Is China a threat? (from: Global NATO?)

[Nemo888]

Maybe this is the reason for the stock market correction? Geopolitics just got alot more intresting.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav061506.shtml

WASHINGTON PONDERS WAYS TO COUNTER THE RISE OF THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION

Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization during a June 15 summit forcefully asserted their right to regulate affairs in Central Asia. A declaration signed by the heads of state of all six member states, including Russia and China, is widely viewed as placing the group in direct opposition to the United States in the regional geopolitical contest.

SCO leaders gathered in Shanghai, site of the group’s founding five years ago. In the June 15 declaration, the SCO professed to be operating according to "principles of openness, non-alliance and not targeting at any third party." However, the text’s language left little doubt that the group rejects the US democratization agenda, and hinted that member states would consider acting in concert in an effort to reduce the United States’ geopolitical presence in Central Asia.

"The SCO will make a constructive contribution to the establishment of a new global security architecture of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and mutual respect," the declaration asserted. "Threats and challenges can be effectively met only when there is broad cooperation among all countries and international organizations concerned. What specific means and mechanisms should be adopted to safeguard security of the region is the right and responsibility of countries in the region."

The statement went on to indicate that Central Asian states would follow their own development paths. "Diversity of civilization and the model of development must be respected and upheld. Differences in cultural traditions, political and social systems, values and model of development formed in the course of history should not be taken as pretexts to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs."

Also at the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed support for Iran’s right to engage in peaceful nuclear research. Following a side meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who attended the summit as an observer, Putin stated that "all countries in the world, including Iran, have the right to fulfill their plans in the use of high technologies for the benefit of their development," the Moscow News web site reported. The Russian leader, however, added a caveat that nuclear research should be conducted "in a way to fully eliminate" international concerns that Iran was striving to build a nuclear weapon. Putin also announced that Iran was ready to negotiate on an international package designed to prompt Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities in return for economic benefits. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. He indicated that Iran would soon makes its views clear on a possible timeline for talks, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported.

In a speech at the summit, Ahmadinejad called on regional states to tighten cooperation. "We need a strong powerful organization [SCO] to protect us from unreasonable outside interference," the Iranian leader said, plainly referring to the United States.

Washington now confronts the likelihood the SCO states will try to put the squeeze on the US geopolitical position in Central Asia. American policymakers are currently working to develop a strategy to blunt the SCO’s ability to influence regional developments.

Kazakhstan, an SCO member, figures prominently in the US strategic calculus. Energy-rich Kazakhstan is Central Asia’s economic engine, and thus wields considerable influence in any regional grouping of which it is a member. Top Bush administration officials have courted the country’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. For example, during an early May visit to Kazakhstan, US Vice President Dick Cheney expressed admiration for the country’s economic and political development. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The United States is also believed to be supportive of Kazakhstan’s efforts to join the World Trade Organization. The hope in Washington is that stronger US-Kazakhstani ties will encourage Astana to act as a force for moderation within the SCO vis a vis the United States.

The United States, however, will have to show patience toward Astana. Understandably, Nazarbayev is engaged in a balancing act between the Bear, the Dragon, and the far-away American Eagle. He recently sent a letter to Ahmadinejad calling attention to Kazakhstan’s decision to voluntarily give up its nuclear stockpile after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a gesture appreciated by the Bush Administration. At the same time, Kazakhstani officials have expressed a desire to forge closer economic relations with Iran.

So, what else can the United States do to counter the rise of the SCO? For one, Washington should recognize that the SCO’s leading powers – China and Russia – are extremely sensitive to the US presence in what has traditionally been their sphere of influence. Washington should develop a nuanced policy, using both words and actions, designed to reassure Moscow and Beijing that the geopolitical competition in Central Asia is not a zero-sum game.

American diplomats should also strive to convince Chinese officials that Russia is trying to drag Beijing into the anti-American bloc, an action that runs contrary to China’s long-term economic interests. In addition, US officials should remind Beijing that unless Tehran is restrained, Iran is likely to drive up world oil prices through pursuit of its aggressive policies, especially its nuclear research program. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. China is experiencing a tremendous rise in energy consumption, driven by the country’s rapid economic development. As a UN Security Council member, China could play a key role in the possible imposition of sanctions against Iran, if Tehran continues to defy the international community on the nuclear issue.

The oil price issue represents a wedge that the United States can use to divide Russia and China. With its abundant yet hard-to-extract energy reserves, Russia is a high-cost oil producer, and is thus interested in the Middle East instability to keep oil prices high and its budget revenues higher. А senior Putin foreign policy advisor told me that Russia will quietly cheer more Middle East instability as oil prices may climb to $90 a barrel or higher. China, on the other hand, has an almost insatiable demand for energy so that it can maintain its present economic growth pace. Thus, Beijing is interested in keeping the price of Middle East oil as low as possible.

There are few levers available to Washington to influence Russian behavior. Perhaps the best Washington can do is to remind the Kremlin of the likely geopolitical repercussions of an aggressive, nuclear armed Iran. Russia’s present support for Tehran could easily boomerang in the coming years, and Moscow could come to see Tehran posing a geopolitical threat to the Russian Federation’s southern flank. Iranian influence is already making inroads into Azerbaijan, and Tehran is likely to intensify its competition with Moscow for influence throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia.

As US officials engage China and Russia, Washington should concurrently continue building relationships not only with Kazakhstan, but also with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Mongolia. Bush Administration strategists believe that wealth creation, robust education strategies, and ethnic and religious harmony will go a long way to stem the rise of radical Islam, and thus take much of the steam out of the SCO.

As America is pursuing its "long war" on jihadi terrorism and ideology, it can ill-afford a conflict with Russia and China in Eurasia. Thus, Washington must explore ways to establish a dialogue with SCO, or risk yet another humiliation in the hands of Moscow and Beijing.


Editor's Note: Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at the Heritage Foundation, and the author of Eurasia in Balance (Ashgate, 2005) and Russia-Kazakhstan Energy Cooperation (GMB Publishing, 2006).

 

[Nemo888]

The point is that if you are intrested in central asian geopolitics this is a major shift that probably won't be picked up in the mainstream media. Even though it won't be picked up it will strongly influence world events.

 

[a_majoor]

This has an interesting analogy to WWII, in the sense that there were several "different" wars being fought for several different reasons, but with enough overlap in time, space and the various actors to create a "global" narrative.

The British Empire was engaged in a European struggle to maintain the "Balance of Power" in Europe to prevent the establishment of an all powerful Nazi Germany which would dominate the continent, a naval war in the Mediterranean against Italy and a fierce struggle against the Japanese Empire over control of resources and freedom of the seas in the Indian Ocean basin. Certainly the actions of the various players were influenced by a convergence of aims; Italy, for example would probably nohave been emboldened to fight the British without the implied assurance of Germany to help (and remember the Germans eventually pushed the Italians aside in exasperation when it became clear they were unable to successfuly prosecute the war in the Mediterranean and North Africa).

Today, while the United States prosecutes their GWOT, other nations seek to extend or protect their own national self interest, setting up potential flashpoints for conflict in the near or mid future. There is also some strategizing going on here, supporting Iran is not in Russia or China's best long term interest but they may see this as a way of distracting the United States in the short term, putting a bigger draw on US military resources and slowing or stopping the overarching US "Purple Finger" strategy in SW Asia, which is probably what they fear the most.

 

[Centurian1985]

The point is that if you are intrested in central asian geopolitics this is a major shift that probably won't be picked up in the mainstream media. Even though it won't be picked up it will strongly influence world events.

This is nothing new.  Although under a new name, Russia and China have been resisting US influence in Central Asia ever since 1991.  IMO, the US is making a big mistake in supporting the Kazakhstan regime, one of the most corrupt and repressive governments in the area.

 

[Shec]

Good point.  I would think it even predates that, one can trace Sino-Russian attempts to keep the West from gaining a central asian foothold at least as far back as the "great game" of the late 19th century.  And you can't lose what you never really had.

However, considering the mistrust rooted in historical enmities between Russia and China, China and India, and Russia and Iran/Persia I wonder just how serious a long term threat this regional bloc poses.  I tend to support a_majoor's assessment.   

 

[vangemeren]

NEMO888,

in your original post you had nothing but the original article.  No reason given for the post, no analysis, nothing.  You might like to have a look at A_MAJOOR's analysis before you post...

I don't see the problem with that. Others on this site do the same thing.

 

[Nemo888]

NEMO888,

in your original post you had nothing but the original article.  No reason given for the post, no analysis, nothing.  You might like to have a look at A_MAJOOR's analysis before you post...

Actually sometimes that is better left to others with more knowledge, hence the post. A_MAJOOR's analysis happened because of the post, not the other way around.

 

[CougarKing]

I'm just curious, does anyone here believe that the SCO- otherwise known as the "Shanghai Six"- will someday become exactly like the former Warsaw Pact? I've heard of "anti-terrorism" exercises in Xinjiang province between the PLA and other SCO members back around Fall 2003.

With the exception of China, all those nations who are SCO members were all former Soviet satellites (China was never truly a Soviet "satellite" since the 50s when an apparent schism grew between Stalin and Mao, and later between succeeding Soviet leaders and Mao, until China began to open up in Deng Xiaoping's time. Apparently Gorbachev was making a state visit to China to help mend ties when the Tiananmen Square incident was unfolding back in June 1989).

 

[pbi]

The point is that if you are intrested in central asian geopolitics this is a major shift that probably won't be picked up in the mainstream media. Even though it won't be picked up it will strongly influence world events.

The mainstream media has had this for a while now. I have seen CBC coverage of it, and this is from the CBC website (there are lots more listed if you do a search):http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto061520060813253009

Something like this was really inevitable, wasn't it?


Cheers

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't see the problem with that. Others on this site do the same thing.

Actually sometimes that is better left to others with more knowledge, hence the post. A_MAJOOR's analysis happened because of the post, not the other way around.

A simple, "What's everyone think?" or "I'm confused by this whole concept?" would have sufficed. It's called opening a dialogue.

 

[couchcommander]

This has an interesting analogy to WWII, in the sense that there were several "different" wars being fought for several different reasons, but with enough overlap in time, space and the various actors to create a "global" narrative.

Indeed I think you are correct in poiting out that there are converging interests here between several large and powerful entities, and it is similar to the pre-world war II situation in the grand scheme of things.

However, I think drawing that comparison causes people to divide the parties into "good" and "bad" based on who one thinks they represent in the analogy, when in fact we do not have a Nazi Germany, a fascist Italy, nor an Imperial Japan seeking conquest.

We should seek to determine what the goals of these states are, and deal with them in light of the current situation, not a previous one IMO (once again analogy isn't wrong, I just don't think it's helpful).

Whoever pointed out that supporting Kazakhstan is a slippy slope is right though, and the US has made the mistake of supporting a regime for convenient reasons before. Though, in the end it serves to demonstrate that the US concern is far from purple fingers, and, like most motives, is more in line with their own self interest rather than altruistic democracy spreading.

In the end though, we should be looking at this situation with the question "what is best for Canada?" in mind, not "what is best for the United States?" (of course often times what is best for the United States is also best for Canada, but we should not automatically assume that but examine it case by case).

So, having said that, what would be best for Canada in this regard? Would we actually be hurt from the emergence of a mutli-polar world?

 

[tomahawk6]

Keep in mind that China is still a communist dictatorship. So any organization they sponsor will adhere to China's foreign policy goals - namely acquiring access to a large share of the world's energy resources.

 

[a_majoor]

One should not confuse short term expediency with long term strategy, or even believe the United States acts in a monolithic manner if foreign and defence policy.

Kazakhstan is an important beach head if actions need to be taken in SW or Central Asia, hence the interest. This is a place which is needed now, and is probably not a good candidate for the "Purple Finger" strategy in the short run. The problem is the diplomats and functionaries who make these decisions are often not comfortable with changing the arrangement after it is no longer working. American policy in the middle East from the post war period to 9/11 is a very good indication of how old assumptions trap us. Even post 9/11 there are very real and public frictions between the State Department and the Defence Department in the United States.

The "Purple Finger" is a very long term strategy which seeks to change the very nature of the societies and political cultures of the Middle East and SW Asia. Kazakhstan may eventually be able to fall under the "Purple Finger" umbrella, but I can see internal conflicts between various factions in the US government, and various factions in Kazakhstan trying to exploit these divides for their own benefit. Saudi Arabia is a good player of this particular game, they are certainly not friends of the Anglosphere West, but still get the Royal treatment because of their oil and the free flow of petrodollars to buy influence. So long as the US perceives Kazakhstan to be a potential FOB and staging point, they too will be getting support without demands for long term changes.

 

[Centurian1985]

a_majoor, totally agree with your points, but think that choosing Kazakhstan is going to come back and bite them in the ass later as it has in so many previous cases of supporting hostile regimes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I know I am repeating myself but I need to take issue with Echo-9 when he says:

… the idea of a new alliance based on the Anglosphere is an enticing one- you do get the advantage of more of the baseline shared understandings of culture across its nations.  It does not need to be geographically based, which NATO will continue to be for the reasons highlighted above.  It has the potential of integrating the next superpower (India) early on in its development.

Most importantly, it has the benefit of sharing a perception of the threats of the next century- islamofascism and China.

Two points:

1. India chose, wisely, I think, to develop and entrench political democracy first while it, unwisely in my opinion, decided to follow the socialist path which, history teaches, leads straight to poverty.  India is, now, working on becoming a major, global economic actor – a process which might require 25 or more years – given the damage done by 50 years of socialism.  It is, already, a significant regional military power but it lacks the economic depth and resources to build more power which could then be projected beyond it’s very important area of interest.  (It cannot weaken itself in its own area without ceding Kashmir to Pakistan.)  India is not the next superpower; and

2. China is not a problem.  See e.g. Thomas P Barnett and others.  China is very open, very public about its ambitions.  In the short term they are:

• Building a resource-efficient and environment-friendly society;

• Rejuvenating the country through science and education and strengthening the nation with talent – many, many Chinese believe this is the sine qua non of power in the 21st century;

• Deepening system reform – this is the rule of law/governance (corporate and government);

• Implementing mutually beneficial and win-win opening up strategy – this is the foreign trade/foreign investment issue;

• Building a harmonious socialist society – this is a bit complex.  Socialism is dying, rapidly, in China – it was never a good fit.  ”A harmonious socialist society” is code for preserving the ‘mandate’ of the Communist Dynasty.  Government’s in China recognize the need for a popular mandate – as they have for 2,500 years; they just go about securing it in a different way;

• Reinforcing construction of socialist democracy and politics – ditto;

• Strengthening construction of socialist culture – ditto;

• Strengthening construction of national defence and the military – this is the continuation of a process begun more than 10 years ago.  The PLA is now an all volunteer force which is undergoing rapid, revolutionary transformation.  The levée en mass is gone – China is building lighter, highly mobile – globally mobile – joint forces.  The centre of mass is shifting (maybe has shifted) from the South/Taiwan Straights to the North West where low level Islamic insurgencies are feared; and

• Strengthening construction of national defence and the military Establishing and improving implementation mechanism - this is affirmation that socialism is dead.  It means that China will, in the words of the semi-official People’s Daily, “rely on the fundamental role of the market in resource allocation to realize the targets and tasks” outlined in the most recent (11th/2006) five year plan.

(That all came from:  http://english.people.com.cn/200603/09/eng20060309_249320.html  which is the authoritative People’s Daily.)

China intends to be our competitor, globally.  The decision to join the WTO is far, far more important than any military decision taken since the death of Mao.  That decision destroyed the Communist Party because it destroyed its stranglehold on a moribund, corrupt economy.  The Communists, who aren’t communistic, or even socialistic, at all – who think Marx and Lenin were barbarian fools, are still a healthy, powerful government and they plan to stay in power so long as their ‘mandate’ holds.  The fact that the Communists are not communistic and are adopting many of the tools we associate with liberal-capitalist societies does not mean that China will, ever, become liberal.  (I think it might in 2,000 years – not sooner.  It is more likely that America will become conservative and speak Mandarin within 500 years.)  The Chinese Communists are very keen on using the most modern, most successful techniques – be they Russian or American, Cuban or Canadian – to accomplish the aim of all Chinese dynasties for the last 2,500 years: to sustain themselves in power.  They see their mandate as being to provide peace and prosperity, pretty much exactly what I have proposed in these fora as the common sense base for Canada’s national policies.

‘Peace, order and good government’ are central to the Communist Party’s understanding of its mandate.  As of this week yet another anti-corruption programme has begun and arrests of senior officials have occurred and some political corruption convictions will result in capital punishment.  Corruption, in the Chinese, sense does not encompass all the things we understand by that word; Chinese family values – real family values rather than the light weight fluff espoused by e.g. evangelical Christians – mean that some things we would regard as ‘corrupt’ are essential components of business, connections, for example.  That being said the Chinese people want and are demanding that laws be applied equally and fairly to all, even to officials and Party members.  That will happen, in spades, during the next decade. 

We need to see China the way they see us: as a global competitor in the market for goods, services and ideas.  China is a more important competitor than Europe but it is neither ‘better’ nor ‘worse’ than Europe.  I would go so far as to argue that China is less inclined to ‘war’ with us on trade and commerce issues than is the EU.  Neither Europe nor China is our friend but neither should become our enemy.  The anti-China crowd in the US, especially, is driven by a desire to keep the military/strategic status quo which seems to require an enemy.

I think we have an enemy and I think  it is not China and will not become China unless we are foolish enough to declare them that.  The enemy is a rather loose coalition of movements, animated by some mad but attractive ideas.  We need to forget about fighting China – except in the free marketplace where our weapons are brains and productivity – and get on with destroying radical, medieval, barbaric Islam.

On the central issue I think NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty provide a good base for the Anglosphere to build coalitions and regional partnerships, as Journeyman has defined them, as needed to deal with the real enemy.

Sorry this is long and unedited/disjointed.  I have a very sore back right now and sitting up to type is painful.

Edit: corrected last bullet in point 2.

 

[Echo9]

I do stand by my characterization of China as a threat through the next 100 years.  I'll take your characterization at face value, and I would say that it's largely accurate as a view of where they're at now (the Chinese people are certainly not and never were socialist- quite possibly the most innately capitalist in the world; and, the CCP is no longer communist, but is instead the "Red Dynasty").  It's  where the CCP would like things to go.  My view is that China, within the next 10-20 years will be overcome by its own momentum coupled with some key structural faults.

1.  Much of the current growth is built on a weak business foundation.  The vast portion of loans brokered by banks in china are granted on the basis of party connections, and will not be repaid. 

2.  The one child policy, while effective at sharply reducing poverty levels has led to a situation where:
- there is a coming population inversion, where the elderly greatly outnumber the working population required to support them.  Think of this- in 2 generations, 1 child means that one worker needs to support 4 grandparents...
- there is a gross imbalance of men to women, and many men have no prospects for employment or marriage.  This leads to a restive population that increasingly becomes aggressive toward its neighbours.

3.  The country has a small and diminishing resource base which must be maintained.

4.  The country as a whole has been undergoing massive growth consistently for the last 20 years.  That cannot continue without some correction.

Take a step back, and you can argue that this is not so different from where Japan sat 30 years ago.  In the early-mid 80s everyone seemed to think that Japan would be the next hyperpower (at least economically).  Things didn't happen that way, for reasons similar to what I noted above, but less in severity- the bad loans were given to underperforming sister companies, rather than political cronies, the age imbalance was there but not the gender imbalance, Japan's rise was as much a result of intellectual property building as manufacturing growth.  More importantly, Japan had achieved a rather comfortable level of prosperity in its rise.  China also has a much more troubled history of civil war than Japan.


So, what's the likely impact of the fall, when it occurs.  To my mind, the most likely path is that China will turn aggressive, seeking to militarily achieve its needs for resources (and here the likely target is Siberia with its rich resources and sparse population), and to divert the attention of its restive populace.  The other likely path is civil war, with a partition of China into multiple parts.

In either case, while China may or not be an enemy of the West/ Anglosphere, it certainly will be a threat, simply because of the chaos that will spin from its path.

 

[schering]

We need to see China the way they see us: as a global competitor in the market for goods, services and ideas.  China is a more important competitor than Europe but it is neither ‘better’ nor ‘worse’ than Europe.  I would go so far as to argue that China is less inclined to ‘war’ with us on trade and commerce issues than is the EU. 

You might want to observe the facts and read some serious publications before pontificating on strategic matters. Very few thinkers both here and in China see our relationship as anything other than one of strategic competition. The list of our respective allies should exemplify the matter rather conclusively. 

Neither Europe nor China is our friend but neither should become our enemy. 

That's preposterous.

The anti-China crowd in the US, especially, is driven by a desire to keep the military/strategic status quo which seems to require an enemy.

Oh boy, another conspiracy theorist...

 

[George Wallace]

;D

schering

And you are?  (Empty profile and all - no credentials)  What are you basing you commentary on?  Your sources would be of interest.  Perhaps you can expand on them?

 

[tomahawk6]

Methinks schering is playing with fire. :

 

[schering]

;D

schering

And you are?  (Empty profile and all - no credentials) 

A poster.

What are you basing you commentary on?  Your sources would be of interest.  Perhaps you can expand on them?

The other poster's stated opinion is so outrageous and unreasonable that the burden of proof falls squarely on his shoulders.

There are countless serious articles and publications that dwelve extensively on precisely this subject matter, most of whom are available for free on the internet. A knowledge of current geopolitics unhindered by conspiracy theories might also help.