• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

Now that China is making provocative moves against Indian territory, the Indians might start thinking about how to respond.

Tibet is one of those places that vex Indian strategists, and is also the location of the headwaters for many of China's rivers.

Hmmmmm
 
Thucydides said:
Now that China is making provocative moves against Indian territory, the Indians might start thinking about how to respond.

Tibet is one of those places that vex Indian strategists, and is also the location of the headwaters for many of China's rivers.

Hmmmmm


Without minimizing the importance of the Himalayan watershed, the Chinese water problem is characterized by a North/South divide. The Himalayan watershed feeds the already "wet" South which has over 80% of China's fresh water; it is the North, which has less than 20% of the available water, where the problems exist.

1-s2.0-S0304389409017634-gr7.jpg

China's water resources. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389409017634

china_pop_1971.jpg

China's population distribution. Source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/china.html

It is also not clear to me that Tibet is fertile ground for Indian interference. While the "Tibetan independence movement" is large and vocal, it is, as far as I can see, essentially "foreign:" based in India, amongst Tibetan exiles, and supported from abroad. My sense - which may be seriously misinformed - is that most (just many? just some?) Tibetans are conscious of the fact that being Chinese has benefits.
 
While it seems unlikely the Tibetans can or will expel the Chinese on their own (or for that matter, might not even want to), I did find it intriguing that you mentioned water. Robert Kaplan made the point about the reason for the Chinese occupation of Tibet and to some extent the Xinjiang region has everything to do with control of the headwaters of their river systems. His book "The Revenge of Geography" goes on about this.

If the Indians (or Russians or Islamists from the 'Stans, for that matter) are bent on making trouble for China, these are fertile grounds to start since they have restive non Chinese populations, and are vital ground for China as a whole due to the watershed issue.
 
Do I detect the impact of all of those horse tribes in those maps ERC?

The horsemen could manage the cyclical droughts by moving to the water and maintaining a low population density.  But part of their secret to success was moving to the Yellow River or the Dniepr as the circumstances warranted.  Movement to the Yellow presented a degree of discomfort to the local Han. 

Consequently the Han seem to have set up a forward defence line on the passes across inhospitable land.  The western regions.

I think the Han now have the same problem with the horsemen that the Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and Turks have with the Kurds.

They can't live with them and they can't live without them.

They need to control the zone and would be happier with the inhabitants gone but a few millenia of trying to eliminate them has been singularly unsuccessful.   

So now the Han are stuck trying to flood regions with settlers that are used to a river based, sedentary, high density, agrarian society into spaces that can't support that lifestyle.  Kind of like Las Vegas?

The Han settlers have to revise their lifestyle expectations to match the locals.  Do they want to do that? 

Regardless of the how the Han adapt will the locals ever accept them as anything other than intruders?

Tibet, Xingjiang and Mongolia would suggest not.

Perhaps a rational Han strategy would be to retire to the rivers and leave the hills and deserts to the neighbours and try to get along with them.

Your population density map suggests that most Han still "prefer" to live by the rivers.  They might find it easier to exploit resources in the west if they are not having to expend effort subduing local populations and protecting their lines of communication.
 
I was watching a short documentary on HBO's series Vice last night. It discussed the huge residential construction boom in China and how they calculate GDP based on construction, and not real estate transactions.

As a result they have created hundreds of ghost towns of highrise residential developments and the supporting infrastructure, designed for millions of people, that are sparsely populated with only single digit occupancy rates. It's like a post apocalyptic world.

Due to the extreme disparity between supply of residential units and almost zero demand, the potential effect on the global economy when the bubble bursts will be even more devastating than the US housing bubble. At that time, residential construction was at 16% of GDP. Currently in China it is over 50% of GDP.

Current vacant residential square footage in China is at the point where they could provide a 5' x 5' cubical sized room for every man, woman and child in China.
 
So let me get this straight.

The Chinese have just enough accomodation to put a family of four (an illegal family with one too many kids) into a 10'x10' area (a small bedroom in most houses I've lived in).  This suggests that China still doesn't have enough housing for the available population.

At the same time the housing they do have is sitting vacant.

What is preventing people living in those housing complexes?  Don't they want to be there?  Are they not permitted to be there?  Can't they afford them? Are the houses not where the people are?

Inquiring mind very confused.
 
Kirkhill said:
So let me get this straight.

The Chinese have just enough accomodation to put a family of four (an illegal family with one too many kids) into a 10'x10' area (a small bedroom in most houses I've lived in).  This suggests that China still doesn't have enough housing for the available population.

At the same time the housing they do have is sitting vacant.

What is preventing people living in those housing complexes?  Don't they want to be there?  Are they not permitted to be there?  Can't they afford them? Are the houses not where the people are?

Inquiring mind very confused.


The empty houses are real - I've seen them. I'm not sure of the scale of the problem but I know it exists in at least two provinces. The developments I saw were certainly above 10% occupancy - looked like maybe ⅓ full. As to the whys ... all of your points apply. I saw mostly empty homes in a "new" town in a fairly remote region where a) most people didn't want to go and b) those who had gone wanted to save their money so they lived like paupers. It wasn't so much that they couldn't afford the housing as they didn't want to pay that much. They had migrated from poor farms, they were used to doing without. They economized - three people in one tiny room - and saved their money/sent it home to Mom.

It isn't just housing - I also saw mostly empty industrial estates - HUGE ones - built on the "if you build it they will come" principle. Well, in one case (Yiyang in Hunan Province) they did come, in another case, in Anhui Province, the industrial park sat empty - with supporting road and rail lines and electricity and so on - sat almost totally empty five years after it was completed.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Without minimizing the importance of the Himalayan watershed, the Chinese water problem is characterized by a North/South divide. The Himalayan watershed feeds the already "wet" South which has over 80% of China's fresh water; it is the North, which has less than 20% of the available water, where the problems exist.

1-s2.0-S0304389409017634-gr7.jpg

China's water resources. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389409017634

china_pop_1971.jpg

China's population distribution. Source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/china.html
.

*Perhaps this is the reason why the famed "Three Gorges Dam" was considered one the targets selected for retaliation by Taiwan/the ROCAF in the event of a PLA invasion of Taiwan?

The "Three Gorges Dam" (san xia da ba) is on the mighty Yangtze River, which effectively cuts eastern China in half. The resulting material damage would not only affect China's hydroelectric capacity, but its water supply as well.

Here's an older article from the China Daily, where a PLA general tries dissuade any would-be attackers from hitting the dam:

PLA general: Attempt to destroy dam doomed
(chinadaily.com.cn/agencies)
Updated: 2004-06-16 15:54


A Chinese People's Liberation Army general denounced a US suggestion that Taiwan's military target the Three Gorges dam and said on Wednesday that any attempt to strike the world's biggest hydropower project would be doomed.


In its annual report to Congress on China's military power, the Pentagon suggested in May that Taiwan target the dam as a deterrent against any strike on the island from the mainland.

China will "be seriously on guard against threats from 'Taiwan independence terrorists,"' PLA Lieutenant General Liu Yuan said in a commentary in China Youth Daily, warning against such a move.

"(It) will not be able to stop war...it will have the exact opposite of the desired effect," Liu said.
(...)
 
I hear that the unintended consequences of Three Gorges keep growing and that there is considerable disappointment in some official circles about the planning and analysis ~ maybe a realization that we, humans, are pretty poor at understanding and forecasting the potential consequences of mega-projects.
 
My friend, SMA drew my attention to the design of the new Peoples' Daily (newspaper) building in Beijing:

The-Peoples-Daily-office--009.jpg

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/may/10/beijing-peoples-daily-giant-penis

(My guess is that it will look a bit less penile when the top is finished, but ...  ::) )

Beijing and Shanghai each have several new buildings with innovative architecture:

CCTV-Tower-by-Rem-Koolhaa-008.jpg

The Dutch designed CCTV Building in Beijing
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/apr/16/shenzhen-stock-exchange-building-miniskirt

OMA+.+Stock+Exchange+building+.+Shenzhen.jpg

Shenzhen Stock Exchange Building - also designed by Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas
Source:
http://afasiaarq.blogspot.com/2012/01/oma.html

Like them or not, one cannot fault the Chinese authorities for being timid.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Fair enough, but I think Beijing is trying - at least has tried for a decade, we'll see what Xi wants to do - to de-emphasize the "stick" and emphasize the socio-economic "carrots". The biggest carrot is Hong Kong's example ~ prosperous, politically and economically "independent," and, broadly, "free" from Beijing's rule.

I don't think Beijing can buy Taiwan and I think that, for the time being, Beijing will not risk trying to seize it by force ~ that leaves "voluntary" reunification which can happen only if Taiwan believes that Beijing can be trusted to respect "one country, n systems."


I have banged on, pretty regularly, about my view that China will develop as "one country n systems," but a young Chinese friend, a CCP member and a PhD candidate in Beijing, takes issue with me.

"One country two systems" is, she says, both logical and easily justified but "one country n systems" appears to head towards chaos and that is 180o out of phase with the CCP's central policy.

So, I asked, how to incorporate Taiwan?

"One country, two systems," she replied: Taiwan will demand more political freedom than Hong Kong has and Beijing will accept those demands and those freedoms will be given to both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Eventually, she goes on, that "second system" will be extended to provinces like Tianjin (China's richest province, but small - only 13 million people, and fairly self contained) and other rich, sophisticated provinces, including even Guangdong (population 105 million). But ti will not, she suggests, extend, not for a very long time, to Xinjiang or Tibet: they are too poor, too "different," and too politicallt unstable to be allowed any substantial "freedom."

So she sees "one country, two systems" spreading from Hong Kong and Taiwan to the rich, sophisticated provinces on the Eastern seaboard and, eventually, to all of China - but not in my or even her lifetime.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
So she sees "one country, two systems" spreading from Hong Kong and Taiwan to the rich, sophisticated provinces on the Eastern seaboard and, eventually, to all of China - but not in my or even her lifetime.

Don't you think that this is a more realistic look at a gradual transition being in the best interests of China, opposed to an instantaneous and possible catastrophic new "Cultural Revolution"?
 
George Wallace said:
Don't you think that this is a more realistic look at a gradual transition being in the best interests of China, opposed to an instantaneous and possible catastrophic new "Cultural Revolution"?


Yes, I suppose I do.

China needs to become:

    First, and as a mater of urgency, less corrupt; and

    Second, more "democratic," by which I mean - government with the consent of the governed (free and fair elections being one way, our way of doing that) and equality and and under the law, for both the governed and the governors, and,
    most important, respect for the rule of law.

My bright young friend's prescription - "one country, two systems" spreading, slowly but surely, from province to province until the "second system" is dominant - seems to promise both better than my "one country n systems" course of action.


 
E.R. Campbell said:
My bright young friend's prescription - "one country, two systems" spreading, slowly but surely, from province to province until the "second system" is dominant - seems to promise both better than my "one country n systems" course of action.

I am also interested in the question of how the Taiwan/ROC military or Guo Min Jun (國民軍) will fit into the whole scheme of reunification under "one country, n systems" arrangement. Taiwan's military is the same institution that descended from Chiang-Kai Shek's Whampoa (黃埔) military academy whose graduates helped Chiang wrest most of the country from the warlords' rule during the Northern Expedition of the late 1920s.

Taiwan's military is also the same Republic of China military that eventually came to be strongly Germanized in the 1930s because of the influx of German advisers and equipment before the 1937 embargo on further weapons imports by Hitler to China, and Berlin's eventual alliance with Tokyo during World War II.

During World War II, the Guo Min Jun's battles in Burma and Southwest China against Japanese forces saw it more Americanized due to the influx of American advisors and equipment during that war.

Thus wouldn't this mix of German and American traditions make it harder for them to integrate with the PLA if reunification would come?

Or perhaps wouldn't they be retained as some sort of internal, regional Taiwan defence force? In much the same way the former Royal Hong Kong Police were retained in Hong Kong after the 1997 handover to China and maintain many of their British-style uniforms and customs (e.g. parade drill)?


And speaking of Taiwan's military...

Is this update below an inevitable result of switching from a conscript military to a fully volunteer one?

A result which Taiwan, which has lived with the threat of invasion from the mainland for over 60 years, cannot afford if tensions rise again or even escalate later?

Taiwan's all-volunteer military lacks recruits
May 15, 2013

Associated Press

- The military fell 4,000 short of its goal of 15,000 volunteers last year, and likewise was 2,000 short of its much smaller target of 4,000 in 2011. Recruitment is proving difficult in a prosperous society that offers young people alternatives and does not glorify military service. Unlike in the United States, political candidates here almost never mention military service when campaigning, almost as if it were a badge of shame.

"I pretty much agree with that old Chinese saying that good people don't go into the military," said Yen Shou-cheng, 28, who manages a food shop in downtown Taipei. "I myself did just a couple of weeks of training and it was a total waste of time. There are far more important things in life than serving your country in the army--earning good money to take care of your wife and kids, for example".

Some young people also question the need for a strong defense, because of Taiwan's rapidly improving relations and expanding trade with its once implacable foe on the Chinese mainland. Moreover, given China's growing military strength, some think resistance would be futile.

"I think Taiwan has no chance of winning in a fight against China," said Wang Yen-zhou, 19, a student at Taipei's Taiwan National University. "We are not strong enough. So fighting doesn't make sense".

Gone are the days when Taiwan could recruit soldiers with martial music and patriotic slogans about retaking the mainland. Today, hip depictions of soldiers dressed as funky cartoon characters are a dominant theme at the Keelung Street military recruiting center in Taipei, one of four such centers spread around this island of 23 million people.

(...)

link
 
In the wake of the recent sea spate where a Taiwanese fisherman was allegedly shot by the Philippine Coast Guard and the resulting tensions between China, Taiwan and the Philippines:

A PLA General then makes a bold statement...

CA28N0019H_2011%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E7%85%A7%E7%89%87_N71_copy1.JPG


General Luo Yuan, known as one of the most outspoken senior officers in China's People's Liberation Army, has said that the killing of Taiwanese fisherman Hung Shih-cheng by the Philippine coast guard has given China an opportunity to seize the eight islands currently held by Manila in the South China Sea, according to the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po.

"Opening fire on a Taiwanese fishing boat is not only a provocation to Taiwan, but to the entire Chinese family," said Luo. "I don't know what law the Taiwanese fishing boat violated for fishing in the overlapping exclusive economic zones instead of the Philippines' territorial waters."

If the Philippines continues to harass Taiwanese fishing vessels, Luo said the PLA will launch an attack to recover an island in the Spratlys held by the Philippines. The general China gained experience in dealing with the Philippines in the standoff over Scarborough Shoal last year.

Want China Times link
 
Chinese President Xi Jinping visits the US next month; if I can recall correctly, he was merely vice-president the last time he visited the US.

Diplomat link

(...)

The highlight of the trip is undoubtedly the Sino-U.S. summit. According to Qin, the two leaders will “have an extensive and in-depth exchange of views on bilateral relations as well as international and regional issues of common interest. It is believed that this meeting is important to the long-term, sound and steady development of China-US relations as well as regional and international peace, stability and prosperity.” Qin also noted that National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will visit China from May 26 to 28, to prepare for the summit.

This news has been quite sudden, but it allows us to identify some characteristics of current Sino-US relations.

First, it was interesting to note how little coverage of the visit there was prior to the official announcement, even in the usually well-informed international media. In fact, the summit is to be held somewhat earlier than expected. That suggests both sides were careful in their preparations and attention.

Second, the fact that planning for the visit involves the U.S. National Security Advisor and his counterparts in China indicates that security is an important objective of this visit, rather than the usual focus on general political, economic and cultural issues that might be associated with a state visit.

Third, Xi visited the U.S. in February 2012 when he was vice president. The upcoming visit is coming only just over a year later and only two months after taking office. That’s quite unprecedented in the context of bilateral relations. Former President Hu Jintao took office in March 2003, but didn’t visit the U.S. until three years later in April 2006. Jiang Zemin became president in March 1993, and made his first U.S. visit four years later, in October 1997.

Finally, this is not a state visit. Xi and Obama will meet at the Annenberg Retreat in Rancho Mirage, California. The arrangement suggests a degree of maturity in the Sino-U.S. relations, and a chance to take the relationship to a new level.

(...)
 
Not really surprising. The Chinese J31 "Falcon Eagle" fighter prototype looks almost exactly like the US F35/JSF, save for the fact the Chinese copy has 2 engines while the JSF only has one.

link

WASHINGTON/CANBERRA (Reuters) - Chinese hackers have gained access to designs of more than two dozen major U.S. weapons systems, a U.S. report said on Monday, as Australian media said Chinese hackers had stolen the blueprints for Australia's new spy headquarters.

Citing a report prepared for the Defence Department by the Defence Science Board, the Washington Post said the compromised U.S. designs included those for combat aircraft and ships, as well as missile defences vital for Europe, Asia and the Gulf.

Among the weapons listed in the report were the advanced Patriot missile system, the Navy's Aegis ballistic missile Defence systems, the F/A-18 fighter jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The report did not specify the extent or time of the cyber-thefts or indicate if they involved computer networks of the U.S. government, contractors or subcontractors.

But the espionage would give China knowledge that could be exploited in a conflict, such as the ability to knock out communications and corrupting data, the Post said. It also could speed China's development of its Defence technology.

In a report to Congress this month, the Pentagon said China was using espionage to modernize its military and its hacking was a serious concern. It said the U.S. government had been the target of hacking that appeared to be "attributable directly to the Chinese government and military."

China dismissed the report as groundless.

China also dismissed as without foundation a February report by the U.S. computer security company Mandiant, which said a secretive Chinese military unit was probably behind a series of hacking attacks targeting the United States that had stolen data from 100 companies.

AUSTRALIAN "SECURITY BLUNDER"

In Australia, a news report said hackers linked to China stole the floor plans of a A$630 million headquarters for the Australia Security Intelligence Organisation, the country's domestic spy agency.

The attack through the computers of a construction contractor exposed not only building layouts, but also the location of communication and computer networks, it said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, asked about the Australian report, said China disapproved of hacking.

"China pays high attention to the cyber security issue and is firmly opposed to all forms of hacker attacks," Hong said at a daily briefing.

"Since it is very difficult to find out the origin of hacker attacks, it is very difficult to find out who carried out such attacks," Hong said. "I don't know what the evidence is for media to make such kinds of reports."

Repeating China's position that every country was susceptible to cyber attacks, Hong said nations should make joint efforts towards a secure and open Internet.

Australia security analyst Des Ball told the ABC that such information about the yet to be completed spy headquarters made it vulnerable to cyber attacks.

"You can start constructing your own wiring diagrams, where the linkages are through telephone connections, through wi-fi connections, which rooms are likely to be the ones that are used for sensitive conversations, how to surreptitiously put devices into the walls of those rooms," said Ball.

The building is designed to be part of an electronic intelligence gathering network that includes the United States and Britain. Its construction has been plagued by delays and cost over-runs with some builders blaming late design changes on cyber attacks.

The ABC report said the Chinese hacking was part of a wave of cyber attacks against business and military targets in the close U.S. ally.

It said the hackers also stole confidential information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which houses the overseas spy agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and had targeted companies, including steel-manufacturer Bluescope Steel, and military and civilian communications manufacturer Codan Ltd.

The influential Greens party said the hacking was a "security blunder of epic proportions" and called for an inquiry, but the government did not confirm the breach.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the reports were "inaccurate", but declined to say how.

Despite being one of Beijing's major trade partners, Australia is seen by China as the southern fulcrum of a U.S. military pivot to the Asia-Pacific. In 2011, it agreed to host thousands of U.S. Marines in near-permanent rotation.

Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei was last year barred from bidding for construction contracts on a new Australian high-speed broadband network amid fears of cyber espionage.

The Reserve Bank of Australia said in March that it had been targeted by cyber attacks, but no data had been lost or systems compromised amid reports the hackers had tried to access intelligence negotiations among a Group of 20 wealthy nations.

(Additional reporting by Terril Yue jones in BEIJING; riting by Bill Trott in WASHINGTON and Rob Taylor in CANBERRA; Editing by Michael Perry and Robert Birsel

The resemblance between the F35 and China's J31 "Falcon Eagle" ...  :o
417872_506283686104976_425761179_n.jpg
 
Back
Top