Re <<We used to think that Russia's economy was the equivalent of a small European country. Maybe never before has an economy's importance been so grossly misjudged?>>
Perhaps Russia inadvertently followed Sun Tzu's counsel, whereas China deliberately did same. Or just the usual failure of intelligence ala Afghanistan.
Now, 9-years under the bridge, we revisit below article w/r to advice by comrade Deng Xiao Ping, "Hide Your Strength, Bide Your time"
But, meaning however, it might be the case that America does not have a China-problem, as opposed to an American issue. If has a China-problem, then what would be the solution?
In the meantime, re <<Maybe as much as 40% larger if we assume US + EU is in fact maybe just 25% of the world's economy vs 35% for China + Russia ??>> my read of 2026 / 2032 is premised on China de facto GDP hitting 35% go global total, and yet still minding own business doing own thing, welcoming folks to engage, without doing much of anything else to folks lest they get in the way.
Ukraine can be pivotal, and might be accelerant, as Nato seems intent on painting China and Russia with same broad brush, a guess.
It is possible that Obama, in choosing Asia pivot, did sub-optimal, and instead ought to have taken up Xi's offer to share brookings.edu
On the Chinese side, following his rise to the top leadership, President Xi Jinping proposed in 2015 a “new type of great power relations” between China and the United States. Although the dictum of “no conflict and no confrontation; mutual respect and win-win cooperation” represents an admirable founding principle, China’s position lacks substance. For example, the United States has called into question the specifics of China’s core interests, its definition of “great power,” and the relationship between these conceptualizations and real-world problem-solving.
Interesting that <<an admirable founding principle, China’s position lacks substance>> was also used to describe One Belt One Road, and now, so many years later, is seen as a stratagem of the first order. It is interesting how different minds work.
Let's watch.
echinacities.com
Is China Still Following Deng Xiaoping's Axiom, "Hide Your Strength, Bide Your time?"
Apr 08, 2013
Perhaps China's true strategy goes back a few centuries and more closely follows Sun Tzu when he says in The Art of War, "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." If so, it may be a good time for Americans to read Sun Tzu's 6th century Chinese military treatise. Sun Tzu’s philosophy is to make fighting a war unnecessary, to instead accomplish the most with minimal risk – essentially, to win without fighting.
The economic rise of China is well documented. Kevin Rudd, a member of the Australian Parliament and former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Australia captures this rise when he says, "The speed, scale, and reach of China's rise are without precedent in modern history. Within just 30 years, China's economy has grown from smaller than the Netherland's to larger than those of all other countries except the United States. If China soon becomes the largest economy, as some predict, it will be the first time since George III that a non-English-speaking, non-Western, nondemocratic country has led the global economy." He continues, "History teaches that where economic power goes, political and strategic power usually follows."
Perhaps a bigger global fear is not simply China's rise, but America's decline. This 'see-saw' (China rises as the U.S. declines) is making many of China's neighbors nervous.
The New York Times reports that with President Xi consolidating power, China's new foreign policy team "includes officials whose records suggest the government will concentrate on consolidating what it considers the country's rightful place at the center of Asia." In the same article it says, The White House states "despite cuts in military spending it will pursue its 'strategic pivot' to Asia, a policy that is interpreted in China as containment of its economic and military gains."
“Military Industrial Complex”
A Chinese wave of military expansion has the potential for a build-up that may ultimately swamp America, but perhaps not in the way some expect. According to Pentagon officials, China is not yet capable of competing militarily with the U.S. and is at least a generation or more behind the United States in military technology.
Perhaps the real threat is what former World War II hero, general and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower foresaw in his farewell presidential speech nearly 50 years ago. Eisenhower warned the nation to beware of the "Military Industrial Complex" – an "iron triangle" of intertwined relationships between government, the armed forces and the industrial sector that manufactures arms and profits from them.
Americans must be careful that they do not allow recent China saber rattling, evidenced by a testing of their first stealth jet and the construction of their first aircraft carrier as well as excursions into the South China Sea, to draw the US into an extended arms race that it can ill afford.
Should the U.S. protect its national interests? Absolutely! However, the policy question moving forward will be: At what cost? And does the US win the battle only to lose the war?
The military budget, like all aspects of U.S. spending, has recently come under fire in this new era of budget austerity and is seeing forced or automatic cuts due to the "sequester."
China has used its evolving economic strength to gain enormous strategic geopolitical advantage in a number of areas, spending the better part of its stellar economic rise to build its country: roads, bridges, air and seaports, bullet trains, schools, universities – not to mention its internal domestic security apparatus. All the while, the U.S. has disinvested in its people and domestic priorities, allowed its infrastructure to decay and building up its military only to police the world, spending trillions overseas. It shows, too, as the U.S. struggles economically – it’s also crumbling, literally, from within.
Clearly, China is also spending militarily as well as on domestic needs. If the U.S. tries to keep pace with an arms race with China could it, like the USSR, go broke? The Soviet Union spent its focus and economy on an arms race with the West (primarily the U.S.). Economically, communism was part of the problem but the spending on arms ultimately brought down the former USSR.
Can the U.S. afford its new "pivot to Asia" when it has a deficit in excess of $14 trillion, borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent and owing China a trillion dollars? When it comes to the U.S. spending wishbone, domestic vs. military spending going forward, who will be the ultimate winner? By now China's economic waves have been rolling up on our shores for sometime. Their military wave is just beginning to build.
Nationalism As The Glue
China has been a preeminent world power with the exception of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Recent flexing of China's economy, education and military now represents to China's nationalistic masses a historical norm, not an abnormality. Today, Chinese Netizens are abuzz with China reclaiming its historical mantle.
China's nationalism will be the glue that will bind the country together. Riding high historically, China has seen no limit to its power and influence. The country has also shown tremendous restraint as an underdog, curling up like a pill bug until the environment is safe to emerge again. The 21st century will witness the continuous uncurling of China.
Will China drag the U.S. into greater military spending, borrowing money from China to do so, enabling them to stoke both their domestic and military spending thus accelerating the economic see-saw, with America occupying the declining position? America’s national leaders need to watch this building storm, protect our interests, and be careful that its own preparation for the coming waves does not become its undoing.
Sun Tzu, reminds us: "The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." Chinese and U.S. leaders vowed to build "a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit," now only time will tell how this will play out.
Tom Watkins serves on the University of Michigan Confucius Institute board of advisors and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation international advisory board. He is the former Michigan state superintendent of schools, President and CEO of the economic council of Palm Beach County, FL. and is currently a U.S./China business and educational consultant.
See original article here: chinausfocus.com
Warning:The use of any news and articles published on eChinacities.com without written permission from eChinacities.com constitutes copyright infringement, and legal action can be taken.
Keywords: The Art of War Sun Tzu Deng Xiaoping's Axiom |
