57 replies to this topic

[Integrity_King]

SamxUSA, on 22 June 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

When China Rules the World
China The civilisation state

By Martin Jacques

Reviewed by John Gray - 18 June 2009

It is clear that the rise of China marks the end of western global hegemony, but just what the coming Chinese ascendency will look like is another matter.

On his first visit to China as US treasury secretary, at the start of this month, Timothy Geithner attempted to reassure an audience at Peking University that there is no need to worry about the enormous holdings China has built up in US government bonds. “Chinese assets are very safe,” he declared. Geithner’s statement produced loud laughter from the largely student audience.

Unlike most western commentators, who still give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, China’s emerging elite know there is no prospect that the United States will pay back its debts at anything like their current value. The only way the US can repay its vast borrowings is by debasing the dollar – a process in which China will inevitably be short-changed. Significantly, the students’ response was not anger, but derision – a clear sign of how the US is now perceived. Resentment at US power is being replaced by contempt, as the impotence and self-deception of the American political class in the face of the country’s problems become increasingly evident.

In a characteristically incisive formulation, Martin Jacques writes that the “rise of China and the decline of the United States are central to the present global depression”. Although China remains a fast-emerging, rather than a developed, economy and even though it is nowhere near acquiring America’s worldwide military reach, the crisis has speeded up a shift in the balance of power between the two countries that has been taking place for decades. The importance of China’s advance goes far beyond the incontrovertible fact of America’s relative decline, however. If Jacques is right, the rise of China will bring the end of the western world as we have known it over the past several hundred years.

Western commentators on China fall into two main camps. The first, which we may called the China sceptics, rejects out of hand the notion that China can ever become the world’s dominant power. The second – which is increasingly vocal and influential, especially in the US – sees the rise of China as a major threat to the existing, western-dominated global system. Though the two views are not finally compatible, they can quite often be found in the same person. The awkward fact with which both of them struggle is that China’s industrialisation – the largest in history – has been achieved indigenously. China’s success is widely praised by western governments, but it has been based on a rejection of western advice.

Like climate-change sceptics, China sceptics tend simply to ignore evidence that does not fit their world-view. Even if they accept that China’s success over the past 30 years has been achieved by following a distinctive path, they can only insist that China will be compelled to westernise at some point in the future – overlooking how it is western neoliberalism, and not Chinese capitalism, that has collapsed. Or else, they must admit that China can go on developing, and even overtake the west, while remaining as different from the west as it has ever been. This last is a terrifying scenario, as it implies that if a country westernises, that does not ensure its economic success – if anything, it may be an impediment. In other words, China may be so successful because it is so different from the west. At this point, the first view of China morphs into the second and we start to hear hysterical warnings of the threat posed by China’s inexorable rise. Inside every China sceptic is a prophet of the New Yellow Peril waiting to be let out.

The common conviction of nearly all these commentators is that no country can modernise without following a western path. The message of When China Rules the World – by far the best book on China to have been published in many years, and one of the most important inquiries into the nature of modernisation – is that this assumption blinds us to the way the world is being reshaped before our eyes. Jacques’s comprehensive and richly detailed analysis will be an indispensable resource for anyone who wants to understand contemporary China; but its primary value is in overturning the assumption – almost universal in the west, and held by some in China – that, as a country develops, it is bound to evolve into something like a western state. As Jacques points out, China “may seem like a nation state, but its geological formation is that of a civilisation state”. When China was weak it had little alternative but to accept western terms of reference. As it grows richer and stronger, China is more and more affirming the inherent value, if not the actual superiority, of its ancient civilisation. Far from turning its back on its history, the country is returning to the past in order to forge a new version of modernity.

“The emergence of China as a global power,” Jacques writes, “in effect relativises everything.” The author is not endorsing any kind of fashionable postmodernism here. He is clear that there are universal human values. His argument is rather that there are many ways of recognising universal values in a modern society. All the same, the version of modernity which appears to be emerging in China does come with some rather dark spots. The deep sense of China as a unitary civilisation, together with a pervasive belief in Han superiority, leaves little tolerance for the claims of other cultural groups.

Some way may be found, the author suggests, whereby the Tibetans can coexist with the Chinese state. But, as he admits, the dominant sense of Chinese identity is essentially racial, and most Chinese look down on Tibetans with loathing. In line with this, and also for strategic reasons, “China has encouraged large-scale Han migration in an effort to alter the ethnic balance of the population and thereby weaken the position of the Tibetans who for the most part live in the rural areas and in segregated urban ghettos.” It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in building the Chinese civilisation state, Beijing is systematically destroying a unique civilisation.

A resurgent China will be problematical in a number of ways. It remains very unclear how China’s rulers view the international system. Will they try to reshape it in their own image, and if so what will the world then look like? Jacques argues that something like the tributary system that existed in the past can be re-created, but that system applied mainly to China’s nearer and smaller neighbours. It is impossible to envisage such an unequal relationship being acceptable to India or Russia or, for that matter, Japan. Again, can China extend its control of world markets while retaining its grip on its own economy? Control of capital flows has been one of China’s strengths in the current crisis. Will it be ready to compromise this advantage in order to supplant the failing dollar as the world’s reserve currency?

There are no clear answers, if only because China’s ruling elite have almost certainly not begun to answer these questions themselves. What is undeniable is that China’s ascendancy is bringing with it an international environment potentially more volatile than any in the recent past. So far, says Jacques, “The changes wrought by China’s rise have done little to disturb the calm of global waters, yet their speed and enormity suggest that we have entered an era of profound instability; by way of contrast, the Cold War was characterised by relative predictability combined with exceptional stability.”

The witless, end-of-history triumphalism that shaped western attitudes in the post-Cold War era is nowhere more misplaced than in regard to China. History is on the move again – and it is not the delusional, teleological, self-congratulating history dreamt up by liberal rationalists, which somehow always ends with themselves as the winners. The rise of China is the real thing, a world-changing event that marks the end of western hegemony.

John Gray’s latest book is “Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings” (Allen Lane)

Not surprise from our aged old arch-nemesis. The HANS. We will be ready. Of course first we need to deal with domestic strength. Doubtful though.

Run here comes the HANS.  

Here is some tip. Just because they rule doesn't mean they won't have to "Divide" the "System." Taking control certain key points of China is better than controlling all over China.

[SamxUSA]

Suav sib tw nrog peb Amelikas txoj kev tsim sab tug r.o.g
Suav yeej yog poob qab dej heev. Tab sis Suav yeej muaj zog txaus
yuav ua r.o.g nrog peb Amelikas txhua lub sij hawm lawm. Suav tau
nce sab kev siv nyiaj los tsim sab tub r.o.g txog 100 npaug rau lub
xyoo 2011.

The USA led the rise [in military spending], but it was not alone.
Of those countries for which data was available, 65% increased their military
spending in real terms in 2009. The increase was particularly pronounced among
larger economies, both developing and developed: 16 of the 19 states in the G20
saw real-terms increases in military spending in 2009.


China leads rise in Asia military spending
Posted on October 17, 2012, Wednesday

WASHINGTON: Military spending by Asia’s major powers increased dramatically
over the past decade with China leading the way, as its defence budget
quadrupled since 2000, according to a study released Monday.

Defence spending in China and four other Asian countries doubled over 10
years and will surpass Europe’s military expenditures this year, said the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

Asia’s arms race still leaves it trailing US defence spending, but it will
ensure the United States likely will stick to its plan to shift the country’s
strategic focus towards the Asia-Pacific region, it said.


Defence spending in China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan reached a total
of 224 billion in 2011, which “equates to almost twice the amount spent by these
five countries in 2000,” said the CSIS study.

“With Asian defence spending projected to overtake that of Europe by the end of
2012, the United States’ posture rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region is
likely to continue,” it said.

In 2005, China’s military budget outstripped Japan’s as the largest in Asia and
recorded a 13.4 percent annual rise that year.

Among all countries, China now ranks second behind the United States in total
military spending, though the Pentagon budget still dwarfs Beijing’s defence
spending at more than US$600 billion (463 million euros) year. — AFP

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[SamxUSA]

Beware the Chinese Sea-Dragon
Chinese bellicosity in the near seas could usher in a new era of instability.

By Alex Ward Published 15 October 2012 17:46         . Sailors aboard the Chinese
Navy destroyer Qingdao. Photo: ©David Rush Recently, Chinese assertiveness was
brought to the fore by its sparring with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in
the East China Sea. In early September a conflagration of anti-Japanese protests
and boycotts engulfed China after the Japanese government attempted to buy ownership
of the disputed atolls from a Japanese businessman. The Chinese government responded
forcibly, sending roughly 1,000 fishing vessels to the area, flanked by six frigates
and several surveillance units.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Integrity_King]

Guest, on 17 October 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

HANS are not about control, they are human eaters

No offense but that sounds very ignorant.

[SamxUSA]

Yij Pooj tawm tsam Suav txoj kev txeeb koog pov txwv Senkaku

In 1885, the Japanese government has conducted a field survey,
and confirmed that Senkaku Islands were uninhabited, and these
islands were not under the control of the Qing.
In 1895, the Japanese government has built a pile to mark the
Senkaku Islands, and Japan has formally incorporated these islands
into Japanese territory.
From 1880s to 1940, Japanese residents of the Ryukyu Islands built
a pier and a fish processing plant in the Senkaku Islands.

[SamxUSA]

Chinese Media Tells U.S. to Shut Up Over South China Sea

[SamxUSA]

Suav thiab US yuav sib ntsuas zog nyob South China Sea

[SamxUSA]

Suav Tawm Tsam Yij Pooj

[SamxUSA]

hmoobdub, on 31 October 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Sam, there are several reasons China is not going to be the World Leader..even though she will surpassed the USA in energy sufficiency and biggest investment but the bottom line is China still remaining as an ALIAN and enemy to many developed countries....despite all of positive economic signs  China have earned in the last 3 decades her GDP is much below the USA and Japan...China: $4000
        Japan: $47,000
        USA:   $42,000
By looking at this statistic, it may very well take at least another decade or two to catch up with the US.
Geographyically, China is surounded with her enemies: Mongo- USSR to the North/ Japan - S.KOREAN to the EAST/ INdia-Tibet to the Southwest/ and Muslim Countries in Central Asia and currently Vietnam and Phillipine are considered as natural resources enenmies in the South China Sea.  China had out sources spending($ billions) the USA just to portect her own teritory. China can be and will be trapped by all her enenies when politically or militarily broke-out. So, as speaking China have seen that trap may come , she will have to build Naval Ships  against the the US..this... however, will take two or more decades in order to be even or balance the naval threat of the US.

CHINA RISING NAVAL POWER

China’s growing challenge US domination of the North Pacific became ever more evident last week as the People’s Republic revealed a new, long-ranged, radar-evading stealth aircraft, the J-20.
The J-20 is likely five years from deployment. Its radar-evading ability is unknown, and probably no match for the operational US F-22 stealth fighter.

But this news has been the biggest cause of dismay to the US Navy since a Chinese attack submarine embarrassingly popped up in the middle of a US Navy fleet exercise off China.

China has also managed to deploy 60 modern submarines, a small number nuclear-powered, that are silent and deadly, in contrast to China’s older generation of noisy, vulnerable subs.

Adding to US concerns, China has completed an unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier, “Varyag,” that it brought from Ukraine a decade ago. I have been observing its completion at the northern Chinese port of Dalian.

Two new, 50,000-ton aircraft carriers are being built in Shanghai, to be launched 2014 and 2020. The new Chinese carriers will likely be equipped with Chinese-made naval fighters or naval versions of the formidable Russian Sukhoi warplanes.

Developing aircraft carriers and properly training their crews can take generations. China is only at the first day in school.

US carriers are one of the world’s most elaborate creations: 100,000 ton floating cities with a million gallons of fuel in their holds, massive amounts of explosives, and highly skilled c rews operating 24/7 like clockwork. I sailed aboard the US carrier “Abraham Lincoln” and was awed by the professionalism and skill of its crew and complexity of this gigantic creation.

But the US Navy is more concerned about China’s rapidly-growing arsenal of anti-ship missiles than its aircraft carriers. Last year’s impressive military parade at Beijing displayed a new generation of powerful anti-ship missiles that can be launched from land, sea, air, and underwater.

In addition, the US Navy is very worried about China’s work on a new ballistic missile, the DF-21D, that can reportedly be launched from mobile, shore-based launchers and hit large, moving targets at sea. The DF-21D is said to be vectored into its target by satellite, aircraft, submarines or drone aircraft.

Even with doubtful accuracy, such anti-ship ballistic missiles could keep the US Navy far away from the North Pacific coasts – which is just China’s intention. Carriers and their escorts cost $25 billion – they are too expensive and fragile to risk. Yet these mighty carriers are the ultimate expression of American power in the region.

Over the past decade, China has been slowly building the capability to force the US Navy away from its coasts and deep in the Pacific. Beijing was horrified and ashamed when during the 1996 Taiwan crisis, a US battle group led by the carrier “Nimitz” sailed down the Taiwan Strait almost within sight of mainland China.

Imagine if a Chinese naval battle group sailed into Chesapeake Bay near Washington, into the Florida Strait off Cuba, or up to New Orleans? The US would erupt in fury. But this is what the US Navy has been doing in China since 1945.

Now, Beijing’ new anti-ship missiles are putting US carrier battle groups at grave risk if they come too close to the mainland. This writer has conducted numerous naval simulation war games and can attest that no surface vessels, particularly not huge carriers, can withstand barrages of high-speed anti-ship missiles fired from 360 degrees.

However, the US Navy is run by carrier admirals who are as loathe to junk their flattops as were battleship admirals early in World War II. The answer clearly is less super-carriers and more small vessels with remotely piloted aircraft. But that sea change will only come slowly.

Meanwhile, the US must clearly adjust to China’s growing military strength. The days when the US Navy could rule China’s coasts and rivers are long gone. China is set on enforcing a 300-mile strategic maritime limit and is increasingly pressing claims to large areas of its coastal waters that has alarmed its neighbors and Washington.

The US and China are likely headed towards naval clashes until Washington pulls its Pacific fleet away from China’ coasts . But that will be a bitter pill for the mighty US Navy to swallow.

[SamxUSA]

World News

Japan, China island dispute heats up

Published: Feb. 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM

TOKYO, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- China's Defense Ministry termed as "untrue" Tokyo's assertion its navy ships' fire-control radar targeted Japanese warships and planes in the East China Sea.

The radar-lock issue reportedly relating to two incidents Jan. 19 and Jan. 30 has now taken the center stage in the worsening territorial dispute over the uninhabited, Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which China also claims, calling the territory Diaoyu Islands.

On Thursday, Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told a parliamentary committee China's use of the weapons-guiding radar on the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force vessel amounted to a "threat of military force" under the United Nations Charter, while calling for a dialogue to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

Japan says the incident occurred Jan. 30 and has already lodged a protest with China. The Japanese Defense Ministry also said a Chinese frigate directed the same kind of radar at a Japanese military helicopter on Jan. 19, and that in both incidents, the Chinese ships eventually turned off their radar without firing a shot.

Referring to the Jan. 30 incident, the Chinese Defense Ministry said Friday its naval ship found itself being closely followed and monitored by JSDF destroyer Yudachi while conducting routine training in "relevant waters in the East China Sea."

"The radars on the Chinese naval ship kept normal observation and alert, and fire control radar was not used. Therefore, the Japanese side's remarks were against the facts," the ministry said, adding Japanese warships and airplanes close-in monitoring and surveillance of China's naval ships and airplanes "is the root cause to air and maritime safety issues between China and Japan."

The ministry said Japan has "repeatedly spread false accusations which distorted facts and defamed Chinese military's normal combat readiness training," and that this time "without verifying related facts with the Chinese side, Japan unilaterally released untrue information to the media and senior Japanese government officials made irresponsible remarks."

Responding, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said Friday Japan has replied "that we can never accept the Chinese explanation that (Japan's account of the incident) does not match facts" and called for "a sincere response from them," Kyodo News reported.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Thursday, for the first time since the issue surfaced, said Chinese authorities were verifying and investigating the incident, but also accused Japan of creating tension and tarnishing China's image, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

She said Japan's efforts to ratchet up tension ran against efforts to improve Sino-Japanese ties and that China wishes to solve and manage problems through talks.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has said actions such as the reported lock-on incident could escalate tensions, increase the risk of a miscalculation and undermine peace and stability in the region.

In recent weeks, there have been a number of other maritime incidents, some of which even led Japan to scramble its fighter jets.

Although the United States has refused to take sides, the islands are seen as coming under its mutual security treaty with Japan.

Topics: Shinzo Abe, Victoria Nuland

Read more: http://www.upi.com/T.../#ixzz2KM0q7WFg

[Yajceebtshiab]

Yog yuav hlwv kom kub hauv tsev ces xum mus zes taws rau puag nraum tej thiaj kub ntaiv tsis txog yus chaw nyob xwb.  Yeej yuav zam tsis dhau rogg ntuj III lawm lau yog pheej sib cuab khav theeb npaum no tiag.