Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[a_majoor]

On a sidenote that would be better on some other thread no doubt. The above would work even better if some of that offloading downward continued to the municipalities to bring it closer to those who need it (read less bureaucracy).

Actually, we have quite enough "downloading", which in the case of London is claimed to consume $352 million dollars of "our" budget. In other words, Queens park is dictating what programs we "must" have, and also defining the city budget (without my voting Dalton McGuinty for mayor either).

IF we are really serious about reducing government spending and getting our financial house in order, then we might consider "unloading" instead. Many government programs at all levels are basicly welfare for people, groups and companies which either don't need the money (many profitable companies get millions of dollars in subsidies); or wouldn't exist without the handout. Frankly if you are not going to offer a good or service that I want, why should I be forced to pay for that good or service through my taxes?

Shifting deficits and debts downward is only a shell game, the total amount of Canadian debt is still enormous, and combined with the unfunded liabilities of pensions (everything from CPP to Military Pensions) we are still hanging over the abyss. Economic corrections which would inconveinience the Americans would probably have our economy completely unravel, and only Alberta, which has no debt and a large resource revenue base will emerge unscathed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The GST did reduce and, eventually, eliminate the deficit â “ it was helped by EI premiums and downloading but it was, mainly, Lyin' Brian Mulroney's much hated (by ignorant Canadians) GST which put our fiscal house in order. (Source: statement(s) by David Dodge, DM Finance ('92 to '97), now Governor of the Bank of Canada, to the press and to parliamentary committees in the late '90s â “ I'm too lazy to go find them but he did say that).

Canadian politicians â “ including most Conservatives â “ are spendthrifts.  They are not quite as bad as the current crop in the USA, but they're close.  The Bush administration's spending is disgraceful and is endangering America.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Back to China.

As I have said before, and elsewhere, some of this sabre rattling, on both sides of the Pacific, is just that, and some, also on both sides, is just fear mongering aimed at distracting public attention from other, equally pressing problems.

This is from today's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050706/CHINA06/TPInternational/?query=Alarm+bells+sound

Alarm bells sound over China's 'fascist society'

Economic clout, perceived militarism sparking fear in Washington and Tokyo

BY GEOFFREY YORK
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2005 UPDATED AT 11:47 AM EDT

BEIJING -- A sudden drumbeat of panicky warnings about China's growing military and economic power is sparking fears that the United States and Japan could soon be entangled in conflict with the world's most populous nation.

The ominous warnings have been everywhere in the American and Japanese media in recent weeks, ringing alarm bells over China's rapid military modernization and its voracious appetite for Western corporations.

Pentagon officials have been quoted anonymously as saying that China is a "fascist state" of Nazi proportions. One major U.S. magazine, The Atlantic, has published a cover story on how the United States would wage a war with China. Another magazine, The New Republic, has suggested that China could be "the first nation since the fall of the Soviet Union that could seriously challenge the United States for control of the international system." Both the United States and Japan are preparing new official defence papers that will focus largely on the Chinese threat. Both papers have been leaked to sympathetic media, and the leaks portray China as a potentially belligerent superpower with a frightening arsenal of missiles and high-tech weaponry.

The Japanese defence paper is warning that China has shifted to "aggressive" military strategies -- including an expansion of its naval activities -- that must be carefully watched, according to a report this week in the Yomiuri Shimbun, an influential Japanese newspaper.

In a major speech in Singapore last month, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a preview of the Pentagon defence paper. He sharply criticized the Chinese military buildup, predicting that China's advanced new missiles could hit targets around the world.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?" he said. "Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?"

China's economic muscle is equally alarming to both countries. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 398-15 to oppose a Chinese takeover of Unocal, the California-based oil giant. The resolution said the takeover bid by CNOOC Ltd., the state-owned Chinese oil company, would "threaten to impair the national security of the United States."

A white paper by the Japanese trade ministry this month, meanwhile, is warning of the growing risks of investment in the Chinese market. It suggests that Japanese investors should shift production to Southeastern Asia instead.

Beijing is expressing outrage at the foreign criticism. Yesterday it lashed out at Japan, accusing it of adding a "chill" to the already frosty relationship between the two Asian neighbours.

"The two white papers smack of all-out hostility on the part of Japan, which is counterproductive," the state-owned China Daily newspaper said in an editorial. "Its attitude toward China is an unease over its neighbour's progress." The comments by Mr. Rumsfeld have provoked similar anger from Beijing.

"In trumpeting the 'China threat theory' abroad, Rumsfeld's intention is to evoke doubts and worries among China's neighbouring countries, so as to drive a wedge in the relations between China and the East Asian neighbours," said the People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, in a front-page article last month.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, rejected the American criticism of China's military spending. The annual U.S. military budget, he said, is 77 times bigger than the Chinese military budget in per capita terms.

But with no hint of any slowdown in China's military growth, and with CNOOC still pushing ahead relentlessly in its pursuit of Unocal, the controversy over China's intentions is bound to continue. Much of the U.S. commentary is painting China as a potential successor to the Soviet Union.

"China's emergence as a growing power could threaten America's role as the primary guarantor of stability in Asia," a lengthy article in The New Republic concluded last week.

The Washington Times, a right-wing daily with close links to the Pentagon, predicted that China could be ready to attack Taiwan within two years. "We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," it quoted a senior U.S. defence official as saying.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.​

The danger is that the media - state controlled or just rabidly partisan - can whip up fear and hate and expectations.   The leaked white papers have already served their purposes - they are propaganda rather than considered policy.

We, the American led West, need to have a serious, strategic debate about how we plan to live with China in 2050.   We need to contain China in an array of socio-economic snares while it, gradually but inevitably, evolves into a law abiding, law respecting, albeit, probably, conservative democracy and trading partner and competitor.   The alternative is a land war in Asia which is a stupid choice.

We need to be prepared to fight China, and to win, but we mustn't plan on it - and there is a big difference.

Edit: I mean prepare and plan in the political/strategic sense.  The military must plan and prepare for operations in war anywhere and everywhere, but politocal leaders must plan to contain not fight.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Containing is exactly what we â “ many, only loosely affiliated Western nations, led by Canada when Louis St. Laurent was Minister of External Affairs â “ did to the United States in the '40s.

St. Laurent and some others understood that the new world order â “ King used that phrases in about 1940 to describe Canada's changing relations with Britain and the USA â “ needed an engaged America.  Many (St. Laurent less so) feared that isolationism would rise again in America, quickly and powerfully, as soon as the war was over.  Although the United Nations was, essentially, an American invention and although Truman and Acheson were committed internationalists, many people feared â “ with some justification, I think â “ that the American people are naturally and historically isolationist.

Truman was succeeded by another committed internationalist: Eisenhower and we had a decade plus during which America consented to be ensnared within a vast maze of agreements and alliances and arrangements â “ all of which tied it, more and more tightly, to a real new world order â “ one managed by voluntary standards.  That order is a fair guarantor of peace and prosperity so long as all the real superpowers join and remain 'in.'

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

We need more of this (discrediting and destabilizing the Chinese government):

Hackers 1, China 0
by James Dunnigan
July 5, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

Hackers, apparently Chinese, worked their way into the website of a Chinese government Internet security firm, and defaced the company web page. This caused some embarrassment, although the company, Beijing General Security Service, was not noted for Internet security, but for hiring and supervising 4,000 "internet security guards" to monitor what Internet users in the Chinese capital do online. While much message traffic on message boards and in chat rooms is monitored with software (often from American suppliers), human monitors are needed to go after "subversive citizens" who might be speaking in code. China is making a determined effort to prevent the Internet from becoming an uncontrolled source of information the government does not approve of.

Police states, like China, have a serious problem with the Internet. They need it, for economic reasons. The Internet has become part of the worldwide economic infrastructure. But the Internet also allows unfettered exchange of information. For a police state, this is bad. A police state remains in power, in part, by controlling the media. China has a booming economy, and cannot afford to lock down, or keep out, the Internet, as has happened in police states with poor economies (North Korea, Cuba, Burma). So China is adding more software, and personnel, to police Chinese Internet users. So far, their approach has made many casual Internet users wary of saying, or looking for, anything the government does not approve of. But millions of more savvy Chinese Internet users know of ways to get around the â Å“Great Firewall of China,â ? to do as they wish on the Internet. This attack on the Beijing General Security Service was just a reminder that the Chinese war on the Internet is far from over.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005756243.asp

 

[TCBF]

Subject: CCP Believes Australian Government Can Be Bought

Chen Yonglin: CCP Believes Australian Government Can Be Bought
Jun 24, 2005


Picture:Chen Yonglin at the press conference on June 22, 2005 (The
Epoch
Times)

When Chen Yonglin, the former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) diplomat
seeking asylum in Australia, first announced his intention to defect,
he
told the world about the close relationship between the CCP and the
Australian government, and stressed that the CCP operates a 1,000
person
spy network in Australia. Since then the media has been trying to
follow
up on this sensitive topic, but Chen has remained silent. On June 22nd
Chen held a press conference during which he began to elaborate on his
knowledge of the dealings between the two governments. What follows
are
excerpts of Chen speaking at the conference.

China Seeks To Make Australia Part of Its "Great Border Area"

"In February of 2005, Zhou Wenzhong, the Chinese Vice Minister of
Foreign
Affairs, held a meeting at the Chinese Embassy in Australia with the
ambassadors and consuls general to Australia and New Zealand, and the
general consuls and the diplomats in charge of political affairs. I
accompanied Qiu Shaofang, the general consul of the Chinese consulate
in
Sidney, to attend the meeting.

"The main purpose of the meeting was to implement the decision made
during
the 10th Meeting of the Chinese Diplomats in Foreign Counties held in
mid-August of 2004, at the suggestion of Hu Jintao, the General
Secretary
of the CCP, to make Australia part of the "Great Border Area" of
China.
They asked each consulate to provide its point of view and suggestions
for
the next step.

"During the meeting, Zhou Wenzhong shared information about the CCP
Central Government's strategic planning toward Australia and the
United
States, which is related to the close ties between these two
countries.
The CCP wants to break through the military union of the two countries
and
turn Australia into a second France. It hopes to shape Australia into
a
country that dares to say "no" to the United States.

"China first started crafting its plan to reshape Australia when it
learned that Australia was planning to give up ties with Asia in favor
of
stronger ties with the United States. At that time the free trade
negotiations between Australia and the United States were at a climax
and
Australia had high hopes of being included in the North America Free
Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Meanwhile, Australia had a big court case pending
with
Guangdong Province in China, concerning natural gas, which was making
it
less and less popular with the Chinese government.

"In March of 2003 Tang Jaixuan, the Chinese Minister of Foreign
Affairs,
visited Australia and questioned the Australian government on certain
issues, including issues related to Falun Gong. On the day before Tang
Jiaxuan arrived in Canberra, Alexander Downer, the Australian Minister
for
Foreign Affairs, signed an article banning Falun Gong practitioners
from
setting up signs and banners or using loud speakers to protest in
front of
the Chinese embassy. Since then Downer has continued to sign similar
articles every month, which has made Tang Jiaxuan very happy.

"That same year, China initiated the celebration of the 30-year
anniversary of the establishment of the relationship between China and
Australia. The Chinese government sent many groups to Australia to
promote
Chinese culture and political ideology.

"In 2003 when Hu Jintao visited Australia he received unprecedented
treatment in Canberra. Bob Brown, a congressmen belonging to the
Greens-
the opposition party- was not allowed to enter the building where
congress
was being held. This was done to prevent the attendance of dissidents
and
Falun Gong practitioners that might have shown up as the congressman's
guests. Hu Jintao was delighted and commented to his staff that this
was a
sign that the Australian government could be influenced.

"In 2005 when Wu Bangguo visited Australia, he requested the same
treatment- not to see or hear any protestors or dissidents. Next Year,
China plans to send Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to visit
Australia,
and in 2007 Hu Jintao will be in Australia to attend the World
Economic
Summit."

The CCP Thinks The Australian Government Can Be Bought

"Over the past several years, Chinese officials have successfully
built
close personal relationships with their Australian counterparts, all
for
the purpose of establishing leverage in the Australian government. The
CCP
is convinced that the Australian government can be coerced to follow
its
aims through application of economic pressures and incentives. It
plans to
use economic pressure to force Australia to cave on political and
human
rights issues.

"The dialogue on human rights between China and Australia over the
past
several years was merely a show put on to appease the Australian
public.
In fact, there was no progress made. When high-ranking Australian
officials visited China, they did not raise any human right issues. I
knew
what was said during their visits, because a summary news brief of
each
visit was sent to the consulate."

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Helped the CCP to Wriggle Out
of a
Difficult Lawsuit

"Due to the nature of my work as a diplomat, I have witnessed many
instances of secret dealing between the Chinese and Australian
governments, and such knowledge has weighed heavily on my conscience.
I
know that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Chinese
Embassy in Canberra share all of their information with each other.
The
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs even gives suggestions to the
Chinese government on how to handle difficult political issues.

"For example, Zhang Cuiying, a Falun Gong practitioner, lodged a
lawsuit
in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the former Chinese
president and the 6-10 Office for genocide, torture and crimes against
humanity. Based on an article of the national amnesty code of
Australia,
the lawsuit was not handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, but by a special substitute process. This greatly embarrassed
the
Chinese government and caused it much distress, because it did not
want to
have to face Falun Gong practitioners in open court proceedings.

"To help the CCP, the Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and
Trade
provided several solutions. Dr. Geoff Raby, Deputy Secretary of the
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, promised the
Chinese
government that when he visited China in March, 2005 that he would ask
for
the materials from the Supreme Court, cancel the lawsuit by the Falun
Gong
practitioners and put an end to the charges against the Chinese
leader.
Raby later regretted making this offer.

"The Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade offered another
solution: to
have the Chinese government send a representative to stand trial in
place
of the leader, and thus expedite the lawsuit. The Chinese government
did
not adopt this suggestion and instead decided to put pressure on the
ministry, which resulted in the ministry's cooperation in preparing
many
legal documents to assist the CCP."

Chen ended the press conference with this comment: "I have witnessed
too
many secret deals between the Australian and Chinese governments. I am
really concerned that I will be betrayed. Therefore, in case I should
run
into sudden misfortune, I have spoken my mind to the public."

Please see Part I, "Chinese Defector Tells of Government Plot" and
Part
II, "Chen Yonglin Describes Abduction by Chinese Agents in Australia".

(<http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-24/29770.html>


You are able to help and please do help:

1. You may help Australian by letting more Australian or citizen in
Commonwealth countries to aware the story.

2. Talk to your local MPs, Senators. They may be able to help.

3. Write letters to Australian government to express your concern.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/14/china.taiwan.nuclear.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- A senior Chinese general has warned that China was ready to use nuclear weapons against the United States if Washington attacked his country over Taiwan, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Friday.

Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army who said he was expressing his own views and did not anticipate a conflict with Washington, nevertheless said China would have no option but to go nuclear in the event of an attack.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," he told an official briefing for international journalists.

A spokeswoman for China's Foreign Ministry noted that the general had said in the article he was not speaking on behalf of the government. A spokesman later said the ministry was looking into the matter.

The Defense Ministry declined to comment, saying the Foreign Ministry had organized the event at which the general spoke.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of China, and has vowed to bring the self-governed democracy back into the fold. In March, China's parliament passed an anti-secession law authorizing the use of "non-peaceful means" to do so.

Zhu said the threat to escalate a conflict might be the only way to stop one because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war with the United States.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere ... we will be determined to respond," he said.

"We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese," he added.

China first tested a nuclear bomb in 1964. It has declared a policy of not using such weapons unless it has already suffered nuclear attack.

The newspaper observed that it was unclear what prompted the remarks, but noted that they were the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

During a visit to Beijing earlier this month U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there should be no unilateral change in the status quo over the disputed island of Taiwan.

"That means that we don't support unilateral moves toward independence by Taiwan. It also means that we are concerned about the military balance, and we'll say to China that they should do nothing militarily to provoke Taiwan," she added.

 

[Zartan]

Doesn't seem like some South Korean children have much affection for the Japanese:
http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?s=584a34d836c56dc1a4aed2d8c8bed659&showtopic=1558

 

[Zartan]

Oh yes, and this too,
http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?s=584a34d836c56dc1a4aed2d8c8bed659&showtopic=1550

It's the same thing from above, but with different pics and an introduction.

About the Australians being bought by China, the Americans have a similar feeling regarding China's shopping for Unocal.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3265441

Perhaps we Canadians should also be wary of China's investments into our oilfields?

 

[dante7sins]

This is very scary. From a lot things i read and from PBS front line, it seems china will become even more hostile in the future with conflicts over raw goods, ie: oil n' grain. Since they need these goods in order to maintain their economy, they will import these from other countries.  China atm doesn't have the ability to project force beyond its immediate area but they are pursuing a blue water navy in order to protect their interests. China is also spying on canadians too...
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-19/29643.html
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1408570.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1408571.htm

 

[jmackenzie_15]

like it or not, theyll transform into the world superpower in the next decade or two.

I dunno how they would fight a war really though, how do you feed that many soldiers?
the logistics of the whole thing are crazy.
Theyd probobly find a way though.

Something else that im certain is a sure thing, is the invasion and devouring of taiwan.

 

[daniel h.]

like it or not, theyll transform into the world superpower in the next decade or two.

I dunno how they would fight a war really though, how do you feed that many soldiers?
the logistics of the whole thing are crazy.
Theyd probobly find a way though.

Something else that im certain is a sure thing, is the invasion and devouring of taiwan.

That assume that we live in the same political paradigm. It is mostly western corporations that have made China powerful...China is dependent on resources which are running out, and in other's possession.

China was allowed to become more powerful. They did some of it on their own, but if they had to rely on their own market, they would have fewer people to sell to, as they have undervalued labour and have few who can afford their products. They have industrialized, but could have political instability as they pay people horribly and are very repressive.

They won't be THE superpower, the  world will be multi-polar.

 

[a_majoor]

This should be added to the China "superthread" in the politics section.

As you wish, sire.

One thing to note is, given China's political system and culture, Generals (or anyone else) do not just "sound off". The political give and take we take fro granted watching American politics simply does not exist in China, statements are allowed to be made in support of government policy and for very specific purposes.

Should Taiwan be invaded, the best and most practical response would be counterstrikes against the Chinese mainland to disrupt the logictical support of the invasion force, and allow the Taiwanese to neutralize and throw out the attackers. The General is clearly attempting to raise the stakes against that response, and limit American and Allied options.

China has become more powerful for many reasons, our tapping into their human resources is perhaps the primary driver of current economic growth (as is our very short term point of view; i.e. the next quarterly report), but rest assured they have their own drives and motivations, many of which clash with our interests.

 

[a_majoor]

Fourth Generation war to the nth power. Interestingly enough the date of publication is close to Al Qaeda's "Declaration of War" against the West, and both are coincident with the nadir of the Clinton Administration. When you look and act weak, people will try to take advantage of you.

American (and Western) political and economic power can be deployed against this threat, and mostly by benign policies like opening investment and free trade opportunities to fellow democracies, and strengthening potential partners like India. Other methods like "international law warfare" will have limited effect as the American public become impatient with the obstructionist UN, and "ecological warfare" may end up rebounding horribly on the perpetrator (one reason Biological Warfare is more potential than reality).

Still a prescient warning against threats coming from way out of arc.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot20jul20,0,89656.column?coll=la-home-headlines

China's stealth war on the U.S.
Max Boot

July 20, 2005

Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.

This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems â ” especially missiles and submarines â ” needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.

The Pentagon on Tuesday released a study of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs â ” not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon.

In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" â ” clearly a red, white and blue enemy â ” would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.

The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.

And so on. Once you know what to look for, the pieces fall into place with disturbing ease. Of course, most of these events have alternative, more benign explanations: Maybe Gen. Zhu is an eccentric old coot who's seen "Dr. Strangelove" a few too many times.

The deliberate ambiguity makes it hard to craft a response to "unrestricted warfare." If Beijing sticks to building nuclear weapons, we know how to deal with that â ” use the deterrence doctrine that worked against the Soviets. But how do we respond to what may or may not be indirect aggression by a major trading partner? Battling terrorist groups like Al Qaeda seems like a cinch by comparison.

This is not a challenge the Pentagon is set up to address, but it's an urgent issue for the years ahead.

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

[Britney Spears]

In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" â ” clearly a red, white and blue enemy â ” would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

OOOHHH!

Has anyone here read this work? I was going to bring it up earlier, but I didn't think there would be enough interest.

It's kind of old news, but it caused quite a stir when it came out!
<a href=http://missilethreat.com/static/19990200-LiangXiangsui-unrestrictedwar.pdf>Read the translation here</a>

 

[Britney Spears]

This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.

The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.

Resource warfare, indeed!

 

[a_majoor]

Tied on Taiwan
Current U.S. defense policy suffers from needless restrictions.

By Gary Schmitt & Dan Blumenthal

Deterring China's attempt to coerce Taiwan into unification with the mainland through military force has been United States policy for five decades The success of that policy has rested on Taiwan's willingness to maintain a robust self-defense capability and, in turn, on America's retaining the ability to project military power quickly and decisively into the region in a time of crisis. To support this policy, the Pentagon assists Taiwan through a program of arms sales, in developing a modern military force, and by investing in our own capabilities to meet Chinese aggression.

As important as these measures are, neither Taiwan nor the United States is getting its money's worth because of the unnecessary restrictions placed on our military-to-military ties with Taiwan. In some cases these restrictions are just petty, such as requiring Taiwanese military personnel to wear civilian clothes when they train in the United States, or forbidding Taiwanese pilots from wearing name badges on their flight suits during U.S. training. In other cases, they are far more serious and debilitating. Chief among these cases is the self-imposed prohibition on trips by U.S. generals, admirals, and senior defense officials to Taiwan.

In order to develop an appreciation for Taiwan's specific military needs and, in turn, to spell those needs out to America's civilian policymakers, U.S. generals and flag officers have to be able to visit Taiwan and see its military in action. Although visits by expert teams of U.S. captains and colonels to Taiwan can and do help, these lower-ranking American military officers lack the authority and the â Å“jointâ ? command experience of general officers necessary to have an effective exchange with Taiwan's senior military leaders. And, back home, anyone familiar with the ways of Washington knows that having a well-informed general or admiral make a case for a new initiative is vital if it is to be given a respectful hearing by senior military and civilian decision-makers.

Similarly, it is difficult for Taipei and Washington to discuss contingency responses to possible Chinese aggression when U.S. generals and flag officers are not able to meet regularly with their Taiwanese counterparts. Again, colonels and captains can talk about a lot of things, but only the most senior officers can really push their respective institutions to be forthright about what they can and cannot do, and to take whatever steps are necessary to fix holes in those plans. Failing this, too much uncertainty can creep into our contingency planning and, in turn, create doubts about our actual ability to deter Chinese aggression.

Should deterrence fail and conflict erupt in the Taiwan Strait, we currently face the prospect of managing an ad hoc coalition. Senior officers from Taiwan and the United States will have had little opportunity to discuss routinely and in depth how to fight together. The mid-career officers who are currently the backbone of professional-service relationships with Taiwan cannot be expected to make strategic decisions with the full confidence of their governments during wartime. A general officer tasked with executing a contingency plan would benefit greatly from familiarizing himself with Taiwan's command centers, terrain, and operational capabilities. Indeed, one only has to think back to the difficulties the American military had operating with its key NATO allies â ” with whom they had trained and held high-level exchanges for years â ” in Kosovo to realize just how difficult a situation we might face in the case of a military conflict in the Strait. The cost of the current restrictions could come at a high price, then: diminished American military effectiveness and, potentially, increased loss of American lives in combat.

Although China will object to allowing U.S. general and flag officers in Taiwan, the proposal would not violate the existing American policy toward China and Taiwan. The current restrictions on visits to Taiwan by general officers are based on â Å“guidelinesâ ? issued by the State Department's Bureau of East Asian Affairs in 1979 following the Carter administration's decision to end formal relations with Taiwan and establish them with Communist China. But the restrictions were not part of any formal agreement with China, nor was it in response to any particular demand by Beijing. In short, this is a self-imposed proscription which has not been properly reexamined in light of either America's obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act or the growth of a much more capable Chinese military force. Indeed, permitting U.S. generals and flag officers to visit Taiwan would reaffirm the essentials of America's one-China policy: While the United States does not endorse any specific political outcome on unification, it is also committed to preventing the mainland from attempts to annex the island by force.

The American policy of deterring Beijing from using military force against Taiwan and reassuring Taipei in its dealings with the mainland has facilitated peace and great cross-straits economic growth for decades. But it is a policy that is increasingly put in jeopardy by the ongoing development of China's military power. Removing an outdated restriction on defense cooperation with Taiwan is a sensible step to take now in light of this new threat. The idea that generals and admirals can travel to China, Libya, and Uzbekistan but not Taiwan is a restriction that is not only ridiculous on its face but, increasingly, dangerous to the very men and women who will be asked to risk their lives should deterrence fail.

â ” Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century. Dan Blumenthal is resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute and former senior director for China, Taiwan, Hong, and Mongolia in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/schmitt_blumenthal200507210813.asp

 

[a_majoor]

Assessing China's Mini-Float
What it will mean to trade, the markets, and the U.S.

Yesterday, China adopted a managed float of its currency, the yuan, ending the dollar-peg system that has lasted since the early 1990s. (Malaysia followed suit.) China will now use an undisclosed basket of currencies to set the value of the yuan, and will announce the resulting dollar/yuan exchange rate on a daily basis. For July 21, this was 8.11 yuan per dollar, about 2 percent stronger than the 10-year 8.27 yuan per dollar peg. China will also limit intraday moves in the dollar/yuan exchange rate to plus or minus 0.3 percent.

China's basket, I believe, is primarily made up of dollars, and also may include euros, yen, and several other currencies in relation to their trade with China. To maintain a basket, China would not in any way be required to change the makeup of its (now largely dollar-based) international reserves, but it may gradually match its reserves with the currency weights in the trading basket. Note, however, that some 90 to 95 percent of all China's foreign trade is denominated in dollars, minimizing the â Å“needâ ? for the country to significantly alter its reserve composition.

In its announcement, China stressed phrases that the U.S. and G7 had encouraged: â Å“Moving into a managed floating exchange rate regime based on market supply and demand. ... RMB [yuan] will no longer be pegged to the U.S. dollar and the RMB exchange rate regime will be improved with greater flexibility.â ?

The U.S. had made noises in recent weeks that a move was expected, and Malaysia's immediate parallel move indicates that China's move was in fact coordinated.

If the U.S. maintains its initially positive reaction, China's announcement will be a constructive development in that it will have relieved protectionist tension and, at least for a while, the threat of the Bush administration allowing current tariff legislation to make progress. It also reduces the risk that the U.S. Treasury would name China a â Å“currency manipulator.â ?

I don't, however, think this will have a major impact on world financial markets or trade flows. The impact would only be significant if the new regime were managed in such a way as to allow for larger yuan-dollar changes over a relevant time horizon.

In this respect, I do not assume that China's move is necessarily the â Å“first in a series of moves,â ? or that it automatically translates into an effective â Å“crawling pegâ ? by which China's currency would begin a long upward march against the dollar. Rather, China may use this move to satisfy U.S. and EU demands for greater flexibility â ” and I stress here that China sees strong domestic and economic reasons to oppose large-scale currency appreciation.

This managed float also does not materially change the fundamental value of the dollar (established by U.S. monetary policy), commodity prices expressed in dollar terms, or bond yields (which are more heavily influenced by the value of the dollar, inflation expectations, and U.S. monetary policy).

On the margin, China's move should be viewed as mildly favorable for equities, commodities, Asian currencies, and the Mexican peso, and a mild negative for dollar-denominated bonds.

By having taken maxi-revaluation scenarios off the table, the move is likely to reduce speculative â Å“hot moneyâ ? flows into China. These flows were the largest single contributor to China's FX reserve accumulation over the past twelve months. As such, China's FX reserve accumulation would be likely to slow in the months ahead.

How will the U.S. react? I assume positively. Where will China peg the dollar today? I assume at roughly 8.11 yuan per dollar in order to make clear the stability of the new system. What additional announcements will China make in the near-term regarding capital account flexibility? I expect it to liberalize capital outflows, perhaps in the near future.

â ” David Malpass is the chief economist for Bear, Stearns.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_malpass/malpass200507220842.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/darda200507220844.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/nugent200507220843.asp

Are two other comments on the issues involved with the "China trade". Once again, I would hope free traders expand their horizons to include the "Litle Tigers", India and the Anglosphere nations as a means of diversifying portfolios and reducing the various risks that may accrue from over dependence and investment in the Chinese market.

 

[tomahawk6]

DoD released a report today on the Chinese military. Good read.

www.defenselink.mil/ad...-1561.html

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

DoD released a report today on the Chinese military. Good read.

www.defenselink.mil/ad...-1561.html

      The good news of the report, they are not yet ready to act unilaterally, as they do not yet have the blue water capacity to supply and defend an invasion force, and are not yet able to guarentee sufficient electronic dominance to neutralize Tiawanese command and control to assure success in landing operations.  The bad news of the report is that they are well on their way to assuring these elements, and spending freely to accomplish this goal.  The implications are clear, far from being an unthinkable act, war to secure Tiawan is being not only planned but prepared for.  The data on Chinese satelite coverage and anti-satelite capabilities, electronic warfare, both conventional and HEMP nuclear, makes it clear that they are quite prepared to deny the west any long range low risk options to interfere in Chinese actions.  This leaves the question of would the US and its allies risk a direct conventional war half way around the world with the only Eastern Superpower.