Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[a_majoor]

A passage from "The Anglosphere Challenge". India may well be our "ace in the hole" when it comes to dealing with China. From today's Instapundit http://instapundit.com/

A STRONG ANTITERROR SPEECH from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh:

    Every time terrorists strike anywhere all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our firm commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly. I sincerely hope that all of those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well. I pray that their lives will soon return to normal and they can resume their celebrations for having been chosen the venue for the 2012 Olympics.

And, like Blair and Howard the other day, he sounds as if he's read Jim Bennett's book:

    Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day. . . .

    It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion!

    But, if there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English speaking people, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.

    Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket!

As The Economist recently noted, India is moving much closer to the United States these days -- and vice versa. I guess they've all read Jim Bennett's book.

 

[Kirkhill]

It does this old imperialist's heart good to hear those words of PM Manmohan Singh.  ;D  Interestingly enough I was just taking a look at the Indian Army ORBAT the other day on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Regiment_of_the_Indian_Army.  In addition to the ranks, drill, attire and symbols the Regiments have maintained there Raj designations, particularly true of the Indian Army Gorkhas (eg 1st King George V's Own).

Anyway enough pining for the "good old days" .

Anybody else noted in this lengthy confab on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Sequel) the latest non-Kyoto agreement amongst the US, Japan, S.Korea, Australia, India and China?  I found it fascinating.  With this one treaty the US relegates the European Kyoto agreement to the dustbin where it belongs and at the same time opens the door to removing a casus belli in the future.  WWII Pacific, and arguably WWII Europe, were Energy Wars.  Japan and Germany needed it.  Everybody else had it and weren't to willing to share.

Now China's big push is for energy to fuel 400,000,000 Honda and Hyundai knock-offs (Pook's estimate of future market - 1 car / 2.5 people and 1,000,000,000 people).  This, more than ideology, is driving expansion into the South China Seas and associations with central Asia.  India needs a similar amount of energy.  America would be just as happy to wean itself and everybody else off of Arab oil and onto something else.

The American's have their own coal and nuclear sources. They have technology, money and management skills.
The Aussies have coal and uranium to sell and need something other than oil, which they import.
The Japanese and S. Koreans import oil, but have investment capital, technology and factories.
The Indians and Chinese need a better energy solution than oil as well and represent a massive market - either draining current oil reserves pushing up prices or driving new investment in something else.  (I refuse to use alternative because everybody thinks windmillls and photocells, neither of which will cut it).

With that mass of bodies, better than half the world's population and most of the world's future growth potential, any solution is likely to put your average Middle Eastern Despot's nose out of joint.  Have to reduce the annual Rolls Royce and Bentley budget donchano.  Also upsets old Europe and the environmentalists - both pluses in my book.

I believe it was Larry Niven or Jerry Pournelle that pointed out that with energy anything is possible.  Sand can be fused into glass walls for houses.  Drinking water can be distilled from sea water and pumped anywhere.  Deserts will bloom, the Arctic will thaw (OK that's happening anyway), the Lion will lie down with the Lamb and peace will guide the planets - at least until Saturday Week, after the World Cup finals.

Anyways, hyperbole aside, it makes for a really interesting RealPolitik play.  Wonder why we weren't invited to join the club?  Sounds like a lot of investment dollars moving soon.

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

Anyways, hyperbole aside, it makes for a really interesting RealPolitik play.  Wonder why we weren't invited to join the club?  Sounds like a lot of investment dollars moving soon.

Investment dollars are moving at a rate of $6 billion a year into Alberta to open the "Tar Sands" to the global market. There was an interesting article in Macleans (June 13 2005) suggesting the influx of wealth will drastically alter the political power arrangements here in Canada (which may be a good thing), although it was given as an either-or scenario ("It's Alberta's oil if you live in Alberta and it's Canada's oil if you live in Ottawa" pg 37). Perhaps not surprisingly, the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

Canada could become a nexus in the potential "Eagles vs the Dragon" scenarios, since both the United States and China will want access to the tar sands, and our political culture, economy and military are not up to the task of effectively gainsaying who should get access.

In terms of WW IV, American access to the tar sands will reduce the pressure to seek short term solutions or (heaven forbid) accommodation with terror supporting regimes in order to maintain a stable energy market. Kirkhill is correct that other alternatives need to be examined as well, but tar sands are THE short and medium term solution to the energy needs of the West; and also remove the "oil weapon" from the hands of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Jihadis, and reduce the amount of funding these regimes get through the sale of oil.

 

[Kirkhill]

Arthur, wouldn't simple logisitics determine who gets access?  Multiple exisiting pipelines, proliferating in the near future, internal lines of communication if you will, vs movement by sea, especially if the movement is contested would seem to make the logic simple.

Investors or not, it would be exceedingly difficult for an offshore, or for that matter a remote power like Ottawa, to force the transfer of "assets in the ground" in the face of a domestic desire not to do the same.

Let's not think about the Iraqi scenario of destroying infrastructure to prevent the transfer, how about oil companies deciding not to produce or the Alberta government temporarily suspending licences.  Unless there are willing producers (eg Chinese oil workers in Alberta) and secure lines of communication (Chinese guards on the pipelines?  A blue water Chinese Navy?) I think we and the Chinese would be hard pressed to ensure them supply in the face of both domestic and American desire not to supply them.

Whatever arrangements are made are going to have to be acceptable to all.  Unless the RCR and R22R plan on ganging up on the Alberta oilfields  ;D.

Cheers.  Chris.

 

[Britney Spears]

the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

Perhaps because it's completely ridiculous? Pray, explain how exactly these projects and the oil sands "belong" to their investors. Are they going to go to provincial bench in Edmonton and get a court order to  put all the oil on a big ship and take it back to China? Those French and Russians who invested so much (supposedly) in Iraq before 2003 must still be rolling in it, right?

I never thought I would ever need to explain the merits of naked military force to readers here at army.ca, typically as bloodthirsty as anyone else,  but what the hey.

Gentlemen, international investors, when investing in other countries, take into account this little thing called "Sovereign risk". The risk that the host country's goverment might one day decide your investments to be detrimental to their national securty and wellbeing, and expropriate your entire investment. 

Small countries fear US investment because US military power puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to sovereign risk. Chinese investments in the US or Canada must account for sovereign risk. since if the US gov't decided to unilaterally seize all Chinese assets in the US, there's nothing  they can do about it. When Guatamela or Panama decides to seize US assets, they generally, if history is any guide,  find the gringo investors back the next week with friends from the 82nd Airborn and USMC to show them the error of their ways. This generally does not happen between industrialized nations.

So in the case of the tar sands, so what if the Chinese buy the entire thing? What if one day we decided it wasn't such a great idea and just took it all back? Are they going to invade Canada? I imagine we should be a little bit more of a speedbump than the Iraqis were.

Energy security is gained by force of arms, not by open market transactions, which for a fungible commodity such as oil are pretty much meaningless anyway. People whine about the Chinese purchase of Unocal without understanding that Unocal is a concept that doesn't even exist on paper,  only on the computer memories of the NYSE.  Energy security is when the entire flow of oil from the Persian gulf flows only under the eye and at the whim of your CVBGs, and only to countries that you like. I'd say the current setup isn't going to change anytime soon, no matter how many nearly bankrupt oil companies the Chinese take over.  In the mean time, open markets, at least amongst the industrialized nations, are the best way of ensuring that everyone gets equitable treatment, and to stave off future conflicts.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps not surprisingly, the idea it belongs to the investors who bet on these projects never seems to be discussed anywhere in the article.

This was in reference to internal Canadian politics, since the thrust of the Macleans article was that the oil either belongs to Alberta or to Ottawa. Without the private investors, it will just sit in the ground as it has for several million years and be a benefit to no one regardless of which province claims ownership.

The sovereign risk argument is quite correct, but before the 82nd Airborn cuts the new pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast, there are a lot of other options and plays available. However you slice it, a pair of hostile and aggressive powers arm wrestling over the Canadian economy will have some "spillover" effects on the likes of you and I, manifesting itself in the political, legal and economic spheres in ways I am sure no Canadians will enjoy regardless of their political views.

Kirkhill, the logistics arguments are unsettled, since in the past, Canada made great efforts to ensure the flow of resources was East-West rather than North-South. Pipelines are being built both to the United States and to the BC coast, with vast amounts of money being used to build the infrastructure (and who knows what might be going on below the surface as well?) This is probably the most open and obvious manifestation of the effects I am referring to in the previous paragraph, and you can imagine the sudden hash court challenges, environmental regulations, native land claims and so on "could" make of what should be a fairly orderly investment process, especially if they are being spurred on by outside interests.

 

[Britney Spears]

Good points. My last post was needlessly confrontational, I apologize. I should keep the finger off the trigger for a bit....

 

[Kirkhill]

Right enough Arthur.

At the end of the day though, as Britney was noting, there is the situation when the guns are silent and the situation when they are not.  In 1941 Standard Oil was selling Venezuelan Oil to the Fuhrer.  In 1942 it wasn't (or at least not as much).

Chris.

 

[a_majoor]

Building the Western alliance:

Indian Tiger
Anglospheric alliance rising.

By Larry Kudlow & William P. Kucewicz

In what could become the world's most significant 21st-century strategic alliance, a strengthened partnership is forming between the two largest English-speaking democracies: the U.S. and India. President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cemented bilateral ties in recent White House talks, paving the way for greater trade, investment, and technological collaboration. In time and with the cooperation of other friendly powers in the region â ” notably, Japan and Australia â ” this new alliance could emerge as an essential counterweight to China. Essentially, it will be an Anglospheric alliance in Asia and the Pacific Rim.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, commenting on the multipoint joint statement issued following the White House meeting, declared the two countries had forged "a broad global partnership of the likes that we've not seen with India since India's founding in 1947."

But it's the economic front that has the greatest potential. The world's largest democracy, peopled by an industrious and increasingly educated population, is among the fastest growing economies, with real GDP expanding at a 5.9% average annual rate, seasonally adjusted, over the last eight years, including a 7.0% gain in the 2005 first quarter.

However impressive this performance may be, India's economy has had to endure some stifling restrictions â ” and in certain cases outright bans â ” on foreign direct investment. FDI, in fact, hasn't grown in at least five years, averaging around $1.3 billion per quarter since 2000. In some sectors, such as retailing, mining, and railways, FDI is strictly prohibited, while in others, like banking and telecommunications, foreign investment is permitted but closely regulated.

The new bilateral accord promises to change this, and there's every reason to be optimistic. Informal links are being forged every day as large numbers of India-based firms service IT equipment and software in the U.S. In addition, India's current stock-market boom owes much to international investors. Foreign portfolio investment in India totaled $3.8 billion in the first quarter of 2005 versus $4.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004 and $3.7 billion in the first quarter of 2004. These inflows compared with a 2000-2003 quarterly average of just $840 million.

The performance of Indian equities has been nothing short of fabulous, with many prices doubling and even tripling in the past two years. The Bombay Sensex 30 Index is up about 150% since May 2003, and the broad Bombay Stock Exchange 500 Index has gained around 175%. Particularly impressive have been the nearly 200% rise in the IT Index and increases of roughly 250% in both the Consumer Durables and Capital Goods Indexes.

A small public sector and concomitant low taxes have also aided the economy. In the 2004-2005 fiscal year ended March 31, the Union (or central) government's net tax revenue amounted to 7.9% of nominal GDP and total receipts equaled 10.8%. With expenditures running at 17.6% of GDP, last year's fiscal deficit (or total government borrowing requirement) equaled 4.5% of GDP, according to the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

Prime Minister Singh, as finance minister in the early 1990s, crafted many of the reforms responsible for India's economic renaissance, including lower tariffs, fewer import and forex restrictions, the lifting of industrial licensing and price controls, and a reduction in the top marginal income-tax rate from a staggering 97.5% to a more sensible 35%. Sound monetary management nowadays leaves little room for complaint, with consumer price inflation trending around 4.4% on a twelve-month basis over the past five years. Monetary stability has helped keep interest rates down, too. Since 2000, 10-year government bonds have yielded 7.8% on average, making for a mean real interest rate of 3.4% over the period.

But only through an ever-increasing ratio of financial capital to labor capital will labor productivity make the gains necessary for substantial improvements in the country's overall standard of living. Capital availability will rise with the expansion of the domestic economy, of course. But more is needed. Given the immense size of its labor force, India requires massive injections of foreign capital to make the investments in technology and equipment needed to augment output per hour. So, of the panoply of potential governmental reforms, liberalizing foreign capital flows is far and away the single most important one.

If India becomes a more hospitable home for foreign investment, their economy can grow 10 percent yearly for the next decade, representing an economic shot across China's bow. Embracing Anglo-Saxon market economics will strengthen both the Indian and American economies, thereby adding even more power to the new diplomatic entente.

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNN's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily weblog, Kudlow's Money Politic$. William P. Kucewitz is editor of GeoInvestor.com and a former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow_kucewicz200508041929.asp

Welcome the newest "middle power"; as the years go by it will be India which sets the agenda for the other middle powers, since it is a notion which has the people and economic resources coupled with the willpower to make thier mark in the world.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1141474839078&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=

China plans steep hikes in military budget
14.7% increase continues trend
Mar. 4, 2006. 07:30 AM
ASSOCIATED PRESS

BEIJING — China's military budget will rise by 14.7 per cent this year to the equivalent of $40 billion Cdn, a government spokesman said today.
The figure was announced by Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for China's legislature, the National People's Congress, on the eve of its annual session.

China has announced double-digit spending increases for its 2.5-million-member military nearly every year since the early 1990s.

 

[big bad john]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4773358.stm

China's military budget jumps 14% 

The Chinese army is the biggest in the world
China has said it will increase its military spending by 14.7% this year to 283.8bn yuan ($35.3bn; £20bn).
However, a spokesman for the Chinese parliament said much of the rise would be to cover fuel and salaries and that China was a "peace-loving nation".

Jiang Enzhu said the US spent a greater proportion of its economy on defence and that China had "no intention of vigorously developing armaments".

The US has several times accused China of understating its military budget.

Neighbours' concerns

China's armed forces are the biggest in the world and have seen double-digit increases in military spending since the early 1990s.

  China is committed to a path of peaceful development

Jiang Enzhu
Chinese parliament spokesman
The increases have caused concern for neighbours Japan and Taiwan.

The US has also expressed fears over the spending on the 2.5m-strong military.

Washington has several times accused China of understating its military budget.

It said last year's spend was not the $30bn stated but closer to $90bn.

China insists its spending is in line with rises in other governments.

Mr Jiang said: "China's defence budget has risen in recent years along with the development of its economy.

"But the proportion of the budget given over to defence spending is much the same as in past years."

China also says its military spending is dwarfed by the US. The US department of defence had a base budget of $400bn in 2005.

Mr Jiang said China's increases would go on salaries, new equipment, training and higher fuel costs.

He added: "I wish to emphasise that China is a peace-loving nation. China is committed to a path of peaceful development."

 

[karl28]

China keeps talking about being a peaceful nation . Now I am not an expert by any standards and this will sound real cheese so I apologize up front but a guy I new from high school had this crazy shirt that said peace through superior fire power .I'm wondering if that is the peace that china is thinking of  but like I said I am by far not expert on this so its just my two cents .

 

[Kirkhill]

Related to Bruce's observation maybe?

An acquaintance in Seattle is indicating that there is currently a world-wide shortage of titanium which is pushing the prices way up.  We use it in our industry to build salt-water resistant equipment like heat exchangers and pumps.  It is also used in many other alloys subjected to high-stress environments - turbines and armour as I understand it.  It is considered a strategic metal and is integral to a lot of modern weapons systems.

If the west isn't building aircraft and tanks (although it is building a lot of armoured vehicles) who is using up the titanium supplies?  It may be going into the civilian market.  Then again, maybe not.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Take a good look at who is picking up the pieces in Africa, now that the cold war no longer has NATO/Warsaw pact arming training and supporting the regimes of Africa, China has started to play a large role.  Africa has the resources, and represents the potential market that China needs. India acted as a break to Chinese expansionism on land, but hegemony in Africa is attainable.  South America is another area where Chinese capital and influence is being felt.  Perhaps the day will come when the OAS sees the protector in China that the Arabs found in Russia in the 50-60's.  China is moving to become a true superpower, and they are playing the long game; taking the time and investment to sew up whatever can be had without resistance, against the day when they feel they can/must take what is left against resistance.  This is not a condemnation, my own family has followed the Union Jack to conquer a quarter of the globe when we played that game.  The problem with China's quest for hegemony rests in its willingness to use its massive military, and the lavish spending to bring its quantity up to the qualitative standards of the military leaders. The continued technological transfers to the Chinese from the west really worry me, we cannot match their quantity, so why are we so hot to assist them to matching our quality?  What happens when they reach out to take something (Like Taiwan) and we tell them no?

 

[Kirkhill]

Excellent point mainer.

I had forgotten the source issue - titanium is mined in Africa, amongst other places.

Was it on this site that I read an article commenting on the fact that the West's emphasis on human rights in international affairs is tying its hands by denying it the ability to make the deals that China makes?  They do not care if the person they sign the contract with has the full legal and moral right to sign the contract - only that they have sufficient de facto right as to allow the contract to be signed.  Once signed China can "support" the contract in the same manner that our ancestors supported contracts out of places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Vancouver and Halifax.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nice to see this thread ‘alive’ again.

This is from today’s Globe and Mail, from the Focus section.  It supports mainerjohnthomas’s point:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060304.CHINA04/TPStory/?query=

China keeps bad company
Beijing is willing to make deals with the most reprehensible regimes and its growing influence is threatening to undercut the U.S. democracy crusade.

GEOFFREY YORK reports

Saturday, March 4, 2006 Posted at 2:30 PM EST

BEIJING -- When Chinese President Hu Jintao jets into Washington next month for his first White House summit, he will be arriving not merely as an economic rival of the United States but increasingly as a geopolitical rival.

For the first time since the days of Mao Zedong, the Chinese leadership is emerging as a quiet threat to U.S. dominance on the world stage. This time, however, Beijing is not pushing the discredited ideas of Maoism and Marxism. Instead, it is offering a more alluring idea: that the autocracies of the developing world can stand up to Washington's pressure by forming their own profitable alliances in business and trade.

From Angola to Zimbabwe, from Myanmar to Sudan, some of the world's nastiest regimes are enjoying the fruits of China's financial support. With its newfound economic muscle and its amoral zeal to do business with anyone, China is propping up a host of tyrants and dictators who might not otherwise survive.

Most of the geopolitical rivalry will be politely ignored in the discussions between Hu Jintao and George W. Bush. But the enigmatic Chinese President will be viewed warily in Washington, where concern is growing that China now has the economic clout to challenge the U.S. democracy crusade in the "rogue states" of the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
As China moves rapidly toward superpower status, its model of moral neutrality is increasingly attractive to many developing countries -- especially at a time when the United States is often seen as a self-righteous bully. The new mantra of Chinese foreign policy was enunciated by a deputy foreign minister, Zhou Wenzhong, when he was asked about China's support for the brutal military regime in Sudan, which stands accused of war crimes and genocide. "Business is business," Mr. Zhou said. "We try to separate politics from business. I think the internal situation in the Sudan is an internal affair, and we are not in a position to impose upon them."

What Mr. Zhou failed to mention was the self-interest of the dealings between China and Sudan. In the wake of U.S. sanctions against it in 1997, Sudan needed a foreign sponsor. China, meanwhile, needed oil to fuel its economic boom. Beijing supplied tanks and fighter aircraft to Sudan in a deal beneficial to both sides.

Today, Sudan provides 10 per cent of China's oil imports, while Beijing provides enough economic and diplomatic aid to shield Sudan from U.S. pressure.

This basic creed -- business comes first, and self-interest is all that matters -- was more explicitly illustrated last year when Beijing gave a red-carpet welcome to Uzbekistan strongman Islam Karimov.

Just two weeks earlier, Mr. Karimov's regime had launched a bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters in the town of Andijan, killing hundreds of them.

But when he arrived in Beijing, he was given a 21-gun salute and a state dinner. China called him "an old friend of the Chinese people" and praised him for his crackdown on the "extremists." And then the two countries rewarded each other with a $600-million (U.S.) oil and gas deal.

Iran and North Korea provide another example. China is giving so much economic and diplomatic support to both regimes that they can resist U.S. pressure to dismantle their nuclear programs.

Again, self-interest is at the core of these alliances. Iranian oil is the biggest item in the $10-billion annual trade between Iran and China -- and this two-way trade is expected to jump to $100-billion a year as a result of a new deal to send Iranian natural gas to China.

In the Korean peninsula, China provides 80 per cent of North Korea's consumer goods and 40 per cent of its foreign trade, and it has invested about $2-billion in infrastructure. Look at any of the world's most autocratic regimes and you can usually find a Chinese role in propping it up. China is providing billions of dollars worth of military aid to countries such as Russia and Myanmar, despite their internal wars and human-rights abuses. It has close relations with Cuba and Venezuela.

It gives loans and military aid to Robert Mugabe, the iron-fisted ruler of Zimbabwe, who has offered China access to his gold and platinum and other mineral resources. It gave a $2-billion loan to Angola, a key supplier of oil to China, despite the country's long record of human-rights abuses. It gave military aid to Nepal, even after its king seized absolute power last year.

China has another reason for its moral neutrality, of course. By promoting the concept of non-interference in domestic affairs, it is making it harder for the outside world to interfere in its own domestic policies, including its human-rights abuses, its jailing of dissidents, its crackdown on Tibet, its attacks on religious freedom and its threats of war against Taiwan.

China's global influence has been immensely strengthened by its economic boom, which is triggering a far-reaching shift in the worldwide balance of power. Its extraordinary growth has helped legitimize a new model of governance, sometimes called the "Beijing Consensus."

In the years of triumphalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the "Washington Consensus" dominated the ideology of most developing countries. This was the ideology of privatization, deregulation, free markets and democratic governance, all promoted heavily by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from their head offices in Washington.

The Beijing Consensus rejects the Washington Consensus and promotes other priorities: rapid growth, state-led development, technological modernization, state intervention in the economy, tight political control over society to ensure social stability, and a respect for "national sovereignty" regardless of a regime's internal practices.

"The Washington Consensus was a hallmark of end-of-history arrogance; it left a trail of destroyed economies and bad feelings around the globe," says Joshua Cooper Ramo, a consultant and professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing who coined the term "Beijing Consensus" in a paper for the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

"China's rise is already reshaping the international order by introducing a new physics of development and power," he wrote. "China's new ideas are having a gigantic effect outside of China. . . . China is in the process of building the greatest asymmetric superpower the world has ever seen, a nation that relies less on traditional tools of power projection than any in history and leads instead by the electric power of its example and the bluff impact of size."

The ideas of the Beijing Consensus, he wrote, are "defined by a ruthless willingness to innovate and experiment, by a lively defence of national borders and interests, and by the increasingly thoughtful accumulation of tools of asymmetric power projection."

China is too cautious to embrace these ideas as an official doctrine, but it clearly approves of them. In an article in People's Daily last year, Chinese scholars praised the concept of a Beijing Consensus. "Because of its . . . practical superiority, it will be a 'consensus' accepted by more and more people and of growing influence in the world, particularly among developing countries," former Beijing University president Wu Shuqing said.

As the China model expands across the developing world, the United States is still struggling for a response. But its anxiety is growing. One U.S. scholar, Kenneth Lieberthal, says there is a split among China-watchers in Washington. One group sees China as a potential enemy of the United States by about 2020. The other group sees China as an inevitable enemy by 2020.

And so, despite the friendly rhetoric that will emanate from the White House when Mr. Hu arrives in Washington, many U.S. strategists will see him not as a partner but as a competitor -- perhaps the only competitor strong enough to challenge U.S. dominance in the world.

Into Africa

China had warm words of praise for Robert Mugabe when the autocratic Zimbabwean ruler arrived in Beijing last year.

The tyrant of Harare was given an honorary degree by the leaders of Beijing's foreign affairs college, who lauded him for his "brilliant contribution" to diplomacy and international relations. Chinese officials called him "a man of strong convictions, a man of great achievements [and] a man devoted to preserving world peace."

In Zimbabwe, where Mr. Mugabe is widely reviled as a dictator, China has rushed to provide gifts to the strongman. It donated the roofing material for his lavish $9-million Saddam Hussein-style palace and filled it with luxurious knickknacks.

China has also given him military hardware, fighter aircraft, interest-free loans, technology for his censors and secret police, and even T-shirts for his election team. Thousands of Chinese businessmen and farmers have poured into Zimbabwe, replacing the Western investors who have almost all withdrawn from the country because of Mr. Mugabe's blatant human-rights abuses.

It's all part of China's relentless campaign to win influence in Africa. While the West is losing interest in the continent, Beijing sees it as a crucial source of oil and minerals.

The signs of Chinese largesse are evident all across Africa. Luxury housing is a popular gift. In addition to the roof for Mr. Mugabe's palace, China donated almost $7-million to build a palace for the President of Namibia. When it gave a $2-billion loan to Angola, it included a gift of a housing compound for high-ranking Angolan officials -- surrounded by a security fence to ensure that the rabble cannot enter.

More than luxury villas are involved, of course. China launched Nigeria's first satellite into orbit and has promised more help on satellite launches. It has invested $300-million in copper mines and other industrial projects in Zambia. It has become the top supplier of military aid to Sudan.

In exchange for its generosity, China has signed at least 40 oil agreements with various African leaders, and it has signed a further 31 agreements to provide debt relief.

Chinese investment in Africa soared to $18-billion in 2003, up from $10-billion in 2000. At the same time, China has become the third-biggest trading partner in Africa, behind only the United States and Britain. Trade between China and Africa reached almost $30-billion in 2004, up by 59 per cent from the previous year.

All of this has helped to guarantee future supplies of oil and minerals to fuel China's industrial growth. But more than these concrete rewards, China has gained something else: a huge increase in influence in the developing world.

It remains to be seen how China will exploit this influence, but so far it has provided one obvious result: It has helped to ensure the survival of the rulers of Zimbabwe and Sudan, two of the most autocratic and abusive regimes in the world.

-- Geoffrey York

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(Reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
It remains to be seen how China will exploit this influence, but so far it has provided one obvious result: It has helped to ensure the survival of the rulers of Zimbabwe and Sudan, two of the most autocratic and abusive regimes in the world.

No, it can't be true...its must be the Americans fault somehow. :
China,
billions of unwitting slaves to support an unscrupulous regime bent on subversive world domination...

 

[tomahawk6]

Found these 6 sat photos of China's secret nuclear facilities. Rather good imagery from a commercial satellite, you can imagine how good military imagery is. 8)

The US is moving 6 LA Class Attack subs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This will raise the total number of subs to 31 and 21 in the Atlantic.

http://www.imagingnotes.com/go/page4a.php?menu_id=23

 

[chanman]

After the mention of satellite imagery, I had to do a bit of a double take at the title of the linked article:

The World’s First Look at China’s Underground Facilities for Nuclear Warheads

China builds new sub base on Hainan Island: http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/fr/fr060224_1_n.shtml

I wonder if that's what the USN EP-3 was looking at when that fighter collided into it.

 

[Britney Spears]

China,
billions of unwitting slaves to support an unscrupulous regime bent on subversive world domination...

Really? Would you care to elaborate?