China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Guest]

The People's Republic of China, which celebrated its 70th anniversary on October 1, is led by the Chinese Communist Party's General Secretary, President Xi Jinping. In his speeches, Xi often refers to "Qiang Zhong Gwo Meng" ("the Chinese dream"), a code phrase for the era of rejuvenation when China will eventually overtake the United States as the most powerful nation in the world.

Authored by Lawrence Franklin via The Gatestone Institute,  Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

FULL ARTICLE - https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/chinas-modern-blueprint-global-power

Xi claims that China offers the world a different type of rising global leader -- a "guiding power." Beijing apologists depict China as a non-predatory power, comparing it favorably to Europe's colonial countries in the past and to today's United States. Similarly, the state-controlled Chinese media depict Chinese statecraft as being based on and reflecting ancient Confucian ethics:

Only when things are investigated is knowledge extended; only when knowledge is extended are thoughts sincere; only when thoughts are sincere are minds rectified; only when minds are rectified are the characters of persons cultivated; only when character is cultivated are our families regulated; only when families are regulated are states well governed; only when states are well governed is there peace in the world.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

This portrayal is part of China's traditional self-image as "Jungwo" (the "Middle Kingdom"), a society synonymous with "civilization," as opposed to the "barbarians" beyond its borders. Such was the impetus for China's Great Wall: to keep out uncultured barbarians. In spite of China's pretense of being a new type of global power, Beijing's attempt to restore its historical role as a world leader involves ancient Chinese political concepts. Xi's call for China's "rejuvenation," for instance, is a signal to his people that under the leadership of the Communist Party, the national humiliations endured during the 19th and 20th centuries will be redressed.

Xi's nationalist sentiment echoes the ideas of Sun Yat-sen, the "founding father" and first president of the Chinese Republic. Sun called for the embrace of "Min-ts'u" ("people's nationalism") to redeem the nation from its status as a "hypo-colony" ruled by many colonial masters, including tiny Portugal, which dominated the South China Sea. Xi's doctrine includes rejecting as illegitimate any "unequal treaties" forced on China by Euro-Atlantic powers, such as Great Britain's imposition of the McMahon Line, which awarded to the British Crown Colony of India hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Chinese territory. China never recognized the McMahon Line; it was among the factors ultimately leading to an India-China War in 1962 and periodic skirmishes ever since.

This determination to retrieve Chinese territory might be rooted in Xi's sense of humiliation, still felt among Chinese patriots of all political persuasions, who harbor an enduring resentment over such Euro-Atlantic encroachment. Xi's posture is also possibly an indirect warning to the West, which may be harboring a desire to assist the people of Hong Kong in their drive for more autonomy from Beijing. This warning underscores the willingness of the Chinese Communist leadership to engage the United States in a limited military conflict, should the US support Hong Kong's or Taiwan's official independence from China or if it positions offensive strategic-weapons systems on those lands.

In his essay, "If You Want Peace Prepare for War" -- using the famous quote from the ancient Roman strategist, Publius Flavius Renatus -- Chinese author Li Mingfu states that if the US attempts to block the Chinese Motherland's unification with Taiwan, China is ready militarily to force unification. There can be little doubt that Xi's China is deeply committed to the retrieval of Formosa (Taiwan) as an integral part of the Chinese patrimony. Historically, China risked war with Japan after Japanese expeditions to the island province. China also has resisted past attempts by Britain to weaken its hold on Tibet. Moreover, despite fierce resistance to Russia's 19th century invasions in the northwestern province of Xinjiang (Sinkiang), China lost control of the region. That event also might help to explain for China's willingness to invite universal condemnation for its massive human-rights violations against the region's Uighur Muslim population, rather than risk again losing control of the province to Islamist independence movements.

Chinese military exercises, new weapons systems and the surreptitious militarization of several landfill and disputed islands in the South China Sea, all indicate that Beijing intends to become -- at the very least -- East Asia's dominant regional power, thereby supplanting the US as the pre-eminent authority in the Western Pacific Ocean. According to one American analyst on Chinese military affairs, in 2018 alone, China conducted approximately 100 military exercises with 17 countries.

In recent years, the Chinese Navy has been demonstrating better precision targeting by its anti-ship missile system, the presumed targets being US aircraft carriers. The Chinese Air Force now utilizes runways built on some of the disputed islands, and has also landed heavy bombers there. In addition, the Chinese also have deployed anti-ship missiles and jet fighter planes on disputed islands. These developments suggest that in the event of a crisis or conflict with the West and its Asian allies, the Chinese Communist Party's Military Commission is planning to leapfrog any possible Free World strategy to confine China's naval and air assets to the Chinese mainland.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

China's economic model, according to which a socialist regime will for the first time surpass the world's greatest capitalist enterprise, also has historical roots. For millennia, China was the premier power in Asia, if not the world. During that time, China's diplomacy centered on the "Tributary System," whereby regional states recognized the superiority of Chinese Civilization." Many of China's neighboring states, such as Annam (Northern Vietnam), Korea and even Japan, for a period, rendered an annual tribute to the Chinese imperial court, acknowledging the imperial dynasty's august standing under heaven. The emperor's dynastic administration would in turn provide generous support for compliant neighboring countries. Xi's Belt and Road Initiative bears some -- dubious -- resemblance to the tributary system of dynastic China. This initiative has China providing the income and expertise to build the logistical infrastructure of a recipient nation, which in turn imports Chinese goods and services employing that new infrastructure. Worse, however, China lends countries money; then when the country cannot repay the debt, China helps itself to resources or infrastructure or whatever, in a "debt-trap."

To date, it appears that the strategic objective of China to establish regional primacy in the Western Pacific, and possibly in Asia, is militarily, politically and economically achievable. The world, however, is no longer under any illusions about China's acquisitive intent. US President Donald J. Trump also indicated recently -- during his September 24 address to the UN General Assembly -- that America harbors no illusions about China's unbridled ambitions. Trump said, in part:

"In 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization. Our leaders then argued that this decision would compel China to liberalize its economy and strengthen protections to provide things that were unacceptable to us, and for private property and for the rule of law. Two decades later, this theory has been tested and proven completely wrong. Not only has China declined to adopt promised reforms, it has embraced an economic model dependent on massive market barriers, heavy state subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, forced technology transfers, and the theft of intellectual property and also trade secrets on a grand scale. For years, these abuses were tolerated, ignored, or even encouraged. Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. But as far as America is concerned, those days are over. To confront these unfair practices, I placed massive tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese-made goods. Already, as a result of these tariffs, supply chains are relocating back to America and to other nations, and billions of dollars are being paid to our Treasury. The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement that would be beneficial for both countries. As we endeavor to stabilize our relationship, we're also carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong. The world fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty, made with the British and registered with the United Nations, in which China commits to protect Hong Kong's freedom, legal system, and democratic ways of life. How China chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future..."

It is imperative for the administration in Washington to continue to exert maximum pressure on Beijing, to prevent China's hegemonic aims being realized. 

   

Note - this was an article, by a journalist. My username is not Journalist. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50035229

      

@Zhong Lu , this was it. Ignore the honey etc ... haha   

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/its-not-game-when-its-real-life-chinas-social-credit-system

''It's not a game when it's real life .... China's social credit system''

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Guess bbc's a bit faster.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

Guess bbc's a bit faster.  

Dunno but I've been back and forth on bunch of sites all day mate, soon as I saw it I posted. Hate BBC usually, just came up as a link from something else. 

[frankfurter + 562]

China's rise means America's decline. So what else is new? 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

China had 17 million babies in 2017 and 15 million babies in 2018. The 'replacement rate' would have been 18 million (18 million x  76 year life expectancy = 1.36 billion). If it drops another million in 2019 China's baby deficit will be equal to America's entire birthrate. China will be spending all it's effort caring for it's elderly. Either that, or simply ignoring them and leaving them to die alone and destitute.

South Korea's fertility rate is .98 and Taiwan's is .9. If China's drops to that level they will be producing 8 million to 9 million newborns a year.

The Chinese 'one child policy' began in 1980, so a girl born in 1980 would be 40 years old in 2020. Since few women over age 40 have children, those women now in their twenties would have to have four children each to 'replace' the elderly born in larger families before 1980.

Projecting power requires young people for the military services, a manufacturing base, and control of critical resources. In pure numbers China has 'lots' of young people, but in proportion to those that are dropping out of the workforce at retirement age, these young people have enormous responsibilities close to home. China has the manufacturing base, no doubt about that. 'Critical resources' means food, energy, water, and farmland. Much of China's water and farmland has been, or is being, destroyed by pollution.

Every police officer engaged in 'internal security' is subtracted from the soldiers available to project power internationally. If the CCP doesn't trust their own citizens (patently obvious), then they have to worry first about preserving their domestic security.

[Guest]

''Remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability do not belong to the category of free speech''

- China Central Television, in response to a comment by a basketball coach.

#bigbrotherknowsbest #unbelievable 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Marcin + 519]

I always had to quickly call bullshit if told one. It somehow infected my hobby geopolitics. This article is bullshit because author i will cite” hundreds thousand km” it is 80000 in fact

[Guest]

I don't even know which bit you're referencing, but to find 1 ''mistake'' out of an article that long, and then call it all ''bullshit'' tells me what I need to know.

Cheers

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

On 10/13/2019 at 4:36 PM, DayTrader said:

such as Great Britain's imposition of the McMahon Line, which awarded to the British Crown Colony of India hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Chinese territory. China never recognized the McMahon Line

Ah, this bit? The line China never recognised? Think that may be the reason there's debate over the figure?

I'm sure China said it was 80,000 to save face? Seems to be their hobby. 

Either way, the whole article is now BS? 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

This came up in a different thread, but seems apt here as well:

Justification for current Chinese expansion into HK, Tibet, Xinjiang, South China Sea, etc - are all that it's 'Historically China' and part of 'One, indisputable and inseparable Chinese Nation'.

Unfortunately, you have to take a very loose interpretation of history and squint awfully hard (or, like most westerners, just be completely ignorant of Asian history) for that to be even slightly true.

54 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

 

And I didn't catch this before @DayTrader, but:

"The Great Wall of China (Chinese: 萬里長城; pinyin: Wànlǐ Chángchéng) is the collective name of a series of fortification systems generally built across the historical northern borders of China to protect and consolidate territories of Chinese states and empires against various nomadic groups of the steppe and their polities."

So how do you justify that whole section North of the great wall as "Part of China"? China is a growing country that is swallowing everyone opposed to them. I look to watch them swallow Taiwan, Bhutan, potentially Nepal, continue to 'dispute' areas into India and Pakastan... (They'd take North Korea too if it wasn't more useful to them as a tool for sewing international discord and distraction...), even 'Outer' Mongolia (It is just a different part of Mongolia after all... which they claim 'Inner Mongolia'. Though this would be a stretch purely based on the land mass...)

Also wouldn't be shocked to see them claim parts of the Philippines, and Indonesia. If they were smart they'd negotiate deals with the leaders behind the scenes to 'accept and agree' with such claims to build their international credibility for other claims.

I'm also waiting to see how they justify taking over Vietnam - mainly for the oil off shore. (Though I'm not sure they need it as everyone refuses to stand up to their expanding claims in the South China Sea...)

Quote

Xi's Belt and Road Initiative bears some -- dubious -- resemblance to the tributary system of dynastic China. This initiative has China providing the income and expertise to build the logistical infrastructure of a recipient nation, which in turn imports Chinese goods and services employing that new infrastructure. Worse, however, China lends countries money; then when the country cannot repay the debt, China helps itself to resources or infrastructure or whatever, in a "debt-trap."

35 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Nope, figured it out... clearly China still needs all of Mongolia, most of Vietnam, half of North Korea, Bits of Laos and Myanmar (or Burma?) , and a huge chuck of Russia. Or, and don't forget Kazakhstan. Because that's all historical territory.

And your other article answered my last question:

They'll take over other countries slowly -by making them completely indebted to China... so that China owns all the infrastructure and resources. Then it's a matter of semantics who actually 'governs' the country.

Can't believe I missed those points this morning...

(Middle quote from DT's article - OP of this thread)

China can clearly use their current justification to invade multiple more countries and take over huge swaths of land, as well as using economic 'debt traps' to become the 'de facto' rulers of other currently financially struggling countries (namely most of SE Asia, and huge swaths of the Middle East and Africa).

As far as I can tell, the furthest reach China ever had was under the Qing Dynasty (Yes, there's the Yuan Dynasty too - covered both below)

So if they take Mongolia and Taiwan, are they ready to give back Hanoi?

Or if You prefer the Yuan Dynasty, they give up Taiwan, and a huge chunk of Xinjiang, but gain Mongolia and part of Russia.

Other than these two dynasties, (each spanning about 120 years - so 240 years total) - China has been less than 1/3rd it's current size for >2700 of the 3000 years of it's history. 

It's claims to 'historical' lands are completely bogus.

[Guest]

KABOOM! You sorted it. Phew.

No 'government controlled history' needed to refer to. 

#warispeace

Ask Tibetans 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Marcin + 519]

Guys the bullshit = careless article by journalist not knowing what is actually writing about does not say i am against or pro the main idea, the quality is what i am commenting

[Marcin + 519]

India - China lans dispute

Both Aksai Chin controlled by China and claimed by India (37000  km2)

and Arunachal Pradesh controlled by India and claimed by China (about 80000 km2)

do not have strategic importance for China,

and only Arunachal Pradesh has strategic importance for India

(why ? look at the map and where Himalaya & Karakorum is)

since 1950s China wanted zero option with India that is every country stays with controlled territory.

Aksai Chin has no value as 4000 meters high desert highlands.

India was against zero option. In recent years China got much stronger so zero option No longer on the table

[Guest]

The quality being the 1 line you disagreed with? Which I've already explained why there is discrepancy?

[Guest]

DISCLAIMER

DAY TRADER IS A DAY TRADER. 

HE IS NOT A JOURNALIST.

LINKS TO ARTICLES ARE ARTICLES WRITTEN BY JOURNALISTS.

MY NAME IS NOT JOURNALIST.

IT IS DAY TRADER.

Cheers.

[Otis11 + 551]

38 minutes ago, Marcin said:

India - China lans dispute

Both Aksai Chin controlled by China and claimed by India (37000  km2)

and Arunachal Pradesh controlled by India and claimed by China (about 80000 km2)

do not have strategic importance for China,

and only Arunachal Pradesh has strategic importance for India

(why ? look at the map and where Himalaya & Karakorum is)

since 1950s China wanted zero option with India that is every country stays with controlled territory.

Aksai Chin has no value as 4000 meters high desert highlands.

India was against zero option. In recent years China got much stronger so zero option No longer on the table

Hello Marcin,

So you seem to be addressing a single line in the article - but I don't see how what you say conflicts with what is stated in the article. The article states this land is disputed and has been the source of multiple skirmishes since. 

What's so flagrantly incorrect about this article that it's 'BS' (as you put it)?

[Marcin + 519]

15 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Hello Marcin,

So you seem to be addressing a single line in the article - but I don't see how what you say conflicts with what is stated in the article. The article states this land is disputed and has been the source of multiple skirmishes since. 

What's so flagrantly incorrect about this article that it's 'BS' (as you put it)?

I am sorry but I do not have time to correct and name all bullshit in articles posted here at oilprice.

I do call bullshit very rarely.

 Vast majority of articles cited here at oilprice.com are gibberish, but fortunately it is gibberish of so low level that it takes me no more than 30 seconds per article to go through it and do not waste more of my time.

I am here to read some pearls that have real insight or fresh opinions on the subject with quality argumentation.

With this very article, I will give just one more example of blatant error:

China never recognized the McMahon Line; it was among the factors ultimately leading to an India-China War in 1962 and periodic skirmishes ever since.

India-China war in 1962 was caused by Indian gradual incursions and creating new military posts over 20 km  behind the McMahon line, (I do not remember well exact number of km).  Best source per both Western and Eastern opinions alike is made by Maxwell, please read it.

At least 2-3 other major factual errors and a few very strong biases.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

With this very article, I will give just one more example of blatant error:

So the blatant error example is the same line you mentioned before that @Otis11 and I have already discussed with you?

Everything is ''biased'' to a country that controls its own press. Their bias however is absolutely fine. 

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it ... And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable…what then?"

- 1984

Edited October 14, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

On 10/14/2019 at 9:36 PM, Otis11 said:

What's so flagrantly incorrect

Nothing. 

[Otis11 + 551]

On 10/14/2019 at 4:08 PM, Marcin said:

I am sorry but I do not have time to correct and name all bullshit in articles posted here at oilprice.

I do call bullshit very rarely.

 Vast majority of articles cited here at oilprice.com are gibberish, but fortunately it is gibberish of so low level that it takes me no more than 30 seconds per article to go through it and do not waste more of my time.

I am here to read some pearls that have real insight or fresh opinions on the subject with quality argumentation.

With this very article, I will give just one more example of blatant error:

China never recognized the McMahon Line; it was among the factors ultimately leading to an India-China War in 1962 and periodic skirmishes ever since.

India-China war in 1962 was caused by Indian gradual incursions and creating new military posts over 20 km  behind the McMahon line, (I do not remember well exact number of km).  Best source per both Western and Eastern opinions alike is made by Maxwell, please read it.

At least 2-3 other major factual errors and a few very strong biases.

That's interesting... while there were 43 such Indian outposts north of the McMahon line, they were establish pre-1961, while the Chinese 'response' occurred 20 October 1962 (conveniently timed with the Cuban missile crisis when China knew India wouldn't receive US support).

But "new" military posts were the cause? 

Me thinks not. 

From my point of view, it appears to be a convenient starting point to ignore the complicated history of the region.

And that complicated history is that Tibet, Britain, and China agreed to a border in 1914 (Silma Accord), Chinese representatives were present during this meeting, had the authority to make the agreement, and agreed, however when the central government in China heard the conditions of the agreement that had been made, they voided the Chinese representatives authority to make such an agreement and claimed the agreement void. Tibet then claimed this was part of 'Outer Tibet' which they had sole authority over and confirmed the agreement as made. I am not aware of, nor could I find any substantial Chinese refutation of this bilateral agreement until 1949 when China took Tibet and refused to recognize the boundary claiming 'Tibet was always part of China and did not have the authority to make such deals'... 35 years after the deal was agreed. The agreement was that the highest ridge was the separation between the two countries, but in the map of the agreement, they drew the line wrong because they didn't have sufficiently accurate topographical maps to find the agreed ridge. In 1950, the Indian Prime Minister declared before parliament that the McMahon Line as its official border - to which the Chinese government did not object, and again in 951 and 1952 when asked, the Chinese government officially declared there was no border issue with India. In 1954 Indian maps showed some areas north of the McMahon Line as Indian Territory and in 1956, Chinese maps showed areas to the south as Chinese territory. India claimed there was a conflict, China claimed there was no border dispute - however relations were more or less peaceful, yet distrustful. 1959 Tibetan uprising fails and the 14th Dalai Lama flees to India - dispute heats up. In seeking to secure the area due to the disagreement with China over the validity of the boundary agreement, India realized the discrepancy between the wording and the map drawing and claimed the wording was the binding portion of the agreement (Hence the maps claiming land north of the line). They then proceeded to build 60 outposts to defend their claimed territory - 43 of which were north of the drawn line, but south of the highest ridge as worded during the agreement. Roughly 2 years later China takes issue with this and advanced over Indian forces.

 

Blah... that was a lot of history. Had to brush up on some key dates and refresh my memory (not a history scholar here, but reasonably well versed on it) So, that whole section is 100% verifiable fact. I read over it repeatedly to make sure I chose neutral wording to avoid any claims of bias.

The relevant articles quote:

Quote

Xi's doctrine includes rejecting as illegitimate any "unequal treaties" forced on China by Euro-Atlantic powers, such as Great Britain's imposition of the McMahon Line, which awarded to the British Crown Colony of India hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Chinese territory. China never recognized the McMahon Line; it was among the factors ultimately leading to an India-China War in 1962 and periodic skirmishes ever since.

Actually seems pretty unbias from my point of view... even slanting Pro-China in the wording (Highlighted red)

So, from that, how is the article incorrect?

10 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Nothing. 

The more I review this, the more i actually see unconscious Pro-Chinese bias...

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Pro-Chinese bias...

Well I'm an impartial kinda guy   

I like facts. They can be helpful. 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Like the ‘disclaimer’ bit😂

[Guest]

Mate I have to haha, ... ''hmmm, DT, I'm not sure about this (probably 4 word) section'', like I authored it. 

Take it up with the journalist. I've started maybe 100 threads, and in all that time had maybe 3-4 ''hmm DT?'' comments?

So .. pretty accurate articles I'd say. Depends on your version of history / fact.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest