Hello FR1, Sensitive question asked of this Trinidadian Chinese living in Hong Kong, quietly assemblying a nest egg so that he can party in the Philippines. Let me keep the OT stuff off the CSCO thread and not shake the confidence of the believers. And no, folks, I do not want to start anything remotely acrimonious with anybody on the left or right of Bush. I tend to be overly dramatic in my writing because it is fun.
This is a response to FR1 from the CSCO thread on a query FR1 had in …
Message 15331666
specifically,
QUOTE
<<3) ....on old fashioned aircraft carriers ....
Right again. Bush will probably do more defense spending. Hey! I have a question since you are in HK. It seems the Chinese are going all out to build a big military. What sounds frightening is that they are making polaris submarines. They sure don't need that for Taiwan. It makes me think that they want to use them to threaten the US or something. What do you think about the military build up and where it is headed? By the way, how are you guys doing under Beijing? Do they control all the ISPs and make communication difficult? Do you think there will be political reform, over time, eventually leading to democratic elections in the heart of China?
4) ....high yield Euro bond fund...
I like that idea. What kind of return can you get one Euro bond funds? Who do you like?>>
UNQUOTE
which were in turn responses to my usual tirades made in …
Message 15330928
<<on old fashioned aircraft carriers …>>
That is the bad and good news for the US hawks: yes, a case can be made for making China out to be the enemy, and yes, more toys can be bought.
The basic problem with all press of all countries is their tendency to distort based on their persuasions, laziness on research, connectivity to history, and of course, occasionally their need to keep their sources happy by placing a story deemed important by their sources. I had done the placing of such stories on a resort development I was at one time involved in and have helped clients to so in an effort to get their money back from partners who had cheated them. I read at least the daily headlines of US, China, Taiwan and Japanese press, just so I do not get mislead on events that might matter to me.
The facts are pretty simple … China’s GDP is about 1/8 that of US, and ¼ that of Japan’s and its military budget is way smaller on both percentage to GDP and on absolute basis than that of US, Russia, and Japan, having to defend a population bordering Japan, Russia, India and Vietnam. China’s conventional weaponry is at best early 1980s vintage in most categories (armour, helicopter, planes, ships, electronics), lacking material amphibious capability, and lacking combine warfare experience. China had been at war for much of its recent past 250 year history directly or by proxy, mostly not at its first instigation. So, if a build up of forces occurs as a natural consequence of economic development, historic phobia and organic upgrade, the buildup is then characterized in the outside press as “massive buildup”. Anything engaged in by a country with 1/6 the world’s population could be correctly termed “massive” by definition. The basic course of development is buy a sample, reverse engineer, build own. Jet engines come from Britain, fighters from Russia, avionics from Israel, ships from Russia, etc etc. The technology gap has been closing steadily over the last 30 years, closing faster in the last 10. The numeric gap and command/control gap remains.
On the nuclear side of the equation, US and Russia both have over 2,500 strategic multiple target-able missiles, plus, plus, plus. China has a force on the order less than that of Britain and France, has remained more or less constant over the past 20 years, facing forces arrayed right on its border from Russia, Japan (US owned hardware), and India. Russia, Japan all have claims on territory based on 19th century imperial/colonial times against China, and US is set on seeing a “peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question, while recognizing that there is one China and Taiwan is a part of China”. Now, what responsible government would advocate that China slow down its military development? Within the past 50 years, both the US and the Russian government had considered using nuclear weapons against China as first strike. The buildup has quickened by policy arising out of the Chinese embassy bombing by the US a few years ago.
China has at least two nuclear powered subs, and is known to have some sub launched strategic missiles. This has been the case for nearly the past 20 years. Until recently, China has not shown an inclination to develop a blue water navy, that is until Clinton sent in the Enterprise into the Taiwan strait (96) at the bidding of Indonesia Chinese calling on behalf of some Taiwan Chinese, funneling funds from HK Chinese banks. The Chinese on all sides are selling influence, bidding for time, hankering for negotiating positions.
The performance of the US and NATO was instructional to the Beijing folks in the different US responses to Bosnia/Serbia and in Russia’s Chechnya. The message is loud and clear … “nuclear parity guarantees non-forceful outside intervention”. Subs, while really only good for a one strike, first strike or retaliation strike, are useful given that the attacked cannot hide behind any missile shield.
It is thus correct to say China’s sub development is aimed at the US, as Japan will not be a country of consequence, much less the Britains of the world, and certainly not India.
I do not think the arms race, once ignited, can be put out easily, especially Ashcroft once supported the use of US military to actively drive aspiring world powers off the stage. The boys on all sides must play and the companies on all sides must stay employed. So, it looks like the peace dividend will be cut, along with taxes and interest rate.
Generically I do not see large points of contention between US and China except for Taiwan and global position. On Taiwan, there is no hope for it to wiggle away as time is simply not on their side; it is bleeding money, factories, businesses and confidence to China. Integration will happen, only the terms are still open, though closing fast. On global position, barring immediate war over nothing, 1/6 of the world’s population will have a global position to match, at 1/5 the cost (cost of hardware and software with “made in China” label).
On China, I think folks must realize that the last 250 years of its history can be viewed as a “corporate crisis and restructuring” in light of its 4,000 years of history.
And so that was the bad and good news for the US hawks. |
