can India conciliate with China with Pakistan as target? or should the conciliation effort not target Pakistan for now?

Venkarl,

While India has consistently worked to build a conventional deterrent in the NE to avoid a repeat of 1962, it has also consistently sought negotiations and normalisations with the PRC even when the latter is provocative.

I don't think this is simply because Indians are weak and stupid, but rather because they are prudent, recognising the dangers of a two-front challenge. In some sense this has worked; despite the strong Sino-Pakistani relationship since 1963, the PRC did not start major hostilities in 1965, 1971 or 1999 when India was fighting Pakistan.

However I think things are changing. Despite profound differences between the US and India on the question of Pakistan, India for the first time has a strategic partner who has been able to force Pakistan to shift away significant military resources from the border India. India also has a range of partners who share fears about the PRC.

In short, Pakistan's alliance with the Global Jihad has weakened China's ability to use Pakistan to get concessions and deference from India. I do not see this dynamic changing even if China turns Pakistan in to a short-cut to the Indian Ocean. The PRC if it is smart will stop pushing India, because India is becoming freer than ever to push back.

Let me put it another way; Pakistan's jihadi tendencies are no longer an asset for the PRC, but a liability. If they can not change those tendencies, they must change their own behaviour towards India out of self-interest. If they don't work this out they are going to lose the new Great Game or Cold War, or whatever you want to call it.

[Venkarl]

Interesting times ahead huh? ...and thanks for all explanation Johann.

[Pulikeshi]

So by not letting them stop and by letting them antagonize India, helps India to become far more powerful in the long run. And if I can safely say --becoming powerful can/will fetch powerful allies...then can I assume that it will take care of behavior problem?

OTOH...if our conciliation with China is to nip Pakistan...Chinese won't do that for nothing? what does India have to offer Chinese? and those offers not being self-goals?...on what aspects or matters can India conciliate with China with Pakistan as target? or should the conciliation effort not target Pakistan for now?

Not that you asked me...

Becoming powerful can/will bring powerful enemies as well. Let me provide clarity:
The real question to ask is what is the end goal for India vis-à-vis China and Pakistan?

1. Regarding Pakistan the answer – a loose conglomeration of states in an Indian orbit.
2. Regarding China the answer –
   1. A China that is minimalist land power. Therefore, a China without Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia Hui, Guangxi Zhuang, etc. The goal is to get it back to Ming dynasty like borders.
   2. Keeping a minimalist land power called China tied down in regional conflicts to never allow it to become a regional power.
   3. Developing and maintaining strong relationships with Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Chinese Minorities, etc.

Any conciliation with the current Chinese regime is futile as they do not have any incentive, except perhaps, India foregoing an alliance with the US. However, the Chinese are not known to bestow any kindness, in return for hypothetical restraint and history proves this fact.

Actually regarding Pakistan, it is better to work with the US.
India via the US has had mixed success in keeping Pakistan under leash, but it is "peanuts!"
If the US requires Indian help with China, then the price is Pakistan. Simble onlee!

[TonyMontana]

I don't know!, but what I can tell you for sure is that "normal" entities don't usually think in terms of "nice vs. bad", or "victim vs. aggressor", or "fear vs. brave" etc.

Like you question my definition of "nice", I question your definition of "normal".

Some Chinese working harder...
Let me make this statement here, "Civilizationally, China IS India's backyard."

Oh snap! This proves it doesn't it? All Chinese worship Indian Gods. You must be so proud.

I can't speak for 1.4 billion Chinese but I am willing to guess that they all want a good life first. After that they may want world dominance. I don't know.

China never wanted world dominace. We just want our corner of the world...ours.
World's resources on the other hand...

Do all Chinese have a good life? In the absence of free information from China the only way to figure this out is to look at it indirectly. What are the requirements of a "good life?". The US claims that they have "world class" standards for their people. Has China reached the per capita consumption of the US yet? Or that of Norway? Not by a long shot. So on the surface it appears that "a good life for all Chinese" is work in progress.

My definition of a "good life" is one that is better then before. Happiness is relative. Not absolute. As long as your life is getting better, or there is hope that it will get better if you work at it. Then it is a good life. The pursuit of happiness, so to speak.

War does not always improve trade. China is most certainly choosing the path of peace and trade - which are the best routes to take.

I will believe China chose war when I see it. If you notice, there is always a cool down after these "incidents", ie the fishing captain. Posturing don't mean an intention to start a hot war.

Over a thousand years ago, China was a great exporter of goods that went overland via the silk route. Robbers who controlled those routes controlled trade. Some export went by sea.

China is developing and maintaining trade routes both on land and at sea as best as we can. The actions in the Indian Ocean and central asia are all defensive in nature. We are just trying to secure our trade routes.

One of the few places that Mao showed any real smarts was in refusing to confront both superpowers at once.

If you noticed, China only picks on "weak" countries. The relationship with America has been as good as it ever was, or ever likely to be.

The question is why? Do you suspect its just 'inexperience' and overconfidence?
Will it cause China to make a mistake as the PLA drives them into multi-front confrontations?

No soldier want to train and never go on deployment. It is only natural for generals to want to add some notches to their belt. This is a problem that the CCP has to deal with. Sometimes they throw them a bone to keep them happy. But start an actual balls out war? I don't think the PLA has that kind of influence.

I am betting on Hyper-Han Nationalism.

China has spread out so far and wide. If America and China really get into a serious Cold-War, and the smallest of skirmishes could precipitate that, then China can forget its export markets. Nationalism is going to be the undoing of PRC.

I call wishful thinking on your part. For this to occur you have to assume your adversary is irrational. Because this is bad for PRC. You are betting on Chinese screwing themselves up. Not a good strategy for India, as I mentioned before.

[*]Regarding China the answer –

1. A China that is minimalist land power. Therefore, a China without Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia Hui, Guangxi Zhuang, etc. The goal is to get it back to Ming dynasty like borders.
2. Keeping a minimalist land power called China tied down in regional conflicts to never allow it to become a regional power.

I dare say this is the Chinese strategy regarding India as well. Now you have to ask yourself a honest question. Who's doing better in this exam?

[Pulikeshi]

I dare say this is the Chinese strategy regarding India as well. Now you have to ask yourself a honest question. Who's doing better in this exam?

I dare say GOI has no need and does not listen to foolish me
See what shining a mirror does - India can benefit from Chinese strategy to introspect.
Of course China is doing better at this exam, but wait till graduation day!