What's new

To No End: Why China’s Corruption Crackdown Won’t Be Stopping Soon

The CCP and people's republic of China is indistinguishable and yes, I saw the post on how "Hu doesn't have control of the army". Frankly, though impolite, the most adapt description of that is pure BS. I mean J-20 tests and cracked down on luxury cars? That's the proof that Hu doesn't have control of the army? J-20 test is meant to be a surprise, one that is aimed to catch the visiting delegates off-guard and I wouldn't dignify the car comment with an answer.

Hu's control of Chinese army can be easily observed in his handling of the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008. Under Hu's order, a brigade of Chinese troops matched into the center of disaster zone on foot and managed to reach ground zero within 17 hours. That kind of response is what demonstrates real authority.

Such tests are not supposed to catch Hu off-guard, but by many accounts, they did. That was as much a signal to Hu as it was to the US. It is not for the military to dictate foreign policy (i.e. flex muscles to the US and in the process embarrass the political leadership, which has invited the US to visit in an attempt to build friendly relations).

Can you please provide an example of the US military similarly embarrassing Obama when foreign dignitaries were visiting the US?
 
.
Such tests are not supposed to catch Hu off-guard, but by many accounts, they did. That was as much a signal to Hu as it was to the US. It is not for the military to dictate foreign policy (i.e. flex muscles to the US and in the process embarrass the political leadership, which has invited the US to visit in an attempt to build friendly relations).

Can you please provide an example of the US military similarly embarrassing Obama when foreign dignitaries were visiting the US?

delted
 
.
Such tests are not supposed to catch Hu off-guard, but by many accounts, they did. That was as much a signal to Hu as it was to the US. It is not for the military to dictate foreign policy (i.e. flex muscles to the US and in the process embarrass the political leadership, which has invited the US to visit in an attempt to build friendly relations).

Can you please provide an example of the US military similarly embarrassing Obama when foreign dignitaries were visiting the US?

Erm, what part of J-20 test is embarrassing to Hu? That his country can make a fifth generation fighter?

Edit: I searched the supposed news on Hu "doesn't know" J-20's maiden flight and traced the news to Epoch times; therefore, there is no need for farther discussion on the topic.
 
Last edited:
.
Erm, what part of J-20 test is embarrassing to Hu? That his country can make a fifth generation fighter?

Edit: I searched the supposed news on Hu "doesn't know" J-20's maiden flight and traced the news to Epoch times; therefore, there is no need for farther discussion on the topic.

Your search was not thorough. The source is Bob Gates and the senior defense department officials that accompanied him:

Gates Says China’s Xi Has Firmer Grip on Army Than Hu Did - Bloomberg

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704428004576075042571461586

You don't believe it's embarrassing to invite your chief rival's senior defense official in an attempt to improve ties, and then have your military flex its muscles in an attempt to provoke said defense official, without knowing anything about it ahead of time? So much for being commander-in-chief. But then, I suppose to be embarrassed by being emasculated by one's own military is a cultural difference between Americans and Chinese.
 
.
Your search was not thorough. The source is Bob Gates and the senior defense department officials that accompanied him:

Gates Says China’s Xi Has Firmer Grip on Army Than Hu Did - Bloomberg

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704428004576075042571461586

You don't believe it's embarrassing to invite your chief rival's senior defense official in an attempt to improve ties, and then have your military flex its muscles in an attempt to provoke said defense official, without knowing anything about it ahead of time? So much for being commander-in-chief. But then, I suppose to be embarrassed by being emasculated by one's own military is a cultural difference between Americans and Chinese.

Well yes, according to the US defence secretary, President Hu "seemed" to have been caught unaware by the test.

But that is a really subjective thing, who knows what was really going on there, and whether the US defence secretary was right in his perception or not, and whether that was intended or not. Or whether some other funny games were going on behind the scenes. And why did Robert Gates make such a big deal out of something so subjective?

The one thing we can say is that Xi Jinping seems to have consolidated his power base much better than Hu did.
 
.
Your search was not thorough. The source is Bob Gates and the senior defense department officials that accompanied him:

Gates Says China’s Xi Has Firmer Grip on Army Than Hu Did - Bloomberg

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704428004576075042571461586

You don't believe it's embarrassing to invite your chief rival's senior defense official in an attempt to improve ties, and then have your military flex its muscles in an attempt to provoke said defense official, without knowing anything about it ahead of time? So much for being commander-in-chief. But then, I suppose to be embarrassed by being emasculated by one's own military is a cultural difference between Americans and Chinese.

You are absolute right on the issue. It is a culture thing. You are thinking this the American way and thinking the military is an opposite and separate entity from the civilian administrative authority. In that perspective, Hu is being one upped by the military. In Chinese culture, however, the military branch is a subordinate entity instead of an opposite. Take this analogy, if your colleague or competitor did better than you, you may get embarrassed, but if your child did better than you, then you would only feel pride in his/her achievement.

One of the really strange thing from Epoch times' argument and the article you linked is the claim that J-20 is embarrassment because it "hinders improvement in relationship between US and China". How did they come up with that one and expect anyone (perhaps aside from an American) to swallow it? Your country being able to level the technological playing field on one of the most vital area of military technology is embarrassing? Let me put it bluntly. The J-20 gives Hu an enormous bargaining chip and huge position advantage in the negotiation table. It is even simpler to understand why he arranged it at the specific time, but claim to not have knowledge prior to it. He did it so Gates and other visiting delegates will not have time to prepare a response. Basically, surprise the opponent and hit them because they can organize a response. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Well yes, according to the US defence secretary, President Hu "seemed" to have been caught unaware by the test.

But that is a really subjective thing, who knows what was really going on there, and whether the US defence secretary was right in his perception or not, and whether that was intended or not. Or whether some other funny games were going on behind the scenes. And why did Robert Gates make such a big deal out of something so subjective?

The one thing we can say is that Xi Jinping seems to have consolidated his power base much better than Hu did.

I think that one has to do with a more refined processes on leadership transition. Look at it this, the transition from Mao to Hua, Hua to Deng, Deng to Jiang, Jiang to Hu and final Hu to Xi. Each transition is smoother and took less time than the previous one. The Chinese government is learning and figuring out the right way to pass leadership to the next generation.
 
Last edited:
. .
You are absolute right on the issue. It is a culture thing. You are thinking this the American way and thinking the military is an opposite and separate entities from the administrative government. In that perspective, Hu is being one upped by the military. In Chinese culture, however, the military branch is a subordinate entity instead of an opposite. The father doesn't get embarrassed if his child obtains a great achievement.

One of the really strange thing from Epoch times' argument and the article you linked is the claim that J-20 is embarrassment because it "hinders improvement in relationship between US and China". How did they come up with that one and expect anyone (perhaps aside from an American) to swallow it? Your country being able to level the technological playing field on one of the most vital area of military technology is embarrassing? Let me put it bluntly. The J-20 gives Hu an enormous bargaining chip in the negotiation table and give him a huge advantage in the negotiation position. It is even simpler to understand why he arranged it at the specific time, but claim to not have prior knowledge. He did it so Gates and other visiting delegates will not have time to prepare a response. Basically, surprise the opponent and hit them because they can organize a response. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

As you say, it's not the test itself that is problematic, but the timing. The US is under no pretense that China does not have the right to build up its own military forces.

Beyond that, I understand what you're saying, but such a "surprise strategy" only works if the counter-party interprets it the way you want it to. The US didn't translate the events that transpired as some kind of "gotcha! what do you think of them apples?!?" sort of situation. The US instead interpreted the event as showing an out of control military functioning with a free hand, and without the prior consultation of its nominal superiors, the politicians.

To use your analogy, a father invites his rival to dinner to try and alleviate the tension that has long existed between them. The son suddenly shows up waving a gun around and winking at the rival. I guess the father can be proud of his son for having a nice gun, but meanwhile, the son has completely undermined the father's attempts to improve the strategic environment.

Fast forward to today. If such thinking still holds, then the US cannot trust any calming words coming from the political leadership in China ("peaceful rise," etc.), because the military is not under the firm control of the political echelon under these optics. Now the US is pivoting to Asia because it doesn't necessarily believe that normal diplomatic relations will ensure peace and stability in Asia. That is, the US may establish understandings with the Chinese political echelon, but what does it matter if the Chinese military is allowed to do whatever it likes?

From an American perspective, that's a tremendous failure for the Chinese political echelon. I guess for the Chinese political echelon, they can be proud of ensuring that no one understands what they're after, which has the advantage of ensuring surprise, but the disadvantage of guaranteeing mistrust.

In any case, that was all under Hu. Xi supposedly has consolidated military control within his hands, so we will see if he can re-establish the idea that when he makes decisions, they are followed by the military.

Well yes, according to the US defence secretary, President Hu "seemed" to have been caught unaware by the test.

But that is a really subjective thing, who knows what was really going on there, and whether the US defence secretary was right in his perception or not, and whether that was intended or not. Or whether some other funny games were going on behind the scenes. And why did Robert Gates make such a big deal out of something so subjective?

The one thing we can say is that Xi Jinping seems to have consolidated his power base much better than Hu did.

In Great Power politics, perceptions matter (as I detailed above in my reply to Tranquilium). Even if it were not intended to be portrayed that way, the J-20 test did no favors for Hu.
 
.
As you say, it's not the test itself that is problematic, but the timing. The US is under no pretense that China does not have the right to build up its own military forces.

Beyond that, I understand what you're saying, but such a "surprise strategy" only works if the counter-party interprets it the way you want it to. The US didn't translate the events that transpired as some kind of "gotcha! what do you think of them apples?!?" sort of situation. The US instead interpreted the event as showing an out of control military functioning with a free hand, and without the prior consultation of its nominal superiors, the politicians.

To use your analogy, a father invites his rival to dinner to try and alleviate the tension that has long existed between them. The son suddenly shows up waving a gun around and winking at the rival. I guess the father can be proud of his son for having a nice gun, but meanwhile, the son has completely undermined the father's attempts to improve the strategic environment.

Fast forward to today. If such thinking still holds, then the US cannot trust any calming words coming from the political leadership in China ("peaceful rise," etc.), because the military is not under the firm control of the political echelon under these optics. Now the US is pivoting to Asia because it doesn't necessarily believe that normal diplomatic relations will ensure peace and stability in Asia. That is, the US may establish understandings with the Chinese political echelon, but what does it matter if the Chinese military is allowed to do whatever it likes?

From an American perspective, that's a tremendous failure for the Chinese political echelon. I guess for the Chinese political echelon, they can be proud of ensuring that no one understands what they're after, which has the advantage of ensuring surprise, but the disadvantage of guaranteeing mistrust.

In any case, that was all under Hu. Xi supposedly has consolidated military control within his hands, so we will see if he can re-establish the idea that when he makes decisions, they are followed by the military.



In Great Power politics, perceptions matter (as I detailed above in my reply to Tranquilium). Even if it were not intended to be portrayed that way, the J-20 test did no favors for Hu.

Peaceful rise =/= pacifistic rise. One of the hard lessons China has learned in the past century is that if you don't the strength to defend what your wealth, then anymore wealth is simply sitting there waiting to the rob by others. It is quite simply really. Let's say if China deliberately weaken its military, would that stop US from pivoting to East Asia? Of course not. You don't rise by being weak and you certainly don't negotiate by showing weaknesses.
 
.
In Great Power politics, perceptions matter (as I detailed above in my reply to Tranquilium). Even if it were not intended to be portrayed that way, the J-20 test did no favors for Hu.

Sure, but who's interests were being served by Robert Gates when he took that little "assumption" (with no hard facts either way) and decided to make a big deal out of it in the media?

Frankly, when someone says "well it seems like he was surprised"... that's really not very much to go on.
 
.
Peaceful rise =/= pacifistic rise. One of the hard lessons China has learned in the past century is that if you don't the strength to defend what your wealth, then anymore wealth is simply sitting there waiting to the rob by others. It is quite simply really. Let's say if China deliberately weaken its military, would that stop US from pivoting to East Asia? Of course not. You don't rise by being weak and you certainly don't negotiate by showing weaknesses.

I think we're talking past each other. I have not said China should not build its military, or that China should not test the J-20. What I have said is that the Chinese military should not take actions that undermine the authority of the Chinese political echelon. I'm struggling to understand how such a situation helps China either domestically or in its foreign relations.

Sure, but who's interests were being served by Robert Gates when he took that little "assumption" (with no hard facts either way) and decided to make a big deal out of it in the media?

Frankly, when someone says "well it seems like he was surprised"... that's really not very much to go on.

The only thing scarier for the US than a strong rival is an unstable strong rival. We had a Cold War with the USSR, but the USSR was a rational actor, and when we reached understandings with the USSR, they were honored. They played their game, and we played ours, but we could at least be sure that if their military made a move, that was because the Politburo had authorized that. What that means is that the Politburo could be pressured or entreated using diplomatic means, and that's why the Cold War never turned into the Final War.

It's possible that this was just a gigantic misunderstanding, but I highly doubt that, since we're talking about seasoned officials here, not neophytes. To use Tranquilium's phrasing, it was Hu that was surprised in that meeting by American questions about the J-20, not the other way around. The US and China can achieve an equilibrium as long as understandings are honored. When such understandings are not honored, we have a situation like Pakistan or North Korea, where it's not quite clear who is in charge, and there is really only one option: the military option.

I think, as reasonable people, the military option should be the last resort, not the first weapon to use. But if nuclear China begins to frequently display a schism between the military and political leadership, a lot of countries are going to start getting scared. Scared countries are not always passive countries.

As usual, I want to qualify that the last thing I want is to insult China or invite hostilities. It appears that Xi has the matter under control. But I don't see the merit in arguments that a schism between the military and political echelon, or questions over where the ultimate authority lies, is somehow beneficial to China. There should be no question that the military is subordinate to the political echelon.
 
Last edited:
.
I think, as reasonable people, the military option should be the last resort, not the first weapon to use. But if nuclear China begins to frequently display a schism between the military and political leadership, a lot of countries are going to start getting scared. Scared countries are not always passive countries.

As usual, I want to qualify that the last thing I want is to insult China or invite hostilities. It appears that Xi has the matter under control. But I don't see the merit in arguments that a schism between the military and political echelon, or questions over where the ultimate authority lies, is somehow beneficial to China. There should be no question that the military is subordinate to the political echelon.

I agree, the military option should always be the last resort, especially in any scenario where nuclear powers are involved.

As for other countries being scared, they will be scared anyway (despite us not having any wars for the past 30 years), so there is not much to do about that.

There should be no question that the military is subordinate to the political echelon.

Agreed again, there should be no room for misunderstandings.

The military MUST be subordinate to the civilian leadership. And they will be, despite the problems caused by Jiang Zemin's influence. I do not think there is much danger of a coup in China (which requires the support of the people for such a thing), but of course there is no harm in improving the system to avoid future misunderstandings.
 
.
I think we're talking past each other. I have not said China should not build its military, or that China should not test the J-20. What I have said is that the Chinese military should not take actions that undermine the authority of the Chinese political echelon. I'm struggling to understand how such a situation helps China either domestically or in its foreign relations.

Well, you are still stuck on the notion that the action is undermining. I did spend post #66 explaining that the very idea J-20 test is undermining or Hu isn't actually aware of the test is absurd. In the same post, I also explained that such a show of force is a common employed tactic and basic strategy in gain advantage in negotiations.
 
.
Well, you are still stuck on the notion that the action is undermining. I did spend post #66 explaining that the very idea J-20 test is undermining or Hu isn't actually aware of the test is absurd. In the same post, I also explained that such a show of force is a common employed tactic and basic strategy in gain advantage in negotiations.

OK, I guess we've reached an impasse, since from the US perspective, it doesn't matter whether or not Hu was actually surprised, what matters is that he appeared to be surprised. Perhaps Hu had full control all along and was playing some kind of coy mind-game ("I'm surprised, but not really" and "I invited you here to build trust, now accept this spit in your face") to amuse himself, but the message that the US received was that Hu didn't have full control over his military.

In any case, I think we're beating a dead horse at this point.
 
.
I think we're talking past each other. I have not said China should not build its military, or that China should not test the J-20. What I have said is that the Chinese military should not take actions that undermine the authority of the Chinese political echelon. I'm struggling to understand how such a situation helps China either domestically or in its foreign relations.



The only thing scarier for the US than a strong rival is an unstable strong rival. We had a Cold War with the USSR, but the USSR was a rational actor, and when we reached understandings with the USSR, they were honored. They played their game, and we played ours, but we could at least be sure that if their military made a move, that was because the Politburo had authorized that. What that means is that the Politburo could be pressured or entreated using diplomatic means, and that's why the Cold War never turned into the Final War.

It's possible that this was just a gigantic misunderstanding, but I highly doubt that, since we're talking about seasoned officials here, not neophytes. To use Tranquilium's phrasing, it was Hu that was surprised in that meeting by American questions about the J-20, not the other way around. The US and China can achieve an equilibrium as long as understandings are honored. When such understandings are not honored, we have a situation like Pakistan or North Korea, where it's not quite clear who is in charge, and there is really only one option: the military option.

I think, as reasonable people, the military option should be the last resort, not the first weapon to use. But if nuclear China begins to frequently display a schism between the military and political leadership, a lot of countries are going to start getting scared. Scared countries are not always passive countries.

As usual, I want to qualify that the last thing I want is to insult China or invite hostilities. It appears that Xi has the matter under control. But I don't see the merit in arguments that a schism between the military and political echelon, or questions over where the ultimate authority lies, is somehow beneficial to China. There should be no question that the military is subordinate to the political echelon.
I find you to be a very rational American. If all Americans are like you, there is no reason we can't be friend with each other. The like the concept of "power equilibrium" that makes both our great nation easy to predict and avoid clash. Xi proposed something similar to this.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom