Political Crossfire Forums

[Federali]

Rice: U.S. Concerned About Rising China
Nov 17 8:09 AM US/Eastern

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON



The United States has some concerns about a rising China, including a military expansion that may be excessive, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

Beijing has spent heavily in recent years on adding submarines, missiles, fighter planes and other high-tech weapons to its arsenal and extending the reach of the 2.3 million-member People's Liberation Army, the world's largest fighting force.

Its reported military budget rose more than 14 percent this year to $35.3 billion, but outside estimates of China's true spending are up to three times that level.

"There are concerns about China's military buildup," Rice told a television interviewer. "It's sometimes seemed outsized for China's regional role."

Beijing insists its multibillion-dollar buildup is defensive, but it has alarmed some Asian neighbors and U.S. military planners who see China as a potential threat to U.S. military pre-eminence in the Pacific.

Asked whether U.S. foreign policy toward China is aimed at containing China's ability to flex military power, Rice turned the question to politics and economics.

"U.S. policy is aimed at having China be a responsible stakeholder in international politics," she replied. "That means that Chinese energy, Chinese growth, Chinese incredible innovation and entrepreneurship, would be channeled into an international economy in which everybody can compete and compete equally."

Rice, in Asia with President Bush for a regional economic forum, said China's economic growth "has been a net gain for the international system." But she also ticked off a list of U.S. concerns including questions of economic fairness and China's record on human rights.

"There are concerns about a rising China, concerns about China's transition, concerns about whether the Chinese economy will in fact act in a way that is consistent with the level playing field that the international economy needs," Rice said in the interview with CNBC Asia.

U.S. concerns are manageable within a relationship she described as strong overall, Rice said. She visited China last month to shore up United Nations sanctions against China's ally, North Korea, and she credited Beijing with cooperation in opposing the North's nuclear development.

Bush and Rice were both meeting with their Chinese counterparts during this weekend's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

A congressional advisory panel on Thursday questioned China's willingness to be a more responsible international player, saying world prosperity depends on China's abandoning a single-minded pursuit of its "own narrow national interests."

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission made 44 recommendations in its annual report to lawmakers. It calls on the United States to combat Chinese attempts to isolate Taiwan by supporting the island's membership in various world bodies, and urges Washington to pressure Beijing to help end the bloody conflict in Sudan's Darfur region.

"While China is a global actor, its sense of responsibility has not kept up with its expanding power," said Larry Wortzel, chairman of the commission, which Congress created in 2000 to investigate U.S.-China issues.

The panel also admonished U.S. intelligence agencies, urging the United States to set up "a more effective program" for gathering information about China's military buildup and development.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said she had not seen the report, but "we are against the attempt by any country or any organization to interfere with China's internal affairs under the pretext of the Taiwan question and impede our reunification course."

The report said China's global reach extends beyond East Asia to the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America, where China "is coming to be regarded almost as a second superpower."


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/17/D8LER9E80.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's clear we have wasted our money and efforts in Iraq when we should have spent our capital worrying about China.

What a foolish effort!

[Deemoore]

Ni Hao
I disagree, China is the superpower. You might want to brush up on your cantonese.

[bigstick61]

They need to be able to counter US naval assets in the WESTPAC, and any other allied assets in the region, so they can take the rest of the ROC, and seize certain islands they've been after since the '70s, and also to go after Japan, and also aid allies in the area, such as a DPRK effort against the ROK. This is the reason for their buildup. Creating what amounts to the Far East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of WWII fame is one of their main long-term strategic goals, and inclides seizing Japan, the ROC, Vietnam, parts of the Phillipines, certain US territories, etc. However, I doubt they'll be ready for at least a decade, possibly even twenty to twenty-five years from now. However, what will aid them significantly is using countries like the DPRK, Syria, Iaran, Venezuela, and such to their advantage by creating multiple fronts, and also by making military alliances with Russia and India, which could also be used to open up new fronts. Considering the constantly diminsihing size of the US armed forces, especially naval forces, this will cause us to be spread out considerably. That many of our tools for rapid mobilization have been gotten rid of does not help either. Also, a key element will likely be the use of computer viruses to cripple our military networks and economy, something China has been working on extensively.

[tneedles]

China has been a superpower for the last 30 years. It reminds me of a joke that applies to this, from the Reagan years.

President Reagan and Leonid Brezhnev were talking on the phone one day. After they were done discussing the political situation, Brezhnev told Reagan about a dream he had. He was standing in front of the US Capitol as the Stars & Stripes were lowered and replaced by the red hammer & sickle. Reagan laughed and told Brezhnev that he had a similar dream. He was standing in front of the Kremlin and he saw the Soviet flag replaced with another red flag with funny writing on it. Brezhnev said, that was not unsual because the Soviet flag was red. Then, he asked what the funny writing said. Reagan replied, "I do not know. I cannot read chinese",

[Snoop]

bigstick61 wrote: They need to be able to counter US naval assets in the WESTPAC, and any other allied assets in the region, so they can take the rest of the ROC, and seize certain islands they've been after since the '70s, and also to go after Japan, and also aid allies in the area, such as a DPRK effort against the ROK. This is the reason for their buildup. Creating what amounts to the Far East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of WWII fame is one of their main long-term strategic goals, and inclides seizing Japan, the ROC, Vietnam, parts of the Phillipines, certain US territories, etc. However, I doubt they'll be ready for at least a decade, possibly even twenty to twenty-five years from now. However, what will aid them significantly is using countries like the DPRK, Syria, Iaran, Venezuela, and such to their advantage by creating multiple fronts, and also by making military alliances with Russia and India, which could also be used to open up new fronts. Considering the constantly diminsihing size of the US armed forces, especially naval forces, this will cause us to be spread out considerably. That many of our tools for rapid mobilization have been gotten rid of does not help either. Also, a key element will likely be the use of computer viruses to cripple our military networks and economy, something China has been working on extensively.

Theirs a lot more to being a super power then military might.

China is rapidly reaching the point where they could wipe us out with out firing a single shot by. Of course thier not about to do it because we are are giving them all our money.

[PricklySponge]

Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

[tneedles]

PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

I disagree. A country can still be dependent on other nations to feed their economy and still be a superpower. A country cannot be a superpower by themselves. You need allies and alliances are built on need and common goals.

You need to read "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. It explains this in more detail. It can be found at your local library or for a couple of dollars at a used bookstore. It is a tough read, but a great book. I recommend it to everyone.

[exploding_onion]

PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need.

[PricklySponge]

exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.

[thefranzkafkafront]

China has no ability to express it power other than locally. Largely becuase its on the dependant side of a industrial economy, secondly its navy is a joke.

[Kumar]

PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kumar wrote: PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

Either that or keeping it afloat with massive subisides and strangeling the economy.

Globalisation isunt the problem, its uncompetativeness.

[Kumar]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

Either that or keeping it afloat with massive subisides and strangeling the economy.

Globalisation isunt the problem, its uncompetativeness.
I agree. The problem could be solved if American workers would make themselves more competitive and agree to work for mere pennies an hour. The US government could pitch in by rolling back hard-won labour laws.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

Either that or keeping it afloat with massive subisides and strangeling the economy.

Globalisation isunt the problem, its uncompetativeness.
I agree. The problem could be solved if American workers would make themselves more competitive and agree to work for mere pennies an hour. The US government could pitch in by rolling back hard-won labour laws.

Critise as much as you want, its works. Its the reason India and China are rapidly becoming the workshops of the world.

The days of the early 1900, where you could enact socialist policies and protectionism and just stick your middle finger up to the world market becuase hell they had to buy your stuff anyway, are gone.

[Kumar]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

Either that or keeping it afloat with massive subisides and strangeling the economy.

Globalisation isunt the problem, its uncompetativeness.
I agree. The problem could be solved if American workers would make themselves more competitive and agree to work for mere pennies an hour. The US government could pitch in by rolling back hard-won labour laws.

Critise as much as you want, its works. Its the reason India and China are rapidly becoming the workshops of the world.

The days of the early 1900, where you could enact socialist policies and protectionism and just stick your middle finger up to the world market becuase hell they had to buy your stuff anyway, are gone.
It shouldn't matter what other countries are benefiting from it. Governments have a responsibility to look after their own people first, something they (particularly the US) have failed to do by selling out to globalization and benefiting others at the expense of their own people.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kumar wrote: PricklySponge wrote: exploding_onion wrote: PricklySponge wrote: Both China and USA are only superpowers in the sense of military might. We could be brought to our knees by smaller, militarily weaker nation via oil.

Superpowers no longer exist, and will never exist again until a nation with military might can produce its own raw materials to feed its economy/military. As long as we are dependent on other nations to feed our economy, we will not be a superpower.

Military superpowers can exist as long as they are able to completely skrew over with military might any smaller nation that doesn't want to give them the rescources (such as oil) that they need. Maybe 200 years ago.But not in todays world. Especially with the effects of globalization, invasion of oil providing nations would have far reaching consequences with China. Not only would the lack of shipments of Oil completely destroy our economy; but if we invaded the nation(s) not providing oil to us, conflict with China would also completely destroy our economy.
A greater concern should be the loss of American industrial base thanks to globalization.

Either that or keeping it afloat with massive subisides and strangeling the economy.

Globalisation isunt the problem, its uncompetativeness.
I agree. The problem could be solved if American workers would make themselves more competitive and agree to work for mere pennies an hour. The US government could pitch in by rolling back hard-won labour laws.

Critise as much as you want, its works. Its the reason India and China are rapidly becoming the workshops of the world.

The days of the early 1900, where you could enact socialist policies and protectionism and just stick your middle finger up to the world market becuase hell they had to buy your stuff anyway, are gone.
It shouldn't matter what other countries are benefiting from it. Governments have a responsibility to look after their own people first, something they (particularly the US) have failed to do by selling out to globalization and benefiting others at the expense of their own people.

Goverments one and only responcibility is to protect the rights of its citizens, anything else is unjutifiable. But lets not get into that.

Anywho, yeah sure they can be as protective as they want of their own economies, sadly the law of specilisation and the world market will apply a roundhouse kick to their face evey single time.

[Kumar]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Goverments one and only responcibility is to protect the rights of its citizens, anything else is unjutifiable. But lets not get into that.
Your view is unrealistic and also regressive because it ignores that government can greatly enhance a society's health by providing for its people on various levels.

Quote: Anywho, yeah sure they can be as protective as they want of their own economies, sadly the law of specilisation and the world market will apply a roundhouse kick to their face evey single time.
Slightly higher prices are a negligible price to pay in order to avoid national decay.

[Boondoggle]

Sure, China may be rising in power, but unlike the Soviet Union, it's largely based on international trade with countries such as the US. If China wanted to get into a confrontation with the US, let's see how long they'd remain powerful if the US cut off that trade. By the same token, it'd hurt the US somewhat if China dumped its investment in US debt. This kind of economic interdependence is what people like Thomas Barnett and Henry Kissinger argue is the way to create real global security, and it's a pretty good argument in my opinion.

Everyone is tripping over each other to cash in on China's economic growth, and that is what's fueling their rise. In Canada, John Manley (a Liberal) argues that the current Conservative government should be careful to protect Canada's economic interest in China. However, I think there's something to be said for thinking about more than just money, and here I support the government's position:

Quote: Canada will not "sell-out" its position on human rights to cash in on trade and investment with China, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday, firmly putting his government's stamp on relations with the Communist economic powerhouse.


Harper's comments, made to reporters while flying to the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Vietnam, were some of the most forceful from a Canadian prime minister about China in recent history.

"We will discuss economic affairs which are obviously of vital interest to Canada-Chinese relations ... At the same time, the government is determined to express its opinions on political issues, human rights concerns and in particular matters that concern Canadian citizens."

Harper was referring to the case of Huseyin Celil, a Chinese-Canadian serving a 15-year prison sentence in China.

But there have been other irritants since the Conservative government took power last January.

It bestowed the Dalai Lama honorary Canadian citizenship and lashed out at alleged government-sponsored commercial espionage by the Chinese. Even before they defeated the Liberals, Conservatives were harshly critical of human rights abuses in China.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other organizations have pressed western leaders to press for better human rights in China and other Asian countries. But the Canadian business community has urged the government to act cautiously when dealing with China, so as not to hurt Canada's trading relationship while other countries reap the windfall.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061115/national/canada_china_apec

Do you draw a line somewhere with regards to what is acceptable and what isn't, or do you simply act like a prostitute for the money? The bottom line is that China will not rise in power if it does not have markets for its products, and that can be used as leverage to discourage China from doing what is unacceptable. It doesn't have to be done in a threatening way like harsh sanctions, but rather make it clear that there are rules to the game. With power comes responsibility.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Goverments one and only responcibility is to protect the rights of its citizens, anything else is unjutifiable. But lets not get into that.
Your view is unrealistic and also regressive because it ignores that government can greatly enhance a society's health by providing for its people on various levels.

Lovely, teleological reasoning at its best, but this isunt what this debate is about, want to get into it make a thread in the philosophy forum and i'll be happy to oblidge.

Quote:
Quote: Anywho, yeah sure they can be as protective as they want of their own economies, sadly the law of specilisation and the world market will apply a roundhouse kick to their face evey single time.
Slightly higher prices are a negligible price to pay in order to avoid national decay.

Im sure foriegn markets feel that way too. trade deficite, weeee!

[Eduffy80911]

China has a big advantage over the US as far as flexing military muscle. They don't have the pretense of respecting anyone's rights to worry about.

A Tienamin Square event in the US would have resulted in politicians being strung up on prime time tv. In China, it's just another day.