Europeans see China as greatest global threat

[Skybird]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89261466-0a79-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

China has overtaken the US as the biggest threat to global stability in the eyes of Europeans, according to a Harris opinion poll for the Financial Times.
The recent wave of protests and riots in Tibet and the ensuing Chinese crackdown, together with competition from cheap Chinese exports, appear to have dramatically hardened opinion, with the proportion of Europeans who saw China as the biggest threat almost doubling since last year.
(...)
Only inhabitants of Spain still considered the US to be a bigger threat than China, by 41 per cent to 28 per cent.
(...)
The story of the last five years has been about economic opportunities. The story of the last six months has been about China as a threat in Darfur and in Tibet.” The little that Europeans knew about China came from news coverage, recently unfavourable, whereas they were constantly consuming US popular culture, Mr Leonard explained.

[Tchocky]

Could be more to do with the current Olympic mess (which I can barely hear over the sound of creaking bandwagons) rather than a long-term trend.
The more we trade, the better an investment stability becomes.

[Skybird]

The more we traded, the more dominant their economy became, the less they showed a will to change their policestate-methods.

Maybe we shouldn't have delivered them the knowhow and machinery to build machinery on their own that produces and overroles our own production.

[joegrundman]

China's a flawed country, as are many others, and it's flaws are none too nice either - but in what way is it a threat to global security?

[SUBMAN1]

China's a flawed country, as are many others, and it's flaws are none too nice either - but in what way is it a threat to global security?THey are on a one track course to build or buy equipment that competes directly with US military hardware, and it is all capable. Couple that to the fact that they are probably willing to use it over Taiwan, and it gets worse. Their published military expenditures is about 1/4 that of the US, and that is only what they are allowing you to know. They could be spending equal money to the US on their military right now, and no one would ever know.

Basically, if you spend that kind of money, even 1/4 of it at a specific adversary in mind, you will have no problem accomplishing your goals if that adversary is spending their money on a more rounded approach.

They defintiely have the capability to stall the US Navy at this point, long enough to over0run Taiwan. They may even have enough power to take them on directly for a given time. THeir sub fleet outnumbers The US now even.

So you tell me? They sound willing to use that power for conquest at any time as well.

I think one day, China will give up on the world market and start taking over territories that it thinks is theirs. It will be pure conquest.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm so damn tired of the China sensationalism the warmongers love to spam down everyone's throats. They were saying all of the same stupid ass stuff back in the 80s when Japan's economy was out of control too. Now look, as with ALL countries, Japan's economy grew at such a rate it's bubble has EXPLODED and it's economy is stagnant and utterly impotent. At least they didn't have billions of people reliant upon the continuous growth of their sustainable infrastructure. China can barely feed its billions of inhabitants TODAY. That's why I get a kick out of all the "lawl China's economy is powa!" nonsense that I hear. Oh sure they manage to kick up a few extra hospitals and schools in the cities every now and then, but here's a hint, urban enviornments always benefit from even minimal growth. Their are plenty of rural regions in China that aren't even aware of this stuff. It's so exagerated it's hilarious.

[CaptHawkeye]

Basically, if you spend that kind of money, even 1/4 of it at a specific adversary in mind, you will have no problem accomplishing your goals if that adversary is spending their money on a more rounded approach.

Tell that to Hitler.

They defintiely have the capability to stall the US Navy at this point, long enough to over0run Taiwan. They may even have enough power to take them on directly for a given time. THeir sub fleet outnumbers The US now even.

Oh noez, Submarines. Yeah, I mean, the entire Navy doctrine of carrier escort has only been built around the concept of an enemy who will rely upon strategic submarine attacks to neutralize US carriers. Which was the whole plan against the Soviet Union. They knew this because even in their prime the Soviets could never operate as many aircraft carriers as the US could even during its prime. For christ sake, the US operates no less than 16 nuclear aircraft carriers during peace time.

So you tell me? They sound willing to use that power for conquest at any time as well.

You tell me why China would even bother. What's a war going to get them? This is just sensationalist dishonesty. No one in the Chinese government wants war with anyone. Since their is too much to lose economically. What people keep hearing are the insane rantings of a couple of over nationalist Chinese generals.

I think one day, China will give up on the world market and start taking over territories that it thinks is theirs. It will be pure conquest.

-S

What do you think this is. Ace Combat?

[SUBMAN1]

Well, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. I guess China has no need of all that military hardware then now does it? :D They better pull the cork. Actions speak louder than words my friend, and their actions are extremely hostile. How about the missiles built and aimed at Taiwan? How about the shots across taiwan airspace with them? These Generals seem to have a lot of freedom to cause tension and use hardware. But it must be a figment of my imagination. You told me it is, so it must be true. :D

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Well, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. I guess China has no need of all that military hardware then now does it? :D They better pull the cork. Actions speak louder than words my friend, and their actions are extremely hostile. How about the missiles built and aimed at Taiwan? How about the shots across taiwan airspace with them? These Generals seem to have a lot of freedom to cause tension and use hardware. But it must be a figment of my imagination. You told me it is, so it must be true. :D

-S

Yeah, I hear random skirmishes = complete war. Fear monger more plz.

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah, I hear random skirmishes = complete war. Fear monger more plz.Its not me - look at China! :yep: Open your eyes.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah, I hear random skirmishes = complete war. Fear monger more plz.Its not me - look at China! :yep: Open your eyes.

-S

Open your supporting evidence that China's invasion of Taiwan is imminent! :yep: Wait where is it?

[SUBMAN1]

You tell me? They passed this law by the way.

-S

January 10, 2005, 7:15 a.m.
The Invasion of Taiwan
A Chinese law would make it legal.

By John J. Tkacik
News that China's National People's Congress Standing Committee has placed an "anti-secession law" on the agenda for next March's NPC session raises the question, "Don't China's lawmakers have anything better to do?" Indeed they do, but as the Argentine colonels reasoned in 1982, it's clearly easier to whip up national opinion over small islands like the Falklands — or Taiwan, in China's case — than to solve the country's problems. Beijing's top Taiwan-affairs director, Chen Yunlin, was in Washington, D.C., last week to lobby the Bush administration and Congress on the absolute necessity of such a law, and the fact that Taiwanese independence is an existential threat to China's "core national security interests." (This, despite the fact that Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949, so whatever China's "core" interests are, they have successfully kept for the past half century.)


http://www.nationalreview.com/ads/images/ad_header.gif
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif
Although the actual text of the draft "law" has yet to be published, it appears to be a watered-down version of a truly fanatical "Unification Law" advocated by at least one Chinese professor, Yu Yuanzhou of Wuhan University, whose proposed legislation requires the Chinese People's Liberation Army to attack Taiwan as soon as it is able. Yu's legislation, which has been circulating on the Internet for over two years, calls for the PLA to immediately start bombarding Quemoy and Matsu — and it "would not be limited to conventional weapons."


Sadly, the kind of nonsense that Prof. Yu touts via the Internet passes for rational legislative discourse in China, and last May, during a tea party for visiting Premier Wen Jiabao with Chinese expatriates in London, an elderly Chinese demanded the premier pass such a law soon. The flustered premier humored the old man, "Your view on unification of the motherland is very important, very important. We will seriously consider it." But before the thoughtful premier had finished his session, his traveling propaganda entourage had it on all the Chinese newswires, and "unification law" became official policy.


Since then, Chinese propaganda departments have changed the name from "unification law" to "anti-secession law" — not (as some in the Western press have speculated) as a gesture of moderation, but to avoid any misunderstanding that China might not already be "unified." Perish the thought! No, Taiwan is an integral part of China illegally struggling to be "independent." Therefore, Taiwan is already unified with China, so "anti-secession" it is.


One need not wait until March 5 to see the first draft (which, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist party, will also be the final draft) of the law to know that its goal is not "anti-secession" and that it is not even a "law." It is clear from the official Chinese media that the "law" is supposed to authorize China's military to invade Taiwan immediately upon some future Taiwanese "declaration of independence." But both China's existing National Defense Law and its legislation governing national territory already require that the military defend China's homeland. This new legislation, as with most exercises in Chinese foreign-policy legislation, is a propaganda tool designed for two audiences.


First, it readies the Chinese people for war with Taiwan, and second, it will be trotted out and exhibited as a diplomatic lever whenever Americans point to the U.S. obligation — under Section 2(b)(6) of our own domestic legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act (http://www.taiwandocuments.org/tra02.htm) — to "maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."


As such, this proposed Chinese legislation is highly destabilizing. Beijing's leaders believe their bellicosity has already prepared Washington for a Chinese military attack against Taiwan. In December 2003, according to CNN's respected China analyst, Willy Lam, a senior politburo member declared that President George W. Bush's "unambiguous opposition to attempts by Taipei to change the status quo" was such that if "we were to respond militarily, the U.S. can't raise objections let alone interfere." In May, another noted China scholar, Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that the U.S. was sending a dangerous message to Beijing. "Some Chinese even believe," she reported, "that the U.S. may acquiesce in a limited use of force by the PLA — for example, to seize an offshore island, temporarily impose a limited blockade, or fire a lone missile at a military target on Taiwan." Yet Chinese leaders still think they need a "law" to legitimize their threats.


On the other hand, American leaders get very defensive in the face of China's increasingly strident threats to launch a military attack against Taiwan. Rather than articulate U.S. interests, they lamely point to the Taiwan Relations Act as somehow tying their unwilling hands. As recently as October 25, Secretary of State Colin Powell stammered that "the Chinese leaders who I spoke to today said that [Taiwan] is an internal matter for [China] to determine . . . and I appreciate their position, but nevertheless, that build-up creates a degree of tension and instability across the Straits and puts pressure on the Taiwanese side to seek additional weaponry. And under our law, we have an obligation to see to their self-defense needs." In essence, the State Department's response to China's demands to halt our defense relationship with Taiwan is to claim that U.S. law requires it.


The Chinese, unfamiliar with a true "rule of law," are now prepared to respond with their own "law," one that probably will say, "China shall wage war against an independent Taiwan." This, notwithstanding that Taiwan is already independent in every way — including by its own insistence — and that Taiwanese have been carrying on their own existence separate from China's for over a century (if one doesn't count the three postwar years of what was legally a Chinese "military occupation" of a former Japanese colonial territory). If the U.S. administration is ruled by principle instead of craven expedience, it will respond to this Chinese ploy with the kind of forceful declaration usually reserved for Taiwan's leaders. So, President Bush should declare explicitly, in terms identical to his jibe at Taiwan's democratically elected president last December, that China's proposed anti-secession legislation "indicates that China may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose." This would be a nice bookend to President Bush's overreaction to Taiwan President Chen's rather benign effort last December to legislate a "referendum" of protest against China's undeniable missile threat to the island.


But above all, the United States must be candid with the American people, with our democratic allies and friends in Asia, and above all with the Chinese dictatorship, about the American commitment to help Taiwan defend itself. Although the State Department seems abashed that the U.S. helps defend democratic Taiwan, it could find an eloquent statement of U.S. policy over at the Defense Department. Last April 21, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman explained to the House International Relations Committee that "the President's National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, calls for 'building a balance of power that favors freedom.' Taiwan's evolution into a true multi-party democracy over the past decade is proof of the importance of America's commitment to Taiwan's defense. It strengthens American resolve to see Taiwan's democracy grow and prosper." That sums it up nicely.


If Chen Yun Lin can take a healthy dose of reality back to Beijing from his Washington visits, perhaps China's National People's Congress can begin to focus on China's real problems — ones like the vast official corruption at all levels of government and party, rural poverty, the collapse of public healthcare, the financial crisis, unsafe mines, AIDS, and the wholesale pollution of its waters and earth.

— John J. Tkacik Jr. is a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/).
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tkacik200501100715.asp

[CaptHawkeye]

Oh, they made a policy of beligerent military stance against Taiwan! This is different form the past 50 years of their relationship how? So far this is just more smoke and mirrors on China's part, nothing new. Where's the invasion anyway? Where is the mass force build up and pre-emptive bombardments? All of this is still just slippery slope fallacy nonsense.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh, they made a policy of beligerent military stance against Taiwan! This is different form the past 50 years of their relationship how? So far this is just more smoke and mirrors on China's part, nothing new. Where's the invasion anyway? Where is the mass force build up and pre-emptive bombardments? All of this is still just slippery slope fallacy nonsense.Uhh, where have you been? Hiding out in your basement? Do you know how many missiles are pointed at Taiwan now? Look it up.

And your opinions mean nothing. Actions are being taken against Taiwan and they are not friendly. China means to destroy Taiwan if they can't have it back. That is where we are now. Welcome back to the world - you seem to need some catching up.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Uhh, where have you been? Hiding out in your basement? Do you know how many missiles are pointed at Taiwan now? Look it up.

Just like how many missiles were pointed at the Soviet Union during the 60s. That was one hell of a war right? Whoops.

And your opinions mean nothing. Actions are being taken against Taiwan and they are not friendly. China means to destroy Taiwan if they can't have it back. That is where we are now. Welcome back to the world - you seem to need some catching up.

-S

You're still relying upon your slippery slope nonsense to just conclude that an invasion of Taiwan is imminent in the near future. You have no direct evidence of this other than China's usual beligerant posturing against Taiwan. You believe that since Event X has occured event Y must therefore follow. War doesn't just START. Their is a series of steps that must occur for a war as serious as this to occur and plenty of the puzzle pieces are still missing. Like it or not, it takes more than a simple policy shift to start a war.

[SUBMAN1]

Just like how many missiles were pointed at the Soviet Union during the 60s. That was one hell of a war right? Whoops. You're not very smart are you? MAD existed back then. WHere is Taiwan's missiles aimed? Oops, they don't have any, so why should CHina's be aimed at them?


You're still relying upon your slippery slope nonsense to just conclude that an invasion of Taiwan is imminent in the near future. You have no direct evidence of this other than China's usual beligerant posturing against Taiwan. You believe that since Event X has occured event Y must therefore follow. War doesn't just START. Their is a series of steps that must occur for a war as serious as this to occur and plenty of the puzzle pieces are still missing.Not even close. I'm relying on China's own words on the subject, and their posture. Maybe yo missed that part? doubt it. You probably just have all that sand around your eyes! :p :D

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

You're not very smart are you? MAD existed back then. WHere is Taiwan's missiles aimed? Oops, they don't have any, so why should CHina's be aimed at them?

Whoops! Red herring! Try reading into the argument a little more!


Not even close. I'm relying on China's own words on the subject, and their posture.

Two very reliable things as shown by history! lolamirite?

[SUBMAN1]

Whoops! Red herring! Try reading into the argument a little more! Why? THis simply invalidates your argument one more time, so there is no need.



Two very reliable things as shown by history! lolamirite?They have. When a powerful state says they are going to do something, I've yet to see where they don't. Keep wishing for an angle, but in the end, you have none on this one.

-S

[CaptHawkeye]

Why? THis simply invalidates your argument one more time, so there is no need.


Yes, you don't even know what a red herring is.


They have. When a powerful state says they are going to do something, I've yet to see where they don't. Keep wishing for an angle, but in the end, you have none on this one.

-S

Yup, no angle for me. I didn't read a single sensationalist article on the net and conclude that the war is right around the corner with the only thing to back it up being my vague statements, such as above.

You still have yet to show why this is more than just usual posturing on China's part. Clearly we need to start digging the bunkers and begining the conscription because China passed a law basically saying they hate Taiwan....again.

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, you don't even know what a red herring is. Please educate me. I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for the answer.

Yup, no angle for me. I didn't read a single sensationalist article on the net and conclude that the war is right around the corner with the only thing to back it up being my vague statements, such as above.

You still have yet to show why this is more than just usual posturing on China's part. Clearly we need to start digging the bunkers and begining the conscription because China passed a law basically saying they hate Taiwan....again.I don't need to show anything. What needs to be shown is how China's aggressive posturing 'is not a threat'. THat is what needs to be shown. When someone comes into a shop and threatens to shoot everyone, I usually take them seriously. Seems its normal biz for you - you must have some sort of Superman suit or something! :D :p

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think China's going to do anything "imminently", but when 2020 comes round we'll see.

PD

[Skybird]

Okay guys, I started this thread so I am a bit responsible here.

Cool it down everybody please.

This thread is not so much about China, but European's assumptions and opinions as mentioned in the starting posting by me.

[SUBMAN1]

This thread is not so much about China, but European's assumptions and opinions as mentioned in the starting posting by me.Well, it is about China, so the discussion should be why it is causing this untrustworthyness? Here is your report to the US Congress for 2008:

http://www.milnet.com/archives/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

-S

[bradclark1]

If or when China does anything with Taiwan it will be with such overwhelming force that the US would think twice about interfering and if we have to think twice we won't. They might figure the economics are worth the risk. All they have to say is they'll treat it like they did Hong Kong and 3/4 of the world will say "Oh well that OK then". It will boil down to whoever is the sitting President deciding whether its worth the possible destruction of a carrier group and politically he or she won't survive a loss that size. It will be a case of bluff or balls.
My 2 cents anyway.

[joegrundman]

Unless Taiwan declares full independence from China, and completely ends this strange word game about being an integral part of China (directly challenging a Chinese shibboleth), then there is little risk of an invasion, at least not for a long time.

Missiles not withstanding, China probably cannot successfully invade Taiwan even without direct US assistance anyway.

China is after economic progress in order to become a fully "rounded" power, as Subman would put it. It's economic progress so far has been sustained by trade, largely with the western countries and Japan. China is therefore a major stakeholder in the global system as it is, and would not benefit from reckless military actions. It only stands to lose. There is now a very large and influential business class in China that would be strongly against government actions that threaten their successes.

So what everyone hopes for is that we all continue to play this word game regarding the status of independent Taiwan - and that's moreorless what everyone does.

Ultimately, why shouldn't China modernise it's forces? It's not like the US isn't still modernising despite long since leaving everyone else's capability behind. As far as i know, this was a development provoked by the first Gulf War, which showed how out of date their military concepts had become. China of course is very keen not to exist at the whim of a vaguely hostile (and increasingly bellicose?) US.

Anyway this is just from a wiki thing, but this list of global military spending shows, if correct, what China's really looks like:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_annual_military_spending_tops_$1.2_trillion


United States $528.7-B
United Kingdom $59.2-B
France $53.1-B
China $49.5-B
Japan $43.7-B


which is to actually say less than 1/10th the US spending, not 1/4, scarcely more than Japan's, and less than France's.

[Trex]

Anyway this is just from a wiki thing, but this list of global military spending shows, if correct, what China's really looks like:


United States $528.7-B
United Kingdom $59.2-B
France $53.1-B
China $49.5-B
Japan $43.7-B


which is to actually say less than 1/10th the US spending, not 1/4, scarcely more than Japan's, and less than France's.

Using raw stats is always dodgy. Assuming for the purpose of this discussion that the figures are correct (and SIPRI is generally reasonably accurate), consider a few things:

First, the relative costs of things in China and the USA. Note that there is no indication that those figures were put into equivalent dollars. The reason that China has such a booming economy is that it is far cheaper to build something there, using imported materials, then ship it to the other side of the world than it is to build the same item at point of sale. Consider the respective pay rates of a typical US soldier and a typical Chinese one. A dollar buys a lot more there than it does in the USA.

Second, Victor Suvarov, a defector from the USSR during the cold war, noted that all of the Soviet Union's military cost... nothing. In a communist system, raw materials, etc can be diverted to the military's use by a central planning commission and the 'costs' simply written off. Same-same in China, I suspect.

Thirdly, one of the biggest economic powers inside China is the PLA, which owns and operates dozens, if not hundreds, of factories. F-22s would cost a lot less if the USAF owned the plant making them.

[peterloo]

Not to mention that USA spent a part of the military expenditure on something that never pays off - the Iraq War

[joegrundman]

You make some good points: it is certainly not the case that all costs are equivalent.

However, i think at the high-tech end of the spectrum (which is where China is developing) the difference in cost is not so great as with the comparative pay of an infantryman.

And also Victor Suvorov's observation about the non-cost of a socialised military is not necessarily correct. Writing off costs is not the same as not having them, although i suppose your point is that it is difficult to know exactly what the real cost of China's military is. But still, Sovremenyy's get bought from Russia, and that costs dollars, which can be counted. And China as some sort of surrogate USSR for US fantasies don't wash either. Chinese workers don't work for nothing anymore, and PLA businesses are in business to make money, rather than to hide costs from the USA.

As an aside, it may interest you to know that in thailand also, the military use their resources of capital and organisation to run a lot of highly profitable private businesses - it seems to be a theme in the Sinified part of the world.

[Trex]

There is no doubt that the PLA factories are trying to make a profit, but it would be silly to suggest that the PLA charges itself for, oh, repairing an aircraft engine in one of its own factories. There may be bookkeeping notes taken to provide stats on efficiency, etc, but why pay yourself for mowing your own lawn?

As to labour costs, depending on who you go to (World Bank, IMF, etc) the per capita GDP in China is about $8,000, that of the USA is about $45,000. That makes a big difference in costs whether you are making rifles or jet fighters.

As to dollar holdings, the BBC stated that the PRC’s foreign exchange holdings had topped one trillion dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6106280.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6106280.stm) To be sure, that was two years ago (too lazy to hunt further), but it seems unlikely to have dropped – indeed, it has probably risen. Given this, paying cash for even high-end armaments is no biggie, especially since the money just keeps rolling in.

Yes, there is no doubt that the PLAQ is trying to go high-tech. All the same, much of their strength remains with mass rather than sophistication. (Putting the two together has more than just the EY worried).

As you say, it is not by any means open-and-shut. I suspect as well that considerable EWAGs were included as the PRC is not particularly forthcoming with detailed figures. My main point stands, in my opinion - it is difficult to make straight-line comparisons based on such figures, at least not without a Tarot deck beside you.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't use Wiki!!! Those figures are half of what China even reported! Read the report above - its all in the PDF.

Wikipedia is the mis-information pedia of the web. Shesshhh!!! :D

-S

PS. Here is the real Chinese estimated numbers:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/budget-2003.gif

[joegrundman]

Well you've been citing the absolute highest estimate as fact, but that's an acceptable rhetorical device. Very decent of you to show the full range.

There are a lot of issues regarding use of Purchasing Power Parity for your "real" equivalent.

Basically if you want the value to look big, use PPP, if you don't then use the market exchange rate.

Having spent many years in the developing world, it is true that some things are much, much cheaper than in the west, but other things are not, and some can even be more expensive (in terms of exchange rate).

Take Thailand for example, where cars commonly retail at a higher dollar price than in Europe, while a lunch may cost only 1/6th of a similar lunch in Europe.

But still it is clear that there is a major Chinese investment in modernising its military.

The question is nonetheless, what's in it for China to rock the international boat at this time? It is doing very well at the moment, and to throw it all away in a foolish military adventure smacks more of US fantasy than Chinese reality. Remember Deng Xiaoping's 24 character strategy


"Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be
good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.”



Basically this is a recipe for working towards becoming a future great power, and warns against reckless adventurism, and as the China Military Report 2008 points out, Hu Jintao follows these precepts.

Nice pdf by the way, thanks for linking it.

[Trex]

But still it is clear that there is a major Chinese investment in modernising its military.

Full agreement there.