What's new

Superpower dreams interrupted

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fighter488

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
0
A quite interesting Point Of View of the Author.
Nice read.

Fighter


SINOGRAPH
Superpower dreams interrupted

By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - Many Chinese people dream that their country will one day become "number one". The dream is legitimate - as with any race, you want to win; or in any economic competition, you want to outperform your competitors. This is part of the nature of the capitalist system that has spread from the West to countries all over the world.

In international politics, this competition has a delicate appendix involving dangerous military matters.

Will China's military catch up with America's? And if so, when? Many strategists in Beijing wonder about these questions, and the main drive of the thinking is on China's economy.

When China's economy is big enough it will "naturally" sustain greater military expenditures, and thus in due time it will outperform the US in military might. There are some snags to this linear thinking. One is related to technological advances: China lags behind America in many technological areas, and it is hard to catch up.

The US might become economic "number two" but could well retain its technological prominence in military matters for several decades after China overtakes it economically. Still, even if China were to catch up in military technology, one wonders whether it would have the intellectual freedom necessary for the research innovation needed to manufacture effective and ground-breaking technology that would lead Beijing to be a giant in this sphere, as the US presently is.

These problems are all real, and Beijing might have some solutions. However, the problems of China's military rise are possibly not solved by simple projections of China's economic growth in future decades.

But first, let's assume that economic growth can take care of everything. One can simply think that in 20 years, China's gross domestic product (GDP) may be larger than America's. Then, because of its new economic might, China's military could be in a position to overtake the US's, and China might think this could happen in the following 10 or 20 years (around 2040-2050). Yet, even then, by the middle of the century, China's military challenges would be far from over.

China would still be alone against an alliance made of America plus European countries, Japan, India and other Asian countries. All these states might prefer to side with America and not with China in the event of military confrontation.

Such a grouping would represent a technological, military and economic power far bigger than China in the foreseeable future, even if we were to stretch ourselves to the end of this century. China would not be able to take on all of them, and in fact, in the next decades, China will have to rely heavily on US involvement in the region to ease tensions with its neighbors. [1]

Could China grow stronger by about 2030-2040 and then replace America in this broad pattern of alliances? To a certain extent, yes, but in the event of a real military confrontation, this is most unlikely because all these countries are scared of China's rise. This is because China is a newcomer, and thus largely unpredictable. It is too big, growing too rapidly, and too ''new'' to modern international diplomacy. But mostly, all of these countries are scared because China's politics are not transparent and Beijing is not forthcoming about its political decision-making because China is not, in one word, democratic.

If China is ever to become "number one", it would need first not a mighty and technologically advanced military, but real allies and real friends - not friends like North Korea or even Pakistan, a country that if pressed to choose between China and America most likely now would still pick America. To have friends, China has to become democratic, and while this would also not be a total solution, it would be a necessary step.

Given the US's status, the road to greatness in China is bound to go through some sort of political compromise and agreement with America. One difficulty in this is that China will have to build its new friendship with America without leaving other countries behind.

That is, China would have to build good ties with many countries that are presently friends with America, as well as continue building ties with America. Only if China can weave a complicated web of new political ties can it realistically hope to become politically "number one" sometime after it becomes economic "number one". And then it could be poised to naturally inherit the US's reach in the world and its web of alliances.

This leaves a few open questions: what is the use of China's present military build-up? Will the new Chinese weapons realistically be used to conquer Taiwan or to impose its rule in the South China Sea? In the foreseeable future, China could meet both goals, but if that were to happen, China would economically and politically be suffocated immediately after the conquest. China knows it and will try not to pursue this course, as it would end all its dreams at once.

But China's present tendency to not give up its military threat to Taiwan is motivated by domestic reasons: the push of nationalists who have no real and clear idea of the ways China could realistically become "number one".

Certainly, China's dream to become "number one" has many enemies, many of whom call themselves Chinese. Take, for instance, the case of Mao Zedong. Some Chinese neo-nationalists consider him the greatest Chinese hero of the past century. However, his 30 years of political experiments stopped China's economic growth for many decades.

At the end of World War II, Japan's and China's GDPs were at the same level. If we take this as a standard, without Mao, China's GDP could have become two-thirds of America's GDP by the late 1980s. If we more realistically take Taiwan's GDP per capita as a standard of China's potential overall GDP growth, China's economy could have overtaken that of America by the late 1970s.

These projections are debatable but are a useful intellectual exercise as from here we can see that China, thanks to Mao, lost some 50 years of development. Then, in retrospect, Mao was China's enemies' best friend, and at present the best weapon China's enemies could invent would be to create a second Mao.

This thought could perhaps become important in the next couple of years, as China is readying itself to put in power a batch of new rulers coming from the ultra-Maoist experience. The Chinese rulers after the 2012 Communist Party Congress will likely all be former Red Guards, and thus they will have experienced firsthand the disasters of the times when China lost ground. Yet they might also have an important Maoist mindset: "wu tian, wu fa" ("no heaven, no law"), open to all possibilities and daring to do anything in the best interests of their country.

Note
1. See my The blessing of China's threat, La Stampa, June 4, 2007.

(Conversations with Huang Jianping, Paul Shao and Amir Shadab helped in the conception of this article.)

Francesco Sisci is the Asia Editor of La Stampa.

(Copyright 2010 Francesco Sisci.)


Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.
 
^^^^ Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense from Francis Sisi.

There's a whole bunch of "experts" on atimes.com who know next to nothing regarding the truth about Asia. We know more about Europe and America then they know about us. Well, that's because many of us grew up there. And mr Sisi made a major error, it's not Chinese who have dreams of "Superpowerdom", rather their neighbors to the SW. :)
 
intellectual freedom? in the US, it's the 5% elite professors, businessmen and politicians with intellectual freedom, and the rest of the people are sheep. anyone has the right to be stupid in the US, and drop out of high school to be a ghetto street thug. only 27% of americans graduate college.
 
I some time wonder why truth hurts so much.

After all Democracy is not that color (red) blind! Implement it to experiment it dear.

Fighter
 
I some time wonder why truth hurts so much.

After all Democracy is not that color (red) blind! Implement it to experiment it dear.

Fighter

What is truth? An article from an editor is truth.
Oh, if so, every truth in the world has the opposed truth against it.:lol:
BTW: Dont include caste democracy in Democracy, that is dishonor to real democracy.
 
Chinese know their position in the world well, no Chinese thought they are or going to be superpower soon, time will tell.
May be one should check on some country having such dream 7/24
365/year. Check this out;
India's international unease | Dominique Moisi | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Dominique Moisi guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 17.00 BST

Unlike China, India is finding it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging 'Great Power' looked upon favourably by the west

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. Such was clearly the case of France under Louis XIV, the Sun King in the 17th century, and such is the case today of China, whose leadership is comfortable with the balance-of-power games of classical Europe.

India is clearly in a different category. In economic terms, its confidence has been boosted by the way the western world now looks at it with a mixture of respect and greed: "What kind of deals can I strike with such an emerging market, whose population will soon be the largest of any country in the world?"

Yet, in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the US after the first world war, India is realising that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power.

India's history and culture, from Asoka, its mythical emperor in the third century BC, to Gandhi, push it to emphasise ethics and to consider itself an "exceptional" nation in its relationship with the world. Contrary to China, India finds it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging "Great Power". It would be a gross exaggeration, of course, to speak of an Indian "inferiority complex". And yet India constantly measures itself against China, remains obsessed with Pakistan, and has recently begun to look more critically at its relationship with the US.

It is natural for India to proclaim its "democratic" superiority to China while recognising that on all strategic fronts it is not in the same league. But is it even possible to draw a comparison between what one Indian academic has called the "robotised Chinese man" and the vast human diversity of India?

India seems to worry more than ever about China's evolution. China's key role within the G-20, together with the relative if not absolute decline of the western powers, seems to have reinforced the hardliners in Beijing and the nationalism of a China that seems less ready than ever to accept any criticism of its human rights record. Viewed from New Delhi, the vision of a reasonable, prudent, and ultimately satisfied China – a vision "sold" to the world by the minister mentor of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew – appears less than obvious.

When it comes to Pakistan, too, India seems to lack confidence. On all fronts – demographic, economic, military, and political – India is far above Pakistan. But India does not seem to know how to deal with its north-western neighbour, and even less whom to deal with in its government.
The largest democracy in the world cannot say openly that it almost preferred the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf to the chaos of the current situation. In reality, what prevails in India is a deep sense of frustration with Pakistan. India's overtures to Pakistan's government have largely remained unanswered, and when Indian officials express their unease, the US, if not the international community, accuses them of behaving irresponsibly.

If India seems not to believe that America and its allies can really "succeed" in Afghanistan, it is unwilling to resign itself to a return of the Taliban to power, which could in turn lead to Talibanisation of Pakistan. Yet India seems to behave in a very "European" way in Afghanistan; it is ready to send money and experts, but not troops.

India's worries and frustrations in Afghanistan and Pakistan translate into a mixture of disillusion and irritation with an America that, seen from New Delhi, allows itself to be manipulated by Pakistani officials. Indians cannot quite decide whether the Americans are simply "naive" or duplicitous – either way, they are not reassured.

Whatever the case, the current warming of relations between India and Russia, symbolised by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's recent visit, does not translate into a grand reversal of alliances, as India's break with Russia in the 1990s did. India's exchanges with Russia are only one-fifth of what they are with China. What prevails nowadays in New Delhi and Moscow is simple pragmatism.

While there is room for Europe in India's view of the world, for it (as for China) Europe is above all an economic rather than a political reality. When it comes to politics, bilateral relations prevail, and from that standpoint France and Germany seem more important than Great Britain. The raj era may be visible in the buildings of New Delhi and in the uniforms of the Indian army, but Britain has lost any competitive edge that it once had in India. The past is truly passed.

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. It is not about to become a second China – it lacks both the means and the ambition. That is a further reason for the west to engage and invest in India.
 
^^^^^^^
The chinese people and media never say we will become a super power, but the world say so. Be opposed, some country's people and media and polician say they will supass US, China, will bla bla bla, will become a super power everyday, but the whole world doesent even think so.:lol:
 
Chinese know their position in the world well, no Chinese thought they are or going to be superpower soon, time will tell.
May be one should check on some country having such dream 7/24
365/year. Check this out;
India's international unease | Dominique Moisi | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Dominique Moisi guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 17.00 BST

Unlike China, India is finding it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging 'Great Power' looked upon favourably by the west

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. Such was clearly the case of France under Louis XIV, the Sun King in the 17th century, and such is the case today of China, whose leadership is comfortable with the balance-of-power games of classical Europe.

India is clearly in a different category. In economic terms, its confidence has been boosted by the way the western world now looks at it with a mixture of respect and greed: "What kind of deals can I strike with such an emerging market, whose population will soon be the largest of any country in the world?"

Yet, in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the US after the first world war, India is realising that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power.

India's history and culture, from Asoka, its mythical emperor in the third century BC, to Gandhi, push it to emphasise ethics and to consider itself an "exceptional" nation in its relationship with the world. Contrary to China, India finds it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging "Great Power". It would be a gross exaggeration, of course, to speak of an Indian "inferiority complex". And yet India constantly measures itself against China, remains obsessed with Pakistan, and has recently begun to look more critically at its relationship with the US.

It is natural for India to proclaim its "democratic" superiority to China while recognising that on all strategic fronts it is not in the same league. But is it even possible to draw a comparison between what one Indian academic has called the "robotised Chinese man" and the vast human diversity of India?

India seems to worry more than ever about China's evolution. China's key role within the G-20, together with the relative if not absolute decline of the western powers, seems to have reinforced the hardliners in Beijing and the nationalism of a China that seems less ready than ever to accept any criticism of its human rights record. Viewed from New Delhi, the vision of a reasonable, prudent, and ultimately satisfied China – a vision "sold" to the world by the minister mentor of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew – appears less than obvious.

When it comes to Pakistan, too, India seems to lack confidence. On all fronts – demographic, economic, military, and political – India is far above Pakistan. But India does not seem to know how to deal with its north-western neighbour, and even less whom to deal with in its government.
The largest democracy in the world cannot say openly that it almost preferred the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf to the chaos of the current situation. In reality, what prevails in India is a deep sense of frustration with Pakistan. India's overtures to Pakistan's government have largely remained unanswered, and when Indian officials express their unease, the US, if not the international community, accuses them of behaving irresponsibly.

If India seems not to believe that America and its allies can really "succeed" in Afghanistan, it is unwilling to resign itself to a return of the Taliban to power, which could in turn lead to Talibanisation of Pakistan. Yet India seems to behave in a very "European" way in Afghanistan; it is ready to send money and experts, but not troops.

India's worries and frustrations in Afghanistan and Pakistan translate into a mixture of disillusion and irritation with an America that, seen from New Delhi, allows itself to be manipulated by Pakistani officials. Indians cannot quite decide whether the Americans are simply "naive" or duplicitous – either way, they are not reassured.

Whatever the case, the current warming of relations between India and Russia, symbolised by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's recent visit, does not translate into a grand reversal of alliances, as India's break with Russia in the 1990s did. India's exchanges with Russia are only one-fifth of what they are with China. What prevails nowadays in New Delhi and Moscow is simple pragmatism.

While there is room for Europe in India's view of the world, for it (as for China) Europe is above all an economic rather than a political reality. When it comes to politics, bilateral relations prevail, and from that standpoint France and Germany seem more important than Great Britain. The raj era may be visible in the buildings of New Delhi and in the uniforms of the Indian army, but Britain has lost any competitive edge that it once had in India. The past is truly passed.

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. It is not about to become a second China – it lacks both the means and the ambition. That is a further reason for the west to engage and invest in India.

False premise.

India has no ambitions of being a global "Military Power". All it wants to become is a stable democratic economic super power which has enough military deterrence so that no one else in the world looks for any adventurism against India and there is no reason (in the article) or otherwise why India cannot achieve its objective.
 
intellectual freedom? in the US, it's the 5% elite professors, businessmen and politicians with intellectual freedom, and the rest of the people are sheep. anyone has the right to be stupid in the US, and drop out of high school to be a ghetto street thug. only 27% of americans graduate college.

So what are your thoughts about "intellectual" freedom in China? How many % are the elite who are running the country?
 
Chinese know their position in the world well, no Chinese thought they are or going to be superpower soon, time will tell.
May be one should check on some country having such dream 7/24
365/year. Check this out;
India's international unease | Dominique Moisi | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Dominique Moisi guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 17.00 BST

Unlike China, India is finding it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging 'Great Power' looked upon favourably by the west

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. Such was clearly the case of France under Louis XIV, the Sun King in the 17th century, and such is the case today of China, whose leadership is comfortable with the balance-of-power games of classical Europe.

India is clearly in a different category. In economic terms, its confidence has been boosted by the way the western world now looks at it with a mixture of respect and greed: "What kind of deals can I strike with such an emerging market, whose population will soon be the largest of any country in the world?"

Yet, in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the US after the first world war, India is realising that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power.

India's history and culture, from Asoka, its mythical emperor in the third century BC, to Gandhi, push it to emphasise ethics and to consider itself an "exceptional" nation in its relationship with the world. Contrary to China, India finds it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging "Great Power". It would be a gross exaggeration, of course, to speak of an Indian "inferiority complex". And yet India constantly measures itself against China, remains obsessed with Pakistan, and has recently begun to look more critically at its relationship with the US.

It is natural for India to proclaim its "democratic" superiority to China while recognising that on all strategic fronts it is not in the same league. But is it even possible to draw a comparison between what one Indian academic has called the "robotised Chinese man" and the vast human diversity of India?

India seems to worry more than ever about China's evolution. China's key role within the G-20, together with the relative if not absolute decline of the western powers, seems to have reinforced the hardliners in Beijing and the nationalism of a China that seems less ready than ever to accept any criticism of its human rights record. Viewed from New Delhi, the vision of a reasonable, prudent, and ultimately satisfied China – a vision "sold" to the world by the minister mentor of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew – appears less than obvious.

When it comes to Pakistan, too, India seems to lack confidence. On all fronts – demographic, economic, military, and political – India is far above Pakistan. But India does not seem to know how to deal with its north-western neighbour, and even less whom to deal with in its government.
The largest democracy in the world cannot say openly that it almost preferred the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf to the chaos of the current situation. In reality, what prevails in India is a deep sense of frustration with Pakistan. India's overtures to Pakistan's government have largely remained unanswered, and when Indian officials express their unease, the US, if not the international community, accuses them of behaving irresponsibly.

If India seems not to believe that America and its allies can really "succeed" in Afghanistan, it is unwilling to resign itself to a return of the Taliban to power, which could in turn lead to Talibanisation of Pakistan. Yet India seems to behave in a very "European" way in Afghanistan; it is ready to send money and experts, but not troops.

India's worries and frustrations in Afghanistan and Pakistan translate into a mixture of disillusion and irritation with an America that, seen from New Delhi, allows itself to be manipulated by Pakistani officials. Indians cannot quite decide whether the Americans are simply "naive" or duplicitous – either way, they are not reassured.

Whatever the case, the current warming of relations between India and Russia, symbolised by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's recent visit, does not translate into a grand reversal of alliances, as India's break with Russia in the 1990s did. India's exchanges with Russia are only one-fifth of what they are with China. What prevails nowadays in New Delhi and Moscow is simple pragmatism.

While there is room for Europe in India's view of the world, for it (as for China) Europe is above all an economic rather than a political reality. When it comes to politics, bilateral relations prevail, and from that standpoint France and Germany seem more important than Great Britain. The raj era may be visible in the buildings of New Delhi and in the uniforms of the Indian army, but Britain has lost any competitive edge that it once had in India. The past is truly passed.

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. It is not about to become a second China – it lacks both the means and the ambition. That is a further reason for the west to engage and invest in India.

may i know why are u posting off topic and bringing India in this china only thread?? to earn few cents?
 
Good article. Even if the chinese people does not want their country to be a super power (assumption) but the military gap between US and china as described in the article is true.

No matter what china is 40/50 years behind US in defense category.

US is highly advanced with alien technology, one example would be the Mercury Vortex Propulsion system, and this is supposed to be one among many Black/shadow projects sponsored by US government.

The world will never know what kind of hi tech weapons the US got unless and until they plan to test it against some country.
 
intellectual freedom? in the US, it's the 5% elite professors, businessmen and politicians with intellectual freedom, and the rest of the people are sheep. anyone has the right to be stupid in the US, and drop out of high school to be a ghetto street thug. only 27% of americans graduate college.

I am further surprised by the fact that you call the people of a democratic nation like US "sheep", while in that country, the people elect their government!!
 
Good article. Even if the chinese people does not want their country to be a super power (assumption) but the military gap between US and china as described in the article is true.

No matter what china is 40/50 years behind US in defense category.

US is highly advanced with alien technology, one example would be the Mercury Vortex Propulsion system, and this is supposed to be one among many Black/shadow projects sponsored by US government.

The world will never know what kind of hi tech weapons the US got unless and until they plan to test it against some country.

You've got to be joking me.
 
may i know why are u posting off topic and bringing India in this china only thread?? to earn few cents?

Because there is no general rule stating that India cannot be brought into the discussion, afterall, we must all learn from India, where Indian men like you are paid to write crap to earn a "centralized" blowjob from you govt, since there aren't money to go around... Sad... Btw, what cents are you talking about? No evidence=no truth

Btw, article is true in some ways, even if we develop to a stage where the average person has a high standard of living, and an economy which matches the US, we ARE still 30 years behind the US in terms of high tech, there is no denial, from me or any of the Chinese members on this forum.
 
I am further surprised by the fact that you call the people of a democratic nation like US "sheep", while in that country, the people elect their government!!

Meh just stereotyping I guess. Sheep are generally mindless, and the stereotypical American is, well, not "smart" per say right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom