The U.S. ambushed and isolated China at the East Asia summit. If China wants to recover it needs to manage its competition with the United States – and not scare its neighbors.
If 2010 was the year China made a series of strategic and tactical moves to strengthen its position in East Asia, 2011 saw the region push back.
Nobody knows this better than Beijing. At the recently concluded East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia, China was literally ambushed by the United States, which skillfully coordinated a pushback against China’s assertiveness on the South China Sea. Except for Burma and Cambodia, every other country present at the summit, including Russia, implicitly criticized China’s stance on the South China Sea and called for a multilateral solution, which China has consistently opposed.
The bad news for Beijing actually preceded the Bali summit. The United States and Australia announced an agreement to open a new U.S. Marine base in Darwin, in a move clearly intended to signal to China that, despite its budgetary woes, Washington would double down on its military presence in the region.
Then, as if to show China that it has a few more cards to play, the Obama administration announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would soon be paying a historic visit to Burma to encourage its military junta, which is taking tentative but promising steps toward a transition to democracy, to continue the course. Should the U.S.-Burma rapprochement bear fruit, Burma could be freed from China’s orbit.
Taken together, these three developments have put the United States back into the driver’s seat in East Asia, while China has clearly suffered the most serious strategic setback in the region in years. Some in Beijing may naturally want to push back against the United States’ reassertion of its power in East Asia. But any steps in that direction will certainly escalate tensions with Washington while leaving China further isolated.
A more sensible approach is for China to fundamentally alter its thinking on East Asian security and take concrete steps to regain its diplomatic initiative. China should start with an overall reassessment of U.S.-China relations. Obviously, the rare geopolitical fortune China has enjoyed in East Asia since 9/11 is gone and America’s resolve to keep East Asia as one of its top strategic priorities is bound to give China a great deal of discomfort. However, equating recent moves by Washington, consequential as they are, as decisive steps toward “containing” China would be exaggerating their importance, reading too much animosity into U.S. intentions, and ignoring the Obama administration’s careful balancing act. (Chinese leaders should note that Barack Obama reiterated, at the East Asia Summit, the U.S. policy of engagement with China.)
The middle course between a U.S.-China partnership and outright U.S.-China conflict is a managed U.S.-China competition. There’s no denying that, unless China’s one-party regime becomes a liberal democracy, the United States and China won’t be able to build mutual trust. The Chinese Communist Party’s existential fear of democracy makes it view the U.S. as a political threat, while America’s fundamental rejection of the legitimacy of authoritarian rule means that Washington will regard a powerful one-party regime in China as a security threat. The lack of trust may make cooperation difficult, but doesn’t necessarily lead to conflict.
So, as China’s ascendance and America’s relative decline continue, these two great powers, though economically interdependent, will continue to compete for geopolitical influence. Managing this competition, rather than denying it, is the most challenging task for both Washington and Beijing in the coming decade.
Of course, managing competition requires both countries to rethink their current approach to each other. For China, this involves abandoning its long-held strategy of “befriending afar and attacking near” – or yuanjiao jingong. In the past four decades since Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China, Beijing’s grand strategy has been to pivot its foreign policy, correctly, on a stable and cooperative relationship with the United States. But Chinese leaders haven’t been able consistently to follow a complementary and productive regional strategy that would allow China to leverage a stable and cooperative U.S.-China relationship in reconstructing East Asia’s security order. Beijing’s conventional wisdom, if not wishful thinking, has been that a good U.S.-China relationship will give China greater leverage in dealing with its neighbors.
Photo Credit: White House
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
meckjoo
To the-diplomat moderator:
Can you please do a better job of moderating your comment forums?
I am shocked that a professional ezine would allow uncivil discourse – especially that fails to support statements with nothing more than blustering nationalism and Wikipedia comments –
I would advise all of you to read this:
http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/s%20Road.pdf
What is most interesting about it is that the author rejects both the American and Chinese histories concerning Sino-American relations. It is a well researched academic piece that has stood up to challenges by both Chinese and American academics (challenge as in when someone writes such a piece, they consult with academics on both sides of the issue to ensure their research and assertions are sound). It would serve both sides of this supposed debate to read it.
Glenn
The recent diplomatic moves of the United States described by Mr. Pei represent a balanced response to the surprising insensitivity Chinese leaders have shown in dealing with their Asian neighbors over the past year or so. When America was the “rising power” after World War I, it initially pursued a new diplomacy based on national self-determination and international collaboration. This approach was quickly rejected by the European colonial powers. Since that time, American foreign policy has included equal parts of idealism, economic self interest and a refusal to back down to dictatorial empires. America has done what was necessary to keep some truly dangerous and dictatorial forces like the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Japanese nationalists and Islamic fascists from exercising hegemony over Europe and Asia. (I do not consider contemporary China under Communist party rule to be comparable to any of these predatory forces). There have definitely been mistakes in American policy. Some of the individual conflicts which the U.S. chose to fight during the Cold War or in confronting Islamic radicals proved to be unwise or unnecessary. We have also had to maintain uneasy alliances with people like Stalin in World War II, and some regional dictators during the Cold War. There are sometimes no “good guys” in the ballgame and that requires difficult choices among bad alternatives. Despite these mistakes, the overall success of American foreign policy over the past 100 years is undeniable. Ask yourself, would the world be better off today if American Presidents in the 20th century had followed the advice of George Washington and avoided foreign entanglements? Would the Chinese people have the opportunities they have today for economic success and world leadership, if the United States had not paid the economic and human price of confronting and containing these forces? America’s leaders and its people have a lot of respect for China and would like to see them become a “responsible partner” and a world leader. But when China sits on its hands and allows the failed, militant state of North Korea to cause trouble on its doorstep, and looks at Iran as just another potential source of natural resources, that is an abdication of responsibility for a nation with a long and distinguished history. After undergoing the nonsense of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese should recognize that countries which post their leader’s picture everywhere and force their people to chant slogans and threaten everyone like North Korea and Iran, are losers and dangerous. China will find its own path but it needs to step up and choose which path to pursue. Once choice is to continue to play footsy with the likes of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and possibly neo nationalist Russia, and continue to assert the right to control all of the salt water in the South China Sea. That is its right. If that happens, however, I expect the United States will adopt a containment strategy by developing a new Asian economic and military alliance consisting of Japan, South Korea,the Phillipines, Australia, India and possibly Vietnam. Those nations will not need much persuading to unite because China will be judged by the company it keeps, and India and others will wonder who will back them up if China also tries to claim the more important fresh water from the Himalayas in the future. The better choice for the region is one of coexistence and even collaboration. The long term strategic and economic interests of China and the other Pacific powers do not have to conflict. The United States will be better off in the long term with a balance of power with a respected competitor.
John Chan
@Glenn,
I am sure you consider USA is reasonable and Minxin Pei’s article is a balanced approach to China. To the Chinese your and Pei’s mindsets are predatory imperialistic. Imperialist is harmful to the world peace and prosperity, it must be defeated.
Henry Nguyen
John Chan:
Imperialistic is when China uses 1000 years old map ( that no country recognizes ) to claim the whole SCS for itself. Imperialistic is when China used forces to take Paracel islands in 1956/1974 and Spratly islands in 1978 from Vietnam. Imperialistic is when Chinese navy sinking Filippino and Vietnamese fishing boats, trying to make a living in their ancestorial water.
Liang1a
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:40 am
Vietnam and the Philippines cannot become prosperous on their own? How do you think China has become a middle-income country? Not through domestic consumption.
———————————-
I don’t see the Vietnamese and Filipinos as being prosperous. Do you? China cannot really be called a middle-income country yet. This is because most of its people are still on the edge of poverty at $2 per day or $720 per year or 4,500 yuan per year. However, China had been the richest in the world historically speaking. Therefore, they have proven that they could be the richest in the world on their own. I’ve repeatedly said that China could be the richest in the world again by reducing foreign trade which only deplete their resources and expand their own domestic economy through the urbanization of the farmers to make them maximally productive predicated on the most advanced indigenous technologies that most efficiently utilize China’s own resources. China has reached a turning point where it can no longer expand based on foreign trade. Whether China likes it or not it must shift to domestic expansion if it wants to continue to grow richer. I’m sure as this fact dawns on the Chinese leaders they will accelerate the pace of shifting to domestic development and dim their enthusiasm for foreign trade.
The fact that China has developed indigenous technologies that exceed the world in some sectors is proof that Chinese technological advancement can exceed the rest of the world in the future in all sectors. China has developed the world’s fastest supercomputer as of June 2011. However, this is made from computer processor chips made with foreign IPR. Now China has developed its second fastest supercomputer in China called the Sunway BlueLight Massively Parallel Processor with speeds of some 1 petaflops. It uses 8,700 Shenwei SW 1600 microprocessors which has been developed by Jiangnan Insititute of Computing Technology who owns the IPR. China also has developed many cutting edge technologies such as lithium batteries, high speed trains, space lab, 5th generation fighters, etc. Therefore, China has established the foundation for independent growth going into the future. The only thing lacking now is a new set of domestic development policies which is beginning to be implemented. China also has abundant energy resources. New discoveries of oil and gas put China’s proven oil reserve at some 88 billion tons or some 600 billion barrels and some 52 trillion cubic meters of gas. And China’s oil and gas reserves are still mostly unprospected. Future prospecting will doubtlessly discover much more oil and gas reserves. China also has vast deserts and windy hills to harvest renewable energy sources to make China energy self-sufficient with clean energy forever. Those who want to read more about China’s oil and gas discoveries can go to the following link:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7658285.html
Therefore, China has the ability to develop totally independently and cannot be stopped by foreign enemies. Philippines and Vietnam have shown no such technological ability nor such energy reserves. Therefore, they cannot develop independently and cannot become prosperous on their own. They must trade low tech labor intensive products (if they can produce any) for high tech foreign products which will keep them poor.
———————-
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:40 am
The only war songs I hear are from Chinese nationalists. Such tripe as nuclear war would be fine, because China has more people as regularly spouted. My question for this people: Will you be on the front lines? I think they would send those horrid, unwashed masses to do their bidding.
————————-
Liang’s response:
I’m too old now. But were I younger I’d go to the front line without question. As to the Chinese soldiers being “unwashed”, don’t judge us by your own low levels. The Chinese soldiers are highly trained and live healthy lives with good incomes such as your soldiers will never be. They are no more than bandits who rob and terrorize their own peoples.
wai guo ren
Any country that wants to start raining fire upon its neighbours in an imperialist war is not “poor”. It’s about priorities.
The historical relevance of national wealth is rather null. Who cares if China was once the richest country on the planet? That was before industrialisation, mass communications, and the other wonders of the modern age were upon us.
If you go and modernise all farms then you will cause massive unemployment. I live in the countryside, buddy, so I know how hard those people have it, and I know that putting them all out of work in the name of productive capacity will mean they can drive motorcycle taxis or build apartments for the rich to speculate upon.
When the country stops stealing IPR’s then we can discuss national ingenuity. But from my conversations I have determined that copying/stealing is not only acceptable, but it’s a national pastime.
Try to step into the modern world, where outcomes are not always zero-sum and everything in your periphery is not an enemy. It’s a nice world when you lay off the paranoia. My “unwashed” comment meant the following: the brunt of casualties will be borne by the poor, not the wealthy.
What are my own “low” levels? The majority of the country is poor; you, sir, said so. And where in the hell do you think I live? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the centre of the world.
The only bandits who terrorise their own people are those in German luxury vehicles that do whatever they want on the road behind the security of a white plate. Just saying.
Liang1a
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Any country that wants to start raining fire upon its neighbours in an imperialist war is not “poor”. It’s about priorities.
———————————–
Liang’s response:
You’re saying Philippines is not poor for wanting to “start raining fire upon its neighbours in an imperialist war”?
———————————–
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
The historical relevance of national wealth is rather null. Who cares if China was once the richest country on the planet? That was before industrialisation, mass communications, and the other wonders of the modern age were upon us.
——————-
Liang’s response:
Hisotrical trends are very important. It shows the reason for the rise and fall of any nation. China had fallen because it neglected the education of science and engineering. China had been great before because it honored scholarship and technological advancement. Therefore, China can easily be great again by renewing its education of science and engineering which can then easily make China productive and rich and powerful. But a nation that had never been great will probably never be great because there are reasons why it was never great.
Yes, the modern world is upon us. And China is racing to catch up and doing a good job even though still far short of its maximum potential. Can’t say the same for Philippines and Vietnam.
———————–
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
If you go and modernise all farms then you will cause massive unemployment. I live in the countryside, buddy, so I know how hard those people have it, and I know that putting them all out of work in the name of productive capacity will mean they can drive motorcycle taxis or build apartments for the rich to speculate upon.
————————
Liang’s response:
This is nothing but nonsense. Modernizing farms will only allow the excess farmers to be urbanized so that they can achieve higher produtivity deserving high incomes. It is the task of the central government to implement policies to expand internal domestic economy so that the Chinese people can produce huge amounts of goods and services for themselves to consume. I have no time to give you a comprehensive lecture on economics. If you want to understand then go to the following link to learn some understanding:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/thread/1277846989/last-1277846989/The+Face+of+China's+Economic+Engine
—————————-
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
When the country stops stealing IPR’s then we can discuss national ingenuity. But from my conversations I have determined that copying/stealing is not only acceptable, but it’s a national pastime.
——————
Liang’s response:
Are you talking about American passtime of IPR infringement? There are more IPR infringement cases in America than anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, ideas cannot be patented. You can only patent specific product. Anybody can copy the idea and make a new product. For example, the idea of computer chips cannot be patented. You can only patent the exact design of a particular chip. Anybody can study your chip and then make improvements on it without any infringement of IPR.
———————-
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Try to step into the modern world, where outcomes are not always zero-sum and everything in your periphery is not an enemy. It’s a nice world when you lay off the paranoia.
————————
Liang’s response:
Don’t preach to me sanctimoniously about paranoia. Who is attacking whom in the S. China Sea? It is Philippines and Vietnam who are the aggressors. And it is China who is trying its very best to promote friendly relationships for mutual benefit. But China’s benevolence is only emboldening more aggressions incited by mean-spirited and envious countries like the US. It is the US who is paranoiac and the Philippines and Vietnam who are the thugs.
——————–
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
My “unwashed” comment meant the following: the brunt of casualties will be borne by the poor, not the wealthy.
——————–
Liang’s response:
Since when has the brunt of casualties ever been borne by the wealth? Do you see rich Americans enlisting in the army? Who do you think died in the largest number in America’s wars? The rich white or the poor black?
————————-
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
What are my own “low” levels? The majority of the country is poor; you, sir, said so.
—————-
Liang’s response:
You’re lower class?
—————–
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
And where in the hell do you think I live? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the centre of the world.
—————–
Liang’s response:
You’re living in Beijing?
————–
wai guo ren wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
The only bandits who terrorise their own people are those in German luxury vehicles that do whatever they want on the road behind the security of a white plate. Just saying.
——————
Liang’s response:
Sounds like the thugs in Philippines, or the drug pushers in LA, whatever color plate.
wai guo ren
What imperialist war is the Philippines advocating right now? I am not aware.
Mongolia had the largest land empire in the history of the world. Therefore, Mongolians, not Han Chinese, are the greatest ethnicity. Ever. I cannot wait for their resumption of power.
When bank interest rates are .5% and international capital flows are controlled, money flows toward a perceived safe, positive yielding asset. In what major cities can a person of modest means afford housing? If you take away the land from the peasants you have big, big problems. There are posters of a certain gentleman in villages that attest what happens when that particular group becomes angry. Because you have no time to give me a comprehensive lecture, oh Mr. Know-it-all, I will read your link later. Thanks for the suggestion.
You bring up America, a country I never once mentioned. I have never understood why the greatest, smartest, best people on Earth need to complain about others. It sounds like an inferiority complex. When the USA was stealing IPR it was also innovating with old technologies to improve them. When I start to see this in China, then I will be impressed. As of yet, I don’t.
I only see one country claiming the entire Sea for themselves. As in, all of it is mine; if you get near it, something bad will happen. Ya know, malevolence.
You bring up America again. Why? Just because poor Americans are dying in foreign countries doesn’t make it okay for poor Chinese to do the same. Wrong is wrong.
Why do you say I am lower class? Because I don’t agree with you? That’s so provincial of you.
I live in the outskirts of a city in the south. So I suppose I am not in the centre, but within a super close orbit. I can feel the greatness from the northern winds, however, so do not worry.
Yes, that was my point: bandits are bandits. All people that behave that way are bad. Once again, wrong is wrong.
wai guo ren
Your blog post is far too long. You write pretty well in English, but you are too certain of your positions. A little humility never hurt anyone.
I’m done with this thread. But I want to say one last thing: war hurts people. You should remember that, warmonger.
John Chan
@wai guo ren,
So far you have failed one thing that is objectivity. You failed to see events from Chinese point view. Chinese bloggers are here to rebuke untrue comments that intend to harm China and Chinese. Yet you and all anti-China bloggers are so bigotry that any rebuke to what they said will outrage them, and the China defenders are labelled CCP mouthpiece. Meanwhile the anti-China bloggers insist whatever they said must be taken as given truth, and they have the moral high ground.
You and the anti-China bloggers’ approach is a repeat of operations that dismantle USSR, CBC has made a documentary about the cold war and propaganda, the current bashing of China is identical what the Westpac did then.
wai guo ren, you do not have the right to monopolize truth, and a warmonger accused defender as warmonger is wrong.
wai guo ren
How am I bigoted? I live in China and absolutely love it. My only complaints are over poor hygiene, but all developing countries have that problem. I find it hilarious your single point of view attempts to monopolise 1.3bn people into a single world outlook. The Chinese people are not some monolithic block. You have no respect for your countrymen.
You should look up the definition of warmonger. I advocate peaceful cooperation and competition.
Lucy
That computer is based on the DEC Alpha 21164 and runs a UNIX based distributed parallel operating system. Not very indigenous now, is it?
Liang1a
Lucy wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 11:50 pm
That computer is based on the DEC Alpha 21164 and runs a UNIX based distributed parallel operating system. Not very indigenous now, is it?
————————————
Liang’s response:
According to the Wikipedia article quoted below, SW1600 is developed by Jiangnan Computing Research Lab. The PRC owns the IPR solely. According to another article quoted here further below, it is only “rumored” that it is derived from the Dec Alpha 21164. I don’t know what the truth really is, maybe it is “derived” but that does not necessarily mean that it is nothing more than a knockoff. At the most it means that the Chinese had started with it and then improved on it with research and development and achieved ingenius imporvement. It is also entirely probable that the Chinese had started from scratch and developed its wholly indigenous processor that has nothing to do with the 21164. The best speed achieved by Dec Alpha 21164 was only 400 MHz while the SW1600 can reach 1.1 GHz or almost 4 times faster. This in itself would make it hard to believe that SW1600 is derived from such an inferior Dec Alpha 21164. So to disparage SW1600 by saying it is based on Dec Alpha 21164 is like saying BYD electric car is based on Model T. It is obviously a mean spirited denigration. Nothing but sour grape.
And the fastest American supercomputer, Jaguar XT5, only reach 1.75 petaflops which is significantly slower than China’s fastest supercomputer, Tianhe-1A, which runs at max speed of 2.566 petaflops. Even though Tianhe-1A is buidt with American chips it is still designed independently which requires a lot of ingenuity. And American sumpercomputers are still slower than the fastest Chinese computer.
One more superior feature about the Sunway Bluelight is that it is very efficient in the consumption of energy. It consumes only 1 megawatts which is only a small percentage of other sumpercomputers. It is ranked variously as #14 and #39 in the world. No doubt China will continue to do R&D to develop new chips with faster speed and new supercomputer with greater computing power while achieving new breakthroughs such as efficiency in energy consumption.
—————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShenWei
ShenWei SW1600 is the third generation CPU by Jiāngnán Computing Research Lab. Operating at 1.1GHz, it achieves 140GFLOPS floating point performance from its 16 cores RISC architecture. The CPU is a national key collaborative laboratory project by Jiāngnán Computing Research Lab and High Performance Server & Storage Technologies. The People’s Republic of China owns its sole intellectual property rights. More information about the 65nm ShenWei SW-3 multi-core CPU project can be found on official web site of High Performance Services & Storage Technologies – national key research laboratory.
———————
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/31/china_shenwei_bluelight_supercomputer/
“rumored to be a derivative of the DEC Alpha 21164″
————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_21164
“The Alpha 21164 was replaced by the Alpha 21164A as Digital’s flagship microprocessor in 1996 when a 400 MHz version became available in volume quantities.”
Liang1a
Errata:
The quote below from my prior post should read, “…almost 3 times faster.”
“The best speed achieved by Dec Alpha 21164 was only 400 MHz while the SW1600 can reach 1.1 GHz or almost 4 times faster.”
meckjoo
OK – I have to cut in here – if you use Wikipedia as a source, you lose a huge amount of credibility.
I find discourse interesting, but lets use peer-reviewed, or at least independent organizations (i.e. NOT the People’s Daily, or the U.S. DOS web site) to support your facts.
Those of us who do work in academe would be laughed out of our respective schools of learning if we ever even attempted to use those types of sources –
So clean it up and use real facts to support your arguments. Otherwise, you make yourself look amateurish and a mouthpiece at best.
nirvana
(Why “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers”)
In his demonstration of the ingenuity of Chinese engineers, Liang1a uses the SW1600 microprocessor and the super computer Tianhe-1A cases. Although it is generally acknowledged that China is catching up fast, Liang1a arguments contain a lot of flaws (not considering the “3 is almost equal to 4” typo).
Firstly, he said “the best speed achieved by Dec Alpha 21164 was only 400 MHz while the SW1600 can reach 1.1 GHz or almost 4 [sic] times faster. This in itself would make it hard to believe that SW1600 is derived from such an inferior Dec Alpha 21164”. Those who are familiar with microprocessor benchmarking know that the clock speed is relevant only when comparing between machines of the same architecture. What the Wikipedia authors implied was that, if it can be taken that the SW1600 (2010) shares the same architecture as the Alpha 21164 (1994), then it would be roughly 3 times more POWERFUL than the DEC Alpha vintage chip. This is not a lot, of course. BTW, most of the processors of our (cheap) netbooks and tablets today run at >1GHz. Those of our smartphones run faster than the DEc Alpha 21164. The fastest microporcessor in the world to day runs at >5GHz. But again you can not derive performance comparison w/o knowledge of the architecture.
Secondly, he said “the fastest American supercomputer, Jaguar XT5, only reach 1.75 petaflops which is significantly slower than China’s fastest supercomputer, Tianhe-1A, which runs at max speed of 2.566 petaflops”. Ok, here we are comparing performance (in flops=floating operations per second). Although the Tianhe-1A is 40% more powerful than the 3rd place competitor (the Jaguar), its performance is only 1/4th of that of the champion, the K Computer from Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500).
Now let’s look at another criterion, the EFFICIENCY. The TOP500 table gives the Rpeak (=the theoretical performance assuming that the architecture is 100% efficient) and the Rmax(=the actual maximum performance observed). That is if Rmax is much less than Rpeak, your are wasting hardware due to sub-optimal architecture, in other words your Rmax is obtained by shear brute force parallelization of hardware. I leave you to judge the relative efficiency of the top 10 supercomputers given in the link above.
Liang1a
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
(Why “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers”)
In his demonstration of the ingenuity of Chinese engineers, Liang1a uses the SW1600 microprocessor and the super computer Tianhe-1A cases. Although it is generally acknowledged that China is catching up fast, Liang1a arguments contain a lot of flaws (not considering the “3 is almost equal to 4” typo).
——————————-
Liang’s response:
I’ve already corrected the type long before you pointed this out.
=====================
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Firstly, he said “the best speed achieved by Dec Alpha 21164 was only 400 MHz while the SW1600 can reach 1.1 GHz or almost 4 [sic] times faster. This in itself would make it hard to believe that SW1600 is derived from such an inferior Dec Alpha 21164”. Those who are familiar with microprocessor benchmarking know that the clock speed is relevant only when comparing between machines of the same architecture. What the Wikipedia authors implied was that, if it can be taken that the SW1600 (2010) shares the same architecture as the Alpha 21164 (1994), then it would be roughly 3 times more POWERFUL than the DEC Alpha vintage chip. This is not a lot, of course. BTW, most of the processors of our (cheap) netbooks and tablets today run at >1GHz. Those of our smartphones run faster than the DEc Alpha 21164. The fastest microporcessor in the world to day runs at >5GHz. But again you can not derive performance comparison w/o knowledge of the architecture.
—————————
Liang’s response:
This is garbage nonsense. The speed of the processor is measured by 2 units, the CPI (cycle per instruction) and clock cycles or processor frequency. The clock is necessary to coordinate the activities of the various logic gates so that the necessary inputs are all there at the same time to generate the correct output. In other words the clock synchronizes the timing of each activity such as the “AND”, “OR”, etc. Therefore, the faster the clock means the faster the entire processor can work. Obviously if the clock is very slow then the speed of the processor must be very slow also. From the quote below MIPS = clock speed / CPI. Obviously if clock speed is slow then the number of instructions per second is reduced no matter how efficient the architecture is. Number of cycle per instructin obviously cannot go below 1. Lastly, the clock speed is determined by the overall ability of the processing unit. It is poitless to increase the speed of the clock if the rest of the processing unit is very slow. That is, the speed of the clock is made to precisely open the gate at each pulse. Of course, if it takes many pulses to accomplish one task or instruction then the processor is relatively crude. But generally the “architecture” or the “programming logic” or the arrangement of the logic gates of the CPU is relatively efficient and the overall speed is limited by the ability of the hardware gates to respond rapidly or frequency response. Therefore, the speed of the clock is very much indicative of the efficiency of the processor.
nirvana’s nonsense is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to fool those unfamiliar with electrinics. See the following for an explanation of CPU and the function of the clock.
———————
http://en.kioskea.net/contents/pc/processeur.php3
The processor (called CPU, for Central Processing Unit) is an electronic circuit that operates at the speed of an internal clock thanks to a quartz crystal that, when subjected to an electrical currant, send pulses, called “peaks”. The clock speed (also called cycle), corresponds to the number of pulses per second, written in Hertz (Hz). Thus, a 200 MHz computer has a clock that sends 200,000,000 pulses per second. Clock frequency is generally a multiple of the system frequency (FSB, Front-Side Bus), meaning a multiple of the motherboard frequency.
With each clock peak, the processor performs an action that corresponds to an instruction or a part thereof. A measure called CPI (Cycles Per Instruction) gives a representation of the average number of clock cycles required for a microprocessor to execute an instruction. A microprocessor’s power can thus be characterized by the number of instructions per second that it is capable of processing. MIPS (millions of instructions per second) is the unit used and corresponds to the processor frequency divided by the CPI.
=============================
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Secondly, he said “the fastest American supercomputer, Jaguar XT5, only reach 1.75 petaflops which is significantly slower than China’s fastest supercomputer, Tianhe-1A, which runs at max speed of 2.566 petaflops”. Ok, here we are comparing performance (in flops=floating operations per second). Although the Tianhe-1A is 40% more powerful than the 3rd place competitor (the Jaguar), its performance is only 1/4th of that of the champion, the K Computer from Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500).
—————————–
Liang’s response:
Japan had overtaken China only since June of this year. Will China come out with a more powerful supercomputer? I think it is very likely. Also the Japanese computer uses 88,128 processors while Sunway Bluelight uses 8,704 processors or more than 10 times the number of processors. It is certainly possible for China to link up 10 times or more SW1600 processors and make an even faster supercomputer than the Japanese.
——————————–
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Now let’s look at another criterion, the EFFICIENCY. The TOP500 table gives the Rpeak (=the theoretical performance assuming that the architecture is 100% efficient) and the Rmax(=the actual maximum performance observed). That is if Rmax is much less than Rpeak, your are wasting hardware due to sub-optimal architecture, in other words your Rmax is obtained by shear brute force parallelization of hardware. I leave you to judge the relative efficiency of the top 10 supercomputers given in the link above.
———————–
Liang’s response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_500_Supercomputers
Tianhe-1A: 2.566 petaFLOPS (Rmax)
K computer: 10.51 petaflops (Rmax)
Blue Gene: .500 petaflops (Rmax)(2004 – 2008)
Sunway Bluelight: peak theoretical performance of 1.07 petaflops and a sustained performance of 795.9 teraflops
From the above data it is obvious that China’s supercomputers have exceeded all but Japan’s very recent K computer. China’s Sunway Bluelight built with all Chinese processors is faster than the fastest supercomputer in the world up to June 2008. Obviously this means China’s Sunway Bluelight supercomputer technologies is only just 3 years behind the world’s best. And China’s Tianhe-1 is world’s best up to only a few months ago. What is even more heartening is China’s processor technologies is also highly advanced. It would not be surprising if China develops a superior processor and superior supercomputer in the near future.
nirvana, eat your heart out. As they say, the best revenge is success.
Reply
lws
This is typical hubris from the west. What “caught off guard”? Chinese are in no illusion what the US/west evil union will do in the face of our rise. If it does surprise us, it is the speed with which this has arrived so soon. It is not as if we do not anticipate this, otherwise what the hell are we so rapidly modernising our weaponry in such urgency & hurry? Histories are full of such anecdotes & we have the burden of history to our “advantage”. It is you-the west which we are trying to sooth & fool with our “peaceful rise” & we are in no surprise when you are not buying this anymore. If the west think we are being intimidated by your so-called Asian NATO, go back to your recent history in the 1950s when we were very much more isolated, weaker & poorer but we faced up to you guys nonetheless in the epic Korean War. BTW, if the west think that the same trick by which you subvert the Soviet Union will work this time, so be it. It is worth reminding though that this time around, it is the west which will most likely crumble under the weight of such wasteful arm race. Good dear, time might just have changed! This is what the west does not have: Your Jesus cannot possibly side with you all the time for the world is round & Feng Shui turns round & round. Your supremacy will necessarily dissipate, does not matter if it is the Chinese, Muslim Arabs, Persians, Slavic Russians that give you the final nail in the coffin. Just a kind reminder to all : this author, Pei Minxin together with all his similar bunch of cohorts like Gordon Chang, Wily Lam, Ai Weiwei etc..do these so-called “distinguished” guests of the CIA enjoy any credibility in the eyes of any serious non-partisan reader?
shen liang
Just more vicious talks on the “West evil union” with completely baseless accusations of CIA sponsership for journalists to boot. The lot of you defame China again and again.
Anyone who thinks China’s involvment in the Korean war was a positive is clearly beyond rational thought. Prior to the Korean War, though after communist soldiers killed US Marines running logistics and transporting *troops from the official Chinese government* to recover cities from the Japanese, the US declared its neutrality in the Guomindang/Communist war. It was the Korean war that forced the US into an adversarial relationship with mainland China. Chinese involvement Korean war was a debacle from start to finish, from a dishonorable attack wherein 200000 Chinese troops who were already embedded in North Korean terrain (we know this because before China’s official entry a number of POWs captured by the Korean were Chinese, not Korean) ambushed 4000 SK/US soldiers, to the horrifying mauling a generation of strong chinese soldiers received at the hands of US artillery. Moreover, it led to an intensification of the civil war, since Jiangjieshi offered Guomindang troops to be used in Korea against communist forces. The US refused this offer and even refrained from bombing the Chinese mainland, thank god. They could have easily done both, and that would have laid the blame for needless Chinese civilian deaths soley at the foot of Mao, who chose to pick a fight we could only lose. And lose we did, make no mistake about it–the status of the UN division did not change, the US wasn’t driven out, and South Korea has progressed to a remarkable nation today compared to the insufferably brutal, and now nuclear, client state China has been strapped with. North and South Korea stand as representatives of the influence of China and the US respectively, much to China’s shame.
Mao was a complete and utter fool for getting involved in Korea. Nothing was gained, and all the arguments against foreign countries getting involved in the Chinese civil war were immediately revealed to be hypocritical. Taiwan was lost indefinitely. And the worst part is this was it created a perpetually reactionary China. This is the legacy of that arrogant man who believed he could cause the sun and moon to change places.
LWS
You are entitled to your opinion, even though it may appear hilarious & totally irrational to many serious readers. There is no point arguing over this because it is like telling the truth that fundamental Christianity is as evil as fundamental Islam to an over-zealous Christian. To much of the Chinese world, the Korean War marked a turning point in Chinese history, even though the relating sacrifice was enormous, whereby a so-much-weaker Chinese side was able to fight the all-mighty US/west armies to a standstill at the original 38th Parallel. In that instance, a draw was as good as a small but painful victory. Historians will certainly record that a stalemate in Korea was a direct prelude to the final US defeat at Vietnam. As far as Chinese are concerned, the Korean War had given rise to a period of relative cold peace which lasted almost 60 years & it was this intermittent calm which enabled China to grow its economy. Who cares whether or not you agree or have other thoughts but the bitter truth is China is now the second largest economy its army has all the sophisticated weapons posing more than a good match to the west. Come play hardball with us & see whether you can get away unharmed. We shall make sure the theatre of war shall spill over to your own home turf.
Liang1a
LWS wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm
You are entitled to your opinion, even though it may appear hilarious & totally irrational to many serious readers. There is no point arguing over this because it is like telling the truth that fundamental Christianity is as evil as fundamental Islam to an over-zealous Christian. To much of the Chinese world, the Korean War marked a turning point in Chinese history, even though the relating sacrifice was enormous, whereby a so-much-weaker Chinese side was able to fight the all-mighty US/west armies to a standstill at the original 38th Parallel. In that instance, a draw was as good as a small but painful victory. Historians will certainly record that a stalemate in Korea was a direct prelude to the final US defeat at Vietnam. As far as Chinese are concerned, the Korean War had given rise to a period of relative cold peace which lasted almost 60 years & it was this intermittent calm which enabled China to grow its economy. Who cares whether or not you agree or have other thoughts but the bitter truth is China is now the second largest economy its army has all the sophisticated weapons posing more than a good match to the west. Come play hardball with us & see whether you can get away unharmed. We shall make sure the theatre of war shall spill over to your own home turf.
————————————
Well said! My sentiment exactly. A good fight can achieve more peace than endless appeasement for peace.
nirvana
Those who wish to probe further on this subject may find this link useful:
http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/s%20Road.pdf
“China’s road to the Korean war: The making of Sino-American confrontation”
By Chen Jian, 1994 Columbia University press
John Chan
@nirvana,
Do you agree you are committing perjury? Using distorted USA side of story to prove USA side of story is truth? Self-justified evidence can’t stand up scrutinize in court, unless you know nothing about fair and just juridical process.
John Chan
@shen liang,
You sound like a South Korean defending SK’s lousy performance in the Korea War. Fancy words to white wash SK and USA’s failure in Korea War might soothe your and USA’s ego, but it is no good to help SK and USA from repeating the same mistake. Indeed, both SK and USA have not learnt anything for that painful lesson, they are asking for that painful lesson again.
You should read LWS’ reply about the price Chinese paid for the Korea War, and the gain China got from Korea War, that’s a good reflection of Chinese sentiment.
shen liang
@John Chan and lws
The only “Chinese sentiment” LWS’s post reflects is the mindless propaganda we all absorbed in Chinese schools. And your ridiculous threats, “asking for that painful lesson again”, is merely the foolish belligerence the PLA repeats in its publications on the war. Both are easily refuted by an objective view of history, leaving you beating a dead drum.
Fact#1:
The Korean War did not lead to 60 years of cold peace for China’s development. What it did lead to was internal political disruption, and Mao’s ever more agressive attempts to control members of his party who would question his decisions or fail to carry out impossible orders. In other words, disaster and the betrayal of China. It was the political situation which emerged after the war which led to the Anti-rightest campaign and the Great Leap Forward. It was also this situation which led Mao to meddle in foreign countries and try to “spread the revolution abroad”. Mao’s deluded hubris was never checked again, and the Cultural Revolution was the spawn of that sick mind. Between the Korean War, when Mao decided to make the USA China’s enemy (you know, the CIA even wanted to arm communists to fight Japan during WWII, but Jiangjieshi rejected the proposal), and the ultimate reestablishment of relations between the US and China, China was thrown into chaos. Only a fool could claim this was a victory.
Fact#2:
Mao’s consequent meddling in the affairs of foreign countries also led to the deaths of Chinese abroad. Mao established a relationship with Indonesia to spread the revolution and oppose “imperialists”, but he soon shifted camps, embraced the PKI, and attempted to provide arms to them.
http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=yHAP2FwArpwC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Omar+Dhani&source=bl&ots=_qoTlPr1JW&sig=i7GpN8oVcJc2-Dl9vq8q2p1NF9U&hl=ko&ei=q-hXTNacNYP4sAPk0Mm8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=16&ved=0CGwQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=Omar%20Dhani&f=false
It was this which led to the horrific slaughter of many Chinese in Indonesia. By trying to foment a revolution, Mao caused the deaths and needless suffering of hundreds of thousands of Chinese. In this Mao was always consistent.
Fact#3
The Korean War was not a draw. The UN met its objectives, whereas all of the objectives Mao had for the war failed to be met. It is for this reason he attacked leading member of the military, and not (as the propaganda would have it) because he cared for his son. The US was not able to wipe out the North Korean leadership, but this was not its mandate. It was a giant fighting with one hand tied. For us Chinese to be proud of this is just as stupid as being proud of beating the US in “ping-pong diplomacy” without fielding a American football team for some “American Football diplomacy”. It’s ridiculous that we choose to be proud of our “achievement” over others when others choose to be generous. Ask yourself: what would have stopped the US from bombing the entire Eastern seaboard of China? The Soviet Union? The US stopped itself and even reined in its most aggressive generals. We should be thankful it did. Instead, we keep shipping North Korean refugees back to be tortured and keep pretending we won a “moral victory” defending the people of Korea. Disgusting.
Now, I ask you this: why do you seem unable to look at this war objectively? Is it because the deaths of many Chinese are necessary for your deluded pride?
John Chan
@shen liang,
This article is about how China should move forward from now on. How can you get into ranting about Korea War with all those stories fabricated thru thin air is puzzling.
China pushed US led aggressors all the way back to 38th Parallel, subsequently there is no war between China, USA and the Koreas up to now is a fact, unless you have been living in the Cuckoo land.
CIA incited dictator Suharto to carried ethnic genocide against Chinese for the vengeance of humiliation in Korea under the cover of purging communist. The International Criminal Court has yet to indict those perpetrators is a disgrace of the court claimed to uphold justice for the world and humanity.
Anyhow your stance is dictatorial, because you insist only you have the truth, it is a trait of dictator and autocrat. In a democratic world, people opposing freedom of speech like you is automatically deemed demon, evil and immoral.
lws
True to what I had said earlier, this is the sort of unending debates after debates on any particular scenario which is open to different interpretation of any beholder. What is the point of writing lengthy rants & parading all sorts of reasonings or so-called evidences seemingly trying to justify or convince the opposites. Yawn!Yawn! Shen Liang, first of all, you definitely appear to be a fake Chinese, Chinese detractor or an expelled dissident who seem to bear a grudge against Chinese or the CCP. You have no credibility to comment on Chinese affairs thus your lengthy parading of so-called facts are useless & I quickly throw it into the trash bin. Don’t waste your time & better spend it on more meaningful things in life.
shen liang
@lws
So, just like the other astroturfers, you have provided no specific facts and data whereby your “interpretation” can claim verification. How impressive. And just like the others, instead, when you are called on your vapid statements, you just retreat to pure subjectivity and solipsism You show no respect for objective history (it’s all competing propaganda to you) and no intellectual curiosity.
Why is it that I have no credibility to comment on Chinese affairs? Because you say so? Because you can’t decide whether I “definitely appear” to be not Chinese OR a Chinese detractor OR an expelled dissident? You are really throwing any stuff at the wall here, aren’t you? I’ll take your inability to respond to my points as an indication that you lack the knowledge to do so, and your attempt to sling mud at me as a dreary reminder how fatuous CCP apologists are.
LWS
@shen liang
Here it goes, the whole shouting match starts. Not that I do not have the facts, but I would rather save them for more deserving minds. Does it serve any purpose telling an over-zealous evangelical Christians that religious fanaticism is bad? Yawn! Yawn! I am going to bed. No more response from now on. THE END. 唱衰中国, 天塌不下来 (China would not collapse just because you wish ill of it)!
shen liang
@lws
“Not that I do not have the facts, but I would rather save them for more deserving minds.”
掩耳盗铃 Just make sure you return the bell!
“Does it serve any purpose telling an over-zealous evangelical Christians that religious fanaticism is bad?”
Probably not. But obviously it doesn’t serve a purpose to tell supporters of all things CCP that they are subservient. Nor does it serve a purpose, obviously, to debate history with them. For they see history and politics in quasi-religious terms, as faith rather than fact based. (It’s a deranged form of Marxist utopianism, in case you want to know)
@John Chan
“This article is about how China should move forward from now on. How can you get into ranting about Korea War with all those stories fabricated thru thin air is puzzling.”
Since lws (and later you) turned to the Korean War to show how China was going to have to teach those people a lesson, obviously you are being mischievous again, Mr. Chan.
“China pushed US led aggressors all the way back to 38th Parallel, subsequently there is no war between China, USA and the Koreas up to now is a fact, unless you have been living in the Cuckoo land.”
Not only does this not respond to the comments I made on the effect of the Korean War on China’s internal politics and the disasters that followed, you don’t even believe it is a fact yourself. You have acknowledged, haven’t you, that the Chinese fought the US in Vietnam and have had to struggle against (obvious) CIA involvement in Tibet, haven’t you? You do realize the Korean war hasn’t officially ended, don’t you? As I said, considering what happened to China between the Korean War and the reestablishment of relations with the US, only a fool would think engaging in a completely unnecessary and unprofitable war and creating a powerful enemy was a positive. North Korea has done nothing for China except be an embarrassment. Chinese soldiers were chopped to pieces. China pursued a rampant and feckless strategy to “spread the revolution”, becoming an interventionist. And all of Mao’s worthless babble against the US came to ridiculous fruition by Dengxiaoping studying from the US in order to lift part of China’s citizens from the horrific poverty into which the CCP had thrown them.
With respect to the war itself, you don’t show much knowledge of the events, though you do manage to work in an “aggressors“ charge against the US despite it being a war they did not begin (I know we are taught otherwise in China)! Of course, the battle wasn’t simply fought by China in the North. China relied on extensive Russian air support throughout the war. More importantly, the North Koreans had initially pushed US and South Korean forces back to Pusan, only to be subsequently routed. Certianly the same thing shouldn’t have happened to Chinese soldiers, because they were thoroughly dug in, but they were facing the same logistics problems the North Korean soldiers faced previously. Perhaps, when you consider how angry Pengdehuai was, far graver. And it is worth noting that after the fifth phase offensive, UN forces had already extended their lines considerably beyond the 38th parallel in the central and eastern parts of Korea. If the US wouldn’t have reined in its generals from bombing the supply lines and potentially other parts of China, it would have been disastrous.
“CIA incited dictator Suharto to carried ethnic genocide against Chinese for the vengeance of humiliation in Korea under the cover of purging communist.”
The CIA did provide a list of 4000 people who had worked to support the communist rebellion. For this they should be condemned. If you have a source which proves the list was exclusively restricted to Chinese, please share it.
While the CIA does deserve ample blame for providing a list to a killer, nothing was as important to Chinese being targeted as China’s involvement and provision of arms to PKI rebels. This is fact and it is finally starting to receive greater attention. Here is another source:
http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=ukurAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=Zhou+Enlai+support+PKI&source=bl&ots=a72a_jq-zO&sig=pcOD9TRGIHV8kh1TrmaEAS3TfUE&hl=ko&ei=hHZXTLToKI72tgPrl7HaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Anyhow your stance is dictatorial, because you insist only you have the truth, it is a trait of dictator and autocrat. In a democratic world, people opposing freedom of speech like you is automatically deemed demon, evil and immoral.”
You are very funny and small, John Chan. It’s a sad thing when someone who claims anything published by “Westpac” which disagrees with China’s official consensus on history is mendacious, when someone like that pretends he understands what freedom of speech means. It is not me who “have the truth”; I’m just not as conveniently cynical and benighted as you. I don’t deny evidence on a whim, and I offer it when asked.
Liang1a
Glenn wrote:
November 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm
…it is naive in my opinion to believe that the Chinese economy won’t undergo a major correction in the coming decade or sooner for the excesses of ignoring market forces.
—————————————
If Glenn meant by “major correction” a serious recession or even depression then he is not correct. I’ve said earlier that China needs to change its mode of economic development from exports to domestic development. Changing the mode of economic development if successfully done will not lead to any recession though it will lead to a slower rate of growth of some 7% or thereabout. The current high level of growth is misleading and ultimately harmful because it only look good on paper while benefiting only a small percentage of the people, either the compradors in foreign trade or the real estate developers.
The market forces that ought to determine China’s economy should be the needs of the Chinese people. Currently, the “market forces” determining the Chinese economy are the purchasing power of the foreign consumers and the purchasing power of the small number of very rich people in China who ultimately gained their wealth from foreign trade. The vast majority of the Chinese people are kept impoverished by the forces of exports and have little purchasing power and thus do not constitute a force to drive demand in China. The gulf between the rich and poor in China is one of the biggest in the world with Gini 0.47. Therefore, the market forces in China is not the same as market forces in other countries. In China what cannot be ignored are the discontent of the people and their essential needs and not the usual market forces of pent up demand based on increasing wealth.
nirvana
Although I readily agree with Liang1a on China’s economy problems (low GDP per capita, low productivity, high and increasing inequality gap, dependency on external market), I don’t quite follow his rhetoric and the logic of his solutions.
Just take Taiwan as a benchmark. Taiwan is also inhabited by Chinese (mostly), also practices market economy, also went through an initial authoritarian period, also relies heavily on export for growth. Yet, Taiwan has a GDP per capita at least five times that of China and a GINI around 0.33 (equivalent to European Community average). And at last but not least, Taiwan is also involved in ECS and SCS disputes, but we have not heard of Taiwan threatening any neighbor.
What are the main differences between China and Taiwan? Population size and mentality?
Liang1a
nirvana wrote:
December 1, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Although I readily agree with Liang1a on China’s economy problems (low GDP per capita, low productivity, high and increasing inequality gap, dependency on external market), I don’t quite follow his rhetoric and the logic of his solutions.
Just take Taiwan as a benchmark. Taiwan is also inhabited by Chinese (mostly), also practices market economy, also went through an initial authoritarian period, also relies heavily on export for growth. Yet, Taiwan has a GDP per capita at least five times that of China and a GINI around 0.33 (equivalent to European Community average). And at last but not least, Taiwan is also involved in ECS and SCS disputes, but we have not heard of Taiwan threatening any neighbor.
What are the main differences between China and Taiwan? Population size and mentality?
——————————-
Of course nirvana will agree with everything I said about China having problems. But in addition to pointing out China’s problems I also provide solutions which will allow China to overcome its problems and go on to achieve good results.
China cannot rely on exports which only squander its scarce resources in exchange for useless foreign currencies which are deposited to foreign banks and foreign treasuries. Therefore, the ultimate goal of China is not to expand foreign trade but to increase domestic economy to produce more goods and services for the consumption of the Chinese people. These are things like affordable housings, better education, modern medical services, foods, appliances, entertainment, etc. If China can produce all these things then where is the need to do foreign trade? Why should China import foreign milk powder if it can produce the best milk powder in the world? Why should China import supercomputers, jumbo jets, high speed trains, etc. if it can produce all these things domestically while offering full employment to all its people with the highest wages in the world? Therefore, the ultimate objective of any country is to give its people a good quality life and China would be able to give its people the highest quality life by making them the most productive so that they can produce all the goods and services of the highest quality for themselves to consume.
Therefore, to achieve high per capita GDP, high productivity, equalize wealth gap, and be more self-sufficient, China must advance indigenous technologies and develop the domestic economy through the urbanization of the farmers while making China ernergy self-sufficient through eletric cars and electric generation from renewable sources and nuclear energy. And all these are directly opposite to mindless foreign trade.
The problem with people is that they have been brainwashed into thinking that foreign trade is the ultimate goal of economic development. That is, they think the greater the foreign trade the more developed a country is. That is not true. As the size of a country expands the proportion of its foreign trade shrinks. This is why Singapore has the highest proportion of foreign trade value relative to its GDP exceeding 100%. Germany’s foreign trade as a proportion of its GDP is close to 100%. Japan’s foreign trade as a proportion of its GDP is around 30% or less while that of the US is less than 20%。 China’s foreign trade as a proportion of its GDP is some 40% or more now after reaching some 60% a few years ago. But as its GDP continues to grow then trade value proportion must shrink and should not be more than 5% of GDP or GNP when it reaches $100 trillion. This is only simple logic and simple arithmetic. Even if China can produce tens of trillions of dollars of exports nobody can afford them other than the Chinese themselves.
Comparing Taiwan and mainland the difference is in size and resources. Taiwan must trade because it does not have all the advanced technologies and has little or no resources. Mainland China on the other hand has everything it needs from food to energy to high technologies. So China can be highly self-sufficient and needs not trade and can still give its people the highest standard of living while Taiwan must trade in order to simply survive. Taiwan is fortunate in having mainland China to rely on who will treat it with brotherly love and consideration and goodwill.
John Chan
@nirvana,
When China was unable to protect its territory in ECS and SCS until lately, of course none of the rogue nations in ECS and SCS were complaining because they could encroach China’s land unopposed. Now China starts to assert its sovereignty in ECS and SCS, of course those shameless and greedy squatters and trespassers are making noise and trying to keep their illegal gains.
Taiwan is weak and has a lot of shameless Japanese wannabe and American lackeys, of course they are gutless to defend Chinese heritage. Integrity, independence and courage are the differences between China and Taiwan.
nirvana
The 2 of you are stating a lot of nonsenses.
>>>“Taiwan must trade because it does not have all the advanced technologies and has little or no resources. Mainland China on the other hand has everything it needs from food to energy to high technologies”.
—
Taiwan: GDP per capita of 23K$ (2009) , a GINI of 0.33, compared to
Mainland China: GDP per capita of about 4,000$ and a GINI >0.47
Sure Taiwan’s trade-to-GDP ratio is 150% (3 times of China’s 50%), But so what? Which is surviving and which is giving its people the highest standard? Which has high educated population and high productivity?
>>>“ Taiwan is weak and has a lot of shameless Japanese wannabe and American lackeys, of course they are gutless to defend Chinese heritage.”
—
Taiwan’s population is composed of 98% Han !!
wai guo ren
Vietnam and the Philippines cannot become prosperous on their own? How do you think China has become a middle-income country? Not through domestic consumption.
The only war songs I hear are from Chinese nationalists. Such tripe as nuclear war would be fine, because China has more people as regularly spouted. My question for this people: Will you be on the front lines? I think they would send those horrid, unwashed masses to do their bidding.
John Chan
@wai guo ren,
Only India and anti-China bloggers threaten China with nuclear annihilation with their stealth bombers, superior nuclear submarines, tens of thousands nuclear tipped missiles, and star war killing machines.
It is wrong to frame China with the war songs put out the anti-China war mongers.
davida
i am grateful for the think-outside perspective brought by the author and it is a breath of fresh air in the blog that has been long infected by those rather festering nationalistic or anti-china rehtorics.
just one question though. those disputes have been a point of contention in the bi-lateral relationships between china and other countries. vietnam or japan did nt scale down their war of words when china was relatively weak ( perhaps they were confident they could manage china on their own withou us), how is it possible that with the military modernisation of pla, never mind how modest, they wouldnt feel compelled to voice their displeasure because of the sheer size and industrial potential of china?
what is more mind-boggling is that china is not country that is making threatening gestures lately, in comparison, south korean’s military maneuvering targeting japan over one small islet or cambodia and thai border skirmish are far more destablising with no uncle sam’s carrot and stick in sight.
the best response to us’ provocation is firmness and assertiveness. everyone is hedging their bets and so be it. that is just the way the political game is played without regard for human rights or political systems.
what china should do and the policy they should adopt is the gradual and steady improvement of its capability without making outright strategic errors. nobody wants war but everyone is preparing for the worst. so if country like vietnam or anyone in south east asia, including australia and japan for that matter, wants to engage in the arm-race with china. bring it on and see who cracks first.
china is capable of spending 1or 2 hundred dollars without bankcrupting itself, which should be the limit for chinese planners. and they can wait and see if anybody can match that number.
speaking of the alliance, i dont see anyone in it but countries like australia or japan that intend to save a couple of bucks by sucking up to us completely, majority of asean countries have doubts about how committed us will be in the event of real crisis. by the way, no country matters more to us economic recovery than china( eu could mean more to us as a trading bloc). not what imperialistic us has done in the past could alleviate their misgivings. little wonder, the real friends us could possible have in asia-pacific are just japan and australia, both of whom can really relate to us for so many reasons, but none of which has anything to do with democracy and human rights.
Cecil
CCP is changing from within. Check this out:http://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/2010/speaker_zhao_xiao.asp
John Chan
@davida,
USA as predatory imperialist it will not stop assaulting on China until it could dismantle China like it did to USSR, it is simply its nature and there no other way to expect USA would do otherwise.
Europe, Japan and SKorea would welcome a relief of competitive pressure from China if USA can remove the pressure source for them.
Geopolitically a weakened militarily and economically China would be welcome with open arms by the nations in SE Asia.
When China looks around, regardless ideology, stronger and more proper China becomes, more jealousy, resentment and fear will be arisen against China, it is just nature of things.
All those adverse factors work against China but in favour of the USA. As Mao said before the war against India in 1962, it is 天要下雨, 娘要出嫁 的事 , Liang1a’s idea might not be a bad way out whether the target is India, Vietnam, Philippine or Japan.
Glenn
I write frequently for newspapers on international relations here in the United States. While I have a healthy respect for the unparalleled achievement of the Chinese people over the past 25 years in lifting hundreds of millions of people from subsistence to basic comfort, it is naive in my opinion to believe that the Chinese economy won’t undergo a major correction in the coming decade or sooner for the excesses of ignoring market forces. It is also clear that many people have overlooked the never ending resilience of the American economic and political system. I would welcome anyone to review my recent published article from January 2011 entitled “It’s Still America’s Century” which has been cited in several international publications including the Times of India. It can be reviewed at http://www.theday.com/article/20110130/OP05/301309986. I am looking forward to ten days in China this spring, and an open minded examination of my ideas at that time.
yang zi
thanks for the link Glenn. I read it.
it is meaningless to claim whose century it is, it is a shared planet, share world and shared century.
sure America will dominate for a long time, but its share of world GDP will shrink for sure.
It is also fatalistic to think China won’t democratize. It may not be a system like US, but definitely a system that respects freedom, because the pursuit for freedom is intrinsic in human beings, Chinese are no exception.
If you look at East Asian countries, they tend to democratize when GDP per capita reaches $10k. if you plug in a lowered growth number, it is about 10 to 15 years.
One thing many people forget, is that China is a nation that was forced into opium addiction by drug traffickers. that was the British way to balance trade with China. it is still a fresh memory.
I am wondering what America will do to balance China trade. Building a house of cards with righteous reasons is the first step. Peddling cows, chickens and soy beans is fine, but seriously, US should look at why Japan and S. Korea is enjoying huge trade surpluses with China. US should relax its out dated export controls and be serious about creating jobs, not rich farmers.
Glenn
I like Mr. Pei’s clear analysis of the forces shaping the Pacific today. He understands that when China starts making outlandish claims to hegemony over the entire South China Sea and markedly increases the size of its Navy, it reminds people more of the Japan’s aggressive expansion during the 1930′s than the peaceful explorations of Admiral Zheng He’s treasure ships in 1421. China’s insensitivity to the views of its neighbors is surprising and ironic to me because one of the great strengths and weaknesses of China is its sense of history. It is a strength in that Chinese leaders and people have the ability to take the long view and pursue projects that require focus and commmitment. It is a weakness in that too often it is a crutch for backward thinking and self-absorption, and provides an excuse for continued recriminations over insults and conflicts that go back ten generations. The United States also can be completely insensitive to the historical forces that shape the views of other people. We are a young country which lives for the future, not the past. However, we have the unique ability to free ourselves from the hatreds of past conflicts and embrace future relationships with other nations with the same optimism that we have about our own future. The close relationships with Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy today are a testament to this ability, as is the growing economic and military cooperation with Vietnam. I wouldn’t be surprised to be visiting archaeological sites in Iran myself within the next 15 years either. Learning about Chinese history has increased my understanding of that nation’s international and economic perspective. However, I wonder how many Chinese scholars and young people have taken the opportunity to look beyond the cartoon like characterizations of Americans fed to them by the party for many years or displayed in Hollywood movies. If leaders and students in both countries would study American history and Chinese history, there would be less misunderstanding of Chinese interests in the U.S. and a greater appreciation for American values and our nation’s accomplishments in China.
Liang1a
Glenn wrote:
The close relationships with Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy today are a testament to this ability, as is the growing economic and military cooperation with Vietnam.
——————————-
The US forgave Germany because it wanted to focus on USSR. The US forgave Japan because it wanted to focus on China. One enemy at a time for the US. Or the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And now the US is befriending Vietnam to attack China. It is obvious that the US wants to concentrate on one enemy at a time. At the same time USSR and China were America’s former allies and friends. Therefore, it can equally be said that the US always attacked its former friends. Mubarak was America’s friend. What happened to him? He is on trial for his life. Saddam Hussein was a friend of America for a while. He got hanged. Noriega was a friend of America for a while. As far as I know he’s still in an American jail. Philippines’ Marcos was exiled. Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated. They were all friends of the US.
yang zi
@Glenn,
Very good observations. The quality you described about US is true and admirable, with the unique geographic advantage and abundant resources, US will always be a major power, if not the dominate one.
I defend China strongly but I am also very critical about China. Every time I heard the Chinese leaders talking about long view, My reaction is that is just excuses for inaction.
It is very easy for US to make friends with old foes, because US has been victors or not losers for many wars. It is easy for Japan to forget its invasion to China, it is hard for China to do so. But US has the unique ability to sooth the feelings of previous foes. I think mainly due to its overwhelming hard/soft power and clever rhetoric.
John Chan
As we all know American only has tools and no allies, once the usefulness of a tool is done, selling the tool is American’s way of life.
nirvana
What Glenn tried to prove is the Americans’ ability to repulse the culture of revenge and hatred, teaching its future generations the virtue of reconciliation.
It is true that the US government has a propensity to tolerate ugly regimes that suit its hegemonistic agenda, which attitude is similar to the Chinese government inclination to support equivalent regimes when it suits its security objective. The US eventually got rid of these cumbersome allies more easily that China distancing itself from rogue states such as N. Korean and Pakistan (not mentioning the Khmer Rouge). What Liang1a missed is that this is the sign of a healthy system with a strong immunization. China had the opportunity to emulate the finest qualities of the US leadership style and reject its darkest flaws. But it did the opposite, perhaps not by choice (or envy) but by necessity.
Glenn
The idealistic vision which America had for a future of national self-determination and international collaboration when it was a “rising power” in 1920 disappeared when the European colonial powers refused to cooperate with President Woodrow Wilson. Since that time, America has done what was necessary to keep some truly dangerous and dictatorial forces like the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Japanese nationalists and Islamic fascists from exercising hegemony over Europe and Asia. There have definitely been mistakes. Some of the conflicts which the U.S. chose to fight during the Cold War or in confronting Islamic radicals proved to be unwise or unnecessary. We have also had to maintain uneasy alliances with people like Stalin in World War II, and some regional dictators during the Cold War. There are sometimes no “good guys” in the ballgame and that requires difficult choices among bad alternatives. But ask yourself, would the world be better off today if American Presidents had all followed the advice of George Wahington and avoided foreign entanglements? Would the Chinese people have the opportunities they have today for economic success and world leadership, if the United States had not paid the economic and human price of confronting and containing these forces? America’s leaders and its people have a lot of respect for China and would like to see them become a “responsible partner” and a world leader. But when China sits on its hands and allows the failed, militant state of North Korea to cause trouble on its doorstep, and looks at Iran as just another source of natural resources, that is an abdication of responsibility for a nation with a distinguished history. After undergoing the nonsense of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese should recognize that countries which post their leader’s picture everywhere and force their young people to chant slogans and threaten everyone, are losers and dangerous. China will find its own path but it needs to step up and choose which path to pursue. Once choice is to continue to play footsy with the likes of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and possibly Russia, and continue to seek economic growth concentrated on subsidized exports to the west. That is its right. If that happens, however, I expect the United States will adopt a containment strategy by developing a new Asian economic and military alliance consisting of Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Australia, India and possibly Vietnam. The other choice is one of coexistence and even collaboration. The long term strategic and economic interests of the two nations do not have to conflict. The United States will be better off in the long term with a balance of power with a respected competitor.
Liang1a
Glenn wrote:
November 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I write frequently for newspapers on international relations here in the United States. While I have a healthy respect for the unparalleled achievement of the Chinese people over the past 25 years in lifting hundreds of millions of people from subsistence to basic comfort, it is naive in my opinion to believe that the Chinese economy won’t undergo a major correction in the coming decade or sooner for the excesses of ignoring market forces. It is also clear that many people have overlooked the never ending resilience of the American economic and political system.
—————————
China’s so-called miraculous growth over the last several decades was based on selling cheap labor and cheap resources. Therefore, it is obvious that this mode of economic development cannot continue for long. Since labor must be kept low to make Chinese products cheap it follows that Chinese workers must be kept poor. Therefore, the current system can only be maintained by impoverishing the Chinese people. The yuan has been kept very low in order to allow the exporters to make huge profits. For example, a shirt that cost $10 before 1994 was worth 50 yuan. But after Jan. 1, 1994 the exchange rate went to 8 yuan per dollar which make the $10 worth 80 yuan. This means the exporters made 30 yuan extra profits which made them very rich. But the inflation eroded the purchasing power of the Chinese consumers. And while the cheaper yuan means the factory workers producing export products can make higher wages it also means that the farmers will bear the cost of the inflation. You can read more about the problems caused by the cheap yuan at the following link:
“The Face of China’s Economic Engine”
http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/thread/1277846989/last-1277846989/The+Face+of+China's+Economic+Engine
China’s current mode of economic development cannot give the Chinese people the same high standard of living as that of the Americans. If the Chinese people want to have the same high standard of living as the Americans then they must produce as much as the Americans. They must have the same tools and machines predicated on the same level of technologies. If the Chinese achieve a per capita GNP of $50,000 the same as the American people then their total GNP would be some $75 trillion based on a total population of 1.5 billion. Obviously China cannot export tens of trillions of dollars equivalent to achieve a $75 trillion economy. But the Chinese workers can produce more than the Americans because 1/3 of the American people are blacks and Latinos who underperform the average by some 30% to35% or more. The Chinese-Americans overperform the average by some 30% or more. Therefore, if the Chinese in China can perform as much as Chinese-Americans then the per capita GNP of China can be as high as $66,000 which would translate into a total GNP of some $100 trillion (300 trillion yuan based on 200,000 yuan of per capita GNP and a population of 1.5 billion by 2040).
Since China cannot export tens of trillions of dollars equivalent it must produce the goods and services worth $100 trillion for the consumption of its own people. With the most advanced technologies in the world and being energy self-sufficient it is eminently doable. Therefore, China must shift its mode of economic development from exports based to domestic based.
The Chinese government understands this. It has repeatedly announced that China would reduce foreign trade and increase domestic development based on indigenous technologies and the urbanization of the farmers. But obviously those who are in favor of reform are being undermined by the compradors who stand to lose their incomes and influence if foreign trade is reduced. But in the end, China has no choice but to reduce foreign trade and concentrate on domestic development. If China persist in emphasizing foreign trade then its economy will stall and collapse. In fact the Chinese economy has already stalled. The high GDP growth over the last few years was based on housing inflation. And with housing inflation prohibited and foreign trade stalled out, China’s growth will drop unless genuine domestic development can take over. How successful will the government be to usher in the shift? Only time can tell. Maybe there will be a few years of 7% growth. Then a few years of 10% growth as domestic development takes hold. Then 5 to 10 years of 12% to 15% growth followed by 7% growth again until 2040. At which time China’s growth will fall to 1% to 2% on the back of technological advancement. But by that time the incomes of the Chinese people will be the highest in the world and the Chinese economy as a whole will be some 50% bigger than the rest of the world combined.
Liang1a
Glenn wrote:
November 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm
It is also clear that many people have overlooked the never ending resilience of the American economic and political system.
—————————
American economy is indeed resilient. The resilience of the American economy is based on its rapid technological advancement. America’s rapid technological advancement is based on it largest number of scientists and engineers. But most important of all is the revolutionary discovery and investion of many technologies particularly the electronics and computers in the last few decades. If America can now go to a higher level of automation and invent very smart robots to perform semi-skilled tasks then American economy will grow rapidly again. Otherwise, American economy will grow very slowly based on population growth.
China should be able to nurture millions of genius level scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, the Chinese government hasn’t been able to nurture many world class scientists and engineers so far. If China can institute 300 of the top 500 universities in the world and 6 of the top 10 then China’s indigenous technologies will be superior to all and China’s productivity will grow very rapidly. In the end, economic growth is a function of technological advancement. And technological advancement is a function of the number of scientists and engineers of world class level. Of course, government policies are also important to the extent of unleasing the initiative and creativity of the people. Americans are good at this while the Chinese must become more liberated. But once given an empowering system they can be as creative as any in the world. The excellent performance of Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, US, etc. all testify to the ability of the Chinese ingenuity.
Lucy
It’s always nice to dream, however there are too many instances where there are no parallels when it comes to high-performance. Europeans created modern science; the Chinese did not. There were no Chinese equivalents to Copernicus, Leibniz or Newton. Nor were there any Chinese parallels to Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven; nor Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci; nor Columbus or Magellan. What about ancient times? Well, there were no Chinese parallels to Aeschylus, Sophoceles, or Euripides either. More importantly, there were no Chinese equivalents to Pythagoras, Aristotle, Euclid, or Ptolemy. It was this lack that them in the dark and propelled Europeans ahead by light years. Maybe this time will be different? What happens when you run out of folks to copy?
ari
You are wrong Lucy. The Chinese in ZHeng He’s time and before had already, in dialogues and discussions with the Arabs discoveed the world was round and that earth revolved around the sun. How did you think Zheng and his admirals were able to circumnavigate to amny parts of the world and drew eaxt and accurate maps with longtitudes and latitudes using the Norh star? And this was way before 1492! Without such maps, how do you think Magellan, Vasco da Gama, Christopher Columbus, and Copernicus were able to “discover” what they discovered? Come, come, you have been brainwashed with false claims about Man’s history; History which was selectively written by the Europeans. Don’t you ever question anything you read or the clams made?
Yang zi
Wow, kowtows @Lucy. All very good points. You might ask Liang1a, where is your light at night come from, who invented the car you are driving,
John Chan
@Lucy,
Are compass, gunpowder, paper, and printing important contributions to human civilization advancement? They are Chinese inventions and Chinese didn’t charge the westerners loyalty to use them, or accuse the westerners IP theft.
Westerners cannot read Chinese does not mean there aren’t similar inventions in China, e.g. Algeria, and Pi, existed in China way before the westerners know anything about it.
It seems you are a Whiteman supremist and ultra racist, you regard any other culture does not meet Whiteman’s approval is a non-culture. Such ugly words uttered from an female is really shocking, it surly gives me a one more level of understanding about Whiteman psyche.
Needham Research Institute has been introducing China’s 3000 years of science, discovery and invention to the English world since 1950, and it is still on going 50 years later. You should pay a visit to the Institute to open you ignorant and bigotry mind.
http://www.nri.org.uk/joseph.html and
The Genius of China, by Robert Temple at Amazon
Lucy
Yang zi, are you talking about Ferdinand Verbiest the Flemish (European) Jesuit missionary in China or Karl Benz, the German (European)inventor of the modern automobile? The Chinese sure love driving bimmers and benz’s huh? Why is that?
Liang1a
Lucy wrote:
November 30, 2011 at 3:15 pm
It’s always nice to dream, however there are too many instances where there are no parallels when it comes to high-performance. Europeans created modern science; the Chinese did not. There were no Chinese equivalents to Copernicus, Leibniz or Newton. Nor were there any Chinese parallels to Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven; nor Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci; nor Columbus or Magellan. What about ancient times? Well, there were no Chinese parallels to Aeschylus, Sophoceles, or Euripides either. More importantly, there were no Chinese equivalents to Pythagoras, Aristotle, Euclid, or Ptolemy. It was this lack that them in the dark and propelled Europeans ahead by light years. Maybe this time will be different? What happens when you run out of folks to copy?
—————————–
The essence of science is observation and experimentation. Chinese certainly had done many observations and experimentations in the ancient. Chinese logicians, mathematicians, astronomers, scientists, etc. have predated advances in the West by many centuries and even millennia. Lucy had apparently spoken in ignorance.
The Chinese know all about Pythagorean Theorem hundreds if not thousands of years before Pythagoras. The theorem was first taught in a book by the name of “The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art” (九章算术) which was dated to some 10th Century BCE if not earlier. It is said that, “The method of chapter 7 was not found in Europe until the 13th century, and the method of chapter 8 uses Gaussian elimination before Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855).”
Anybody interested can read about ancient Chinese mathematics at the following link:
“The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art” (九章算术)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Chapters_on_the_Mathematical_Art
Those who can read Chinese can go to the following links for the original text of the “The Nine Chapers …” itself and an explanation in vernacular Chinese:
http://www.culcn.cn/ch/gx/jdwk/%E5%AD%90%E9%83%A8/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96/%E4%B9%9D%E7%AB%A0%E7%AE%97%E6%9C%AF/jzss.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/view/17765.htm
There are many examples of ancient Chinese music that used much more complex musical instruments than in the West. Chinese music and dances are far more complex than the simple lyre music in Greece. There are simply too many examples to show the greater advancement of Chinese art, literature, music, science and engineering until the 17th Century when Europe underwent Renaissance which marked the end of the Middle Ages. Renaissance itself only happened after the Mongol conquest and partly caused by it.
Modern science has been largely discovered and invented by the West. But science as I said before consists of observation and experimentation. The current day Chinese are very good in all scientific desciplines from math to physics to engineering. A mathematician by the name of Chen Jingrun has made significant insight into many mathematical problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Jingrun#Works
“His work on the twin prime conjecture, Waring’s problem, Goldbach’s conjecture and Legendre’s conjecture led to progress in analytic number theory. In a 1966 paper he proved what is now called Chen’s theorem: every sufficiently large even number can be written as the sum of a prime and a semiprime (the product of two primes) — e.g., 100 = 23 + 7·11.”
Another indication of Chinese people’s ability to understand and contribute to the understanding of science and engineering is the fact that some 25% to 30% of all recipients of doctorate degrees in science and engineering in American universities are ethnic Chinese. I have no doubt that as the Chinese government allocate more resources to establish hundreds of world class universities the contribution of the Chinese scientists will far surpass the Westerners. Therefore, the fact that the Chinese scientists had not contributed much during the last several centuries is clearly not due to genetis but due to culture and government. For one thing, the Chinese had historically disparaged artisans and honored literary scholars. But with changing social priorities I’m sure much greater emphasis is being placed on science and engineering and Chinese scientific discoveries and inventions will again move to the forefront. Lucy had spoken in ignorance which forms the basis of the West’s hubris.
Cecil
I agree. I urge people would pay more attention to the change of CCP from within:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/china_705/interview/xiao.html
Huang
@cecil,
Bid deal ! The CCP changes day in and day out in case you are surprised or shocked.
Obviously, the changes you and the likes prefer to see are those you wish would take down the Communist Party of China.
You guys are welcome to bet on the fall or even collapse of China if it make you look like a clown that you will become.
Of course, if the Chinese Communist Party is NOT up to the task, your wish might come true. Again, its funny the Chinese never wish any nations or governments to be collapse. Something the good people of the World should be “paying some attention to”.
As Bruce Lee once said, “To hell with circumstances,I create opportunities.” By fate or by the mandate of heaven(also, God), the CCP is the one and ONLY ruling political party in the vast land that is China and under the guidance of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” ,of course.
JUSTSAYNO
Couple of things missing from the article:
- Transition of power in both China and the US next year
- The domestic political landscape in the US, China
- The military industrial complex
In the coming year US-Sino relationship will likely to worsen because new leaders typically rely on nationalism to start off. While China has to refocus on its soft power, Obama is forced to focus on foreign relations aspects because domestically he is unable to put the economy back on track. His GOP opponents are rather weak in foreign relations, so it’s difficult to tell at this point whether they would continue down Obama’s path if elected.
The reality is that US cannot maintain a continued global military hegemony for long. The failure of the “super committee” means an automatic large cut to defense spending. Moreover, American people are sick of wars and the military industrial complex in general. Given the rise of BRICS nations, China’s best bet would be to establish better economic alliance with them. While US/Indo relations have improved, US/Russia relations have worsened. China lead BRICS to push back US/Europe efforts on climate talks last year, so there are plenty of areas where China and rest of the developing nations in the area can agree upon. The military developments are waste of resources for China and the US.
Winston
This is the US national foreign policy, not of the Republican or Democrat parties!Any US president elected in 2012 will follow this policy because this is the American national interests. When you see the US come to the rescue of EU in the coming days you’ll know its real potential and power.The only way for China now is back down & play by the rules as a ‘responsible player’! Its coming economic crisis is surely not any good for any countries in the world! So, better get ready for all the worst!
John Chan
@Winston,
“Any US president elected in 2012 will follow this policy because this is the American national interests.” Do you mean American president is merely a puppet, not a leader? Then who set this imperialist policy for the USA? An invisible hand in the Dick Cheney School of Imperialism? If that is the case, USA is a dictatorial nation led by an unelected and unaccountable secret entity.
“US come to the rescue of EU in the coming days you’ll know its real potential and power.” USA only prints IOU to exchange other nations’ goods; it is a form of highway robbery. The only way USA to rescue EU is to print more IOU in exchange of EU’s IOU. Please tell me why would USA use its IOU to exchange EU’s IOU instead of buying goods from other nations?
EU need trillions of bailout money, why would USA give such huge amount of money to EU meanwhile millions of USA businesses and citizens need and can use that money for foods, job creation, economy recovery, defense expenditures, etc.?
Your threat is full of holes and hollow, do you agree your comment is rather a disgrace to your nation, the USA?
Winston
@ Chan,
According to you, the US dollar is something just like toilet paper, right? Why the central bank of China (PBC) has printed money like hell to buy up the dollars each day? Ask yourself why is that?
John Chan
@Winston,
Poor Winston, he even does not know what kind of world we are living in. Have you heard of Fiat Currency, or fractional banking? Do you know The Fed is a private enterprise?
Regardless the value of USD, does my comment rebuking your nonsense on USA to rescue EU make sense to you? If it doesn’t, then it proves why westerners are in such deep financial mess right now.
John Chan
@Winston,
Your government is way smarter than you can image. USA government does not accept RMB, Yen, Euro, or any other currency as a payment for the US treasury notes, USD only. All nations must use goods to exchange USD printed thru thin air, then use USD to buy US treasury notes (US debts).
Winston
@ Chan,
Oh, my poor comrade Chan! The culprit of this global economic mess (in the US & EU)is China with its destructive predatory economic policy!!Now you undestand what I meant? Try to figure it out if you’re still confused! Play by the rules! Stop cheating! Stop ‘playing the system’ because it’ll just cause harm & damage to the entire global economic health including China itself!!!Now you got it?!(BTW Fed& dollar are still the buyer & currency of last resort for the whole world, you know that?!)
John Chan
@Winston,
Instead of debating you nonsense idea of USA rescuing Europe, you escaped the debate and smear China baselessly. Cheating, who is cheating? There are WTO, IMF, World Bank, UN making sure nobody breaks the rule. On top of that USA and its allies will bomb and kill the victim if they accuse the victim as a cheater or the rule breaker without justification. You can’t make allegation thru the thin air, you will be sue for defamation, you know.
Winston
@ Chan,
you better ask Hu Jintao to go sue Mr. Obama and Mr. Mitt Romney for ‘defaming’ your China ! Good luck, comrade Chan!!
….”Using some of his toughest language yet against China, Obama, a day after face-to-face talks with President Hu Jintao, demanded that China stop “gaming” the international system and create a level playing field for U.S. and other foreign businesses.
“We’re going to continue to be firm that China operate by the same rules as everyone else,” Obama told reporters after hosting the 21-nation APEC summit in his native Honolulu. “We don’t want them taking advantage of the United States.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/obama-on-chinese-economy-_n_1092110.html
http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/10/13/new-romney-video-trade-stop-cheating-china-obama-isnt-working/
John Chan
@Winston,
What has Hu Jintao got to do with you nonsense idea of USA rescuing Europe? Your argument is getting weird by the post, and is turning into hysteric China bashing. How can American turn into such erratic behaviour? Is it the impact of 2008 financial meltdown?
Winston
@ comrade Chan,
The US has already come to EU’s rescue! Even your central bank & other central banks in the world also participated in this globally coordinated rescue mission!Stop talking nonsense here!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/federal-reserve-ecb-central-banks_n_1120285.html?ref=business
John Chan
@Winston,
Didn’t you say the USA was going to show China the power when US comes to the rescue of EU? Why didn’t the US put the money where its mouth is? Why did US need to tug China and other 3 central banks along? Where is the might of US power you brag all along?
Beside US did not come to rescue EU as charity, US merely swapped papers with EU only.
World is a cooperative community, the days of “either my way or high way” have ended in 2008 for the US. Talking on the high horse like you won’t get USA anyway.
Winston
Chan,
With this level of knowledge, you’re exactly a paid CCP blogger!!
John Chan
@Winston,
Would you agree that I am better than the American President? At least I promote peace for the humanity, but the American President promised to change, but instead he made the world worse, on top of that he approved trillions to line the pockets of greedy Wall St. bankers instead of helping the millions of unemployed of American citizens.