xesy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 962
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Disclaimer and warning:
I take no credit for the content and image of the below article.
The content might be offensive to some mems, so please don't use vuglar words. I want to keep my first thread alive as long as possible
I am no professional translator so there might be grammar or spelling errors. There are several expressions that are hard to translate into English so please bear with it.
So here we go:
What does China want?
20 years ago, the world talked about China as a “Rising Power”, and wondered: what was China rising for, and when she done rising, what would she do? 20 years later, China has risen, fast, unbelievable, and spun the whole world around. And now the question becomes clearer than it was: when China done rising, will there be war?
20 years ago, under the banner of Deng Xiaoping, “韜光養晦” hiding power and laying back waiting, China made the world believe that she was rising peacefully, that “China gets powerful the whole world gains benefits”. After that, the world wakes up from the peaceful slumber when China changes her voice, changes the way she acted. From soft to hard, defensive to offensive, polite to threatening, aggressive. She quarrels with US, creates tension with Japan, oppresses neighboring countries, sticks out the cow tongue and licks the whole South China Sea (East Sea in the original), licks it all, maybe licks all the way to the Indian Ocean. So is war the inevitable result of China rising? What does China want? That’s the question asked in this article.
No one can answer that question, for one simple reason: nobody can predict the future. Furthermore the future of China is well-known for its complexity and unpredictability. On the surface China is a fearsome power, both military and economy. Hearing that China will surpass the US in several decades makes people panic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has even more scary calculation result: China economy will surpass the US from now to 2016. But this face of China also has negativities that we all know: fluctuation, social inequality, instability, questions about government decisions… Is it certain that China will keep rising like this? It is unsure how China will be in the future while asking “What does China want”. It’s like asking if a dish is delicious without tasting it. So those who only know theories, they can only using theories to answer, using theories to find the way of reality.
Up until now, all theories about the future of China are all based on the outside observation, meaning that people use subjective standards about power to judge China. Because doing so is “scientifically”, because those standards can be measured and calculated. Military, economy, population, technology, resource, politic… are such standards. But when asking “What does China want”, those subjective standards are not enough because those seeking the answer need to know what China really really want, deep down inside. Knowing what is inside a person head is hard enough, so how can people know what is inside the head of a group? But it is important, maybe the most important to understand our giant neighbor. So how can we know that? The question here is the necessarily of a look from inside to combine with the outside observation. The inside look also needs to be based on a subjective standard. What is that standard? The only way to know “What does China want” is asking China “What does China want”. To be precise “What does China define herself?” Recently, theory about new international relationship presents such new cultural standard. And that’s why in international media, culture is the most important element deciding peace, tension or war among countries and ethnic groups.
This article present 2 theoretical observations, both inside and outside. From outside look, looking at power capability. From inside, looking at how a race define itself. The first look intends to explain: intentions expressed through capability ( the more powerful you are, the more ambitious you are). The second look intends to explain: how you develop your power based on your definition about yourself. So let’s start with the first one.
1. An external observation: Capability
Capability can mean both economical and militarily. Economically, Liberalism believes that the new world order requires open trade. China wants to get powerful then she has to follow that order, never disobey or break it. Otherwise China is destroying its own benefits. “We welcome you with open arms to join the big game so all of us, we and you, can get rich” – that the mindset of US and EU from the very beginning till now. In this world order, all economies are connected; one’s loss is all other losses. No one gain anything from a weak China. Furthermore, now that China is stronger, China helps strengthen that world order, helps us (US and EU) deal with “rule breakers”: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan civil war, Somali pirate, nuclear spreading, economy crisis, global warming… countless problems are waiting for China to deal with. Prove yourself a responsible super power. A stable world order is an essential for an improving economy. Market should replace war, competitions should replace arms. Make money, not war! Optimism and its followers hold their firm belief that even when China becomes aggressive, its competitions become no less effective than blades and swords, and its soft power expands to strategic fields of EU. Not only the universities but also US political experts never stop warning: when dealing with China, persuasion, not containment.
Liberalism is also optimistic about China social structure. As China gets richer, the middle class also grows along. As the middle class grows, it gets harder for the government to make war. Sound logical. But what is “middle class”? People rarely agree on a definition, a standard. Fewer people agree that there is a connection between the middle class and the democracy movement in China. Though, once discussing peace or war, there are always people putting trust on middle class: they are getting richer, they are enjoying, why would they risk going to war to lose it all? Furthermore China needs to develop its economy more and more, to overcome the US. Because of that, even when tension grows, they never cut off the economic link between the two countries to get into a crazy situation called MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, like the US and Soviet used to be in. If I (the author) am an American, I am certain to support such policy, because optimism may suit US situation and benefit. But I am a Vietnamese, living right next to China, knowing too well that economy alone can kill off a whole country, without a single shot fired. So I am not too optimistic with the connecting-economies theory. To be honest, I am with American experts who are against that theory who believe that despite of tension and containment policy, we still can trade, still protect our benefits, especially between the 2 countries China is the one which gains more. Is it true that connecting-economies have the highest value in China calculation? In case Taiwan announces independence, what will be Beijing reaction, war or MAD? In case China makes a swift attack to punish Vietnam in SCS, leaving an already-happen-event for US and the area to deal with. It certainly will not bring economical negativities like a long-term war, so will China create a second Paracels, South Johnson Reef events? The First World War teaches China: that Britain, France and Russia still kept trading with Germany in 20 years before the war, even when the 3 powers had created alliance to contain Germany. War, like the author wrote, didn’t forbid 2 sides of conflict to keep trading with each other if both sides saw it beneficial.
Because of above reasons, I feel “Realism” is more suitable for Vietnam and I feel close to the author of such theory, Mearsheimer. I will summarize his theory:
First is the realism’s definition of the world system: it is a non-government system, each nation aims for the highest priority which is the survivability of its own by maintaining and improving its power. Concerning about power brings forth competition because everyone is afraid of each other. So big countries develop their power to the maximum level to successfully compete with other big countries, to gain advantage on the balance of power, moving towards world domination.
There were times, under the lead of President Bush (not sure which Bush, the author did not say it clearly), people had thought the USA had already dominated the world. Now everyone can see: no matter how strong it is, the USA cannot control lands on the other side of the Pacific. What US can do, like super powers used to do in history, is to take total control of its territory and let no other super power to get close. The US is strong enough to chase out any competitors on the America, but they can achieving that by centuries of fighting since the birth of the countries. What US has done, what other super powers have done in history, what can stop China from doing the same? China is not a monk, not a saint, not a vegetarian. China will stop US from intervening in its territory. On the other hand the US won’t let China mess around its backyards. And, according to the theory of power and the reality of history, China will try to get into US territory in America and in fact, has started and kept doing that for a while.
So far, the US can poke their noses all around the world because they are 100% sure about their own security back home. No one dare to cause trouble, except Cuba. In the next decades, if China surpasses the US like people say, what can stops China from playing the world police like the US now? And then, to be sure about their country security, why won’t China copy the US, meaning first and foremost, discharge all disputes, set up a total control on the region? No one has a second voice, takes a second action, has different dreams without Beijing nods. Island are Chinese, the sea is swimming pool for Great Leader Mao children. What the world has seen in recent years prove that: developing naval fleets, sticking out the cow tongue (man, this author loves the cow tongue joke), licking Japanese islands, concerned US-South Korean drill in 2010, discussing establishing “The first island chain”, “The second islands chain”, etc. If China succeeds, Japan and Philippines can’t be allies with the US anymore. Not to mention Chinese plan for the “Blue Water fleet” to master the ocean, to ensure the sea travel security, to ensure no one can cut off oil lines from Middle East. And not to mention, to Vietnam, Chinese act of putting the rig in the water right next to Paracels is no different from digging well on other people land.
Like a hungry tiger, with naked intention, with a big brother rude attitude, Chinese increasing power makes other countries feel nervous about their own securities. The inevitable result is “stepping up security”. Countries join the arm race, the race to war. Nowadays, even if people keep saying economic collaboration, Beijing neighbors are afraid of China rise, thinks of ways to contain China. Love or hate, want it or not, believe or distrust, all of them have to think about the containment policy of the US during the Cold War. And the US has no better or more effective policy against China other than the containment policy. Meaning allying with neighboring countries which feel threatened by China: India, Japan, Philippine and, why not, Vietnam.
The question here is: why won’t those countries dare to frankly ally themselves with the US? Will they together with the US to re-establish the balance or join side with China? Or playing the swinging game? Hard to imagine when the US-China conflict gets heated, 2 super powers won’t force extreme pressure so no one can play swinging. So who join side with whom depends on who threaten the survivability of other, who are far away who are the neighbor, who need us stay who need us gone. The US have troops stationed in Japan, in Korea, but if there are rumors US might withdraw troops then both countries ask them to extend their stay (I don’t agree with the author but well…). China have no stationing troops, but tens of thousands of workers and countless working villages rise as mushroom, and the owner loses his land without knowing.
So smaller countries can’t stop thinking about containment policy. Big countries also do the same. India and Japan signed “Declaration of collaboration security” in 2008 when China increased its power. India and US get closer while US still needs Muslim country (Afghanistan?) to fight against Al Qaida. Human rights are the things US always talks about but when in need they ignores those to shake hand with Indonesia (?). Singapore says they are on China side but lends Changi harbor for US fleet. And Japan, even if the civilians protest, Okinawa still welcome US marines stationed there with red carpet and flower (don’t hate me @Nihonjin1051). The more China threatens, the more countries fall into US arms. Asia cheers when Obama changes US strategic attention from Europe to Asia. Then Asia is concerned when US show weak reactions on Syria, Ukraine.
In conclusion: China growing stronger put pressure on security competition with US and neighboring countries. The more China wants to get rid of US in the area, the more countries want to ally with the US to balance out the power. There will be tension, many tensions. The newest tension is the Haiyang 981 rig. Problem is: can those tensions cause war? To answer this we first must ask: China also has nuclear weapons, can they prevent wars in Asia like they did in Europe before?
Mearsheimer doesn’t believe the 2 situations can be related. First and foremost is geography. The core of Cold War is one point on the map: Berlin, right in the middle of Europe. The chessboard is too grand, if war had broken out, it would have been inevitable lead to nuclear fallout, meaning the total destruction of Europe, not to mention the destruction could reach the territories of both players. No one dare to think about that. The purpose of nuclear weapon was not to be used, but to force the other side not to use them. The core of nuclear weapon is to create deterrence, saving force to ensure nuclear retaliation against nuclear attack. Because of that possible nuclear retaliation that no one dared to fire the first shot, and no war broke out. Asian geography is totally different. There is no central point as Berlin. Conflicts happen around different places but no place is as important as Berlin. So if war happens, the result might not be so severed. So the possibility of a US-China war is higher (than a US-Soviet war).
For example the North Korea crisis. In case of a war between North and South Korea and 19,000 US troops are forced to battle with forces from China. That war will still be small scale compare to the possible US-Soviet war in Berlin. Taiwan, South China Sea, Senkaku are the same, cannot compete with Berlin. Furthermore those conflicts will only happen on the sea, a nuclear war has little chance to happen. So a traditional war between US and China is easier to imagine than a nuclear war between US and Soviet in Europe.
The second reason is the structure of the world system. Before it was a bi-polar structure, with US on one side and Soviet on the other. Now it is multi-polar in Asia. Even Japan and India are powers. Even India has nuke. Even when those two are not as powerful as China, even the multi-polar structure is not equal in power, China still has yet became a super power like Soviet. In that multi-polar world, there are multiple reasons makes wars easier to broke out. Firstly, big countries are eager to start wars, with each other or with smaller countries. Secondly, big brother bullies second kid, third kid, take them out one by one. Thirdly, being the biggest, rising to be the overlord of the region, making everyone fear, making them either surrender or fight back after taking too much crap.
The Chinese Haiyang 981 incident in South China Sea and Russian intervention in Ukraine make the world pay more attention the multi-polar theory. A large number of experts can see that there is no 100% chance that there are oil in Paracels water. It’s possible that Beijing just “shout out their rights as a power”. Like Russia, China want to prove “I” am the master of “MY” backyard, similar to Russian and Chinese version of “Monroe theory”, meaning nobody touch “MY” stuff. The famous French newspaper Le Monde had an article about the 2 incidents in May, came to a conclusion while mentioning Monroe theory :” Considering what has happed in the last few weeks, the multi-polar world has predictably informed its people: this is the world of barbarians”.
The conclusion of Le Monde summarized all said above about the picture of Mearsheimer vision. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I can’t be too optimistic like Liberalism. Its followers said: one, even though the world structure that Realism describes is correct, US and China can always smartly avoid high tension. Two, even if US alliances with Japan and South Korea can cause troubles (they are always troubles) between US and China, war is not necessary. Three, to not chase the US away, don’t overestimate China power. And four, we need to step down before China in some situations that are not critical (life or death) to US, for example Taiwan. But South China Sea (original text East Sea) is ours, who protect it with me, for me? Even you (Liberalists) are not 100% optimistic. You say, vaguely:” China rise is peaceful, but that conclusion is not concrete.”
There is nothing to be sure, especially recently, China threateningly claimed over Japanese Senkaku islands and aggressively set up rig on Vietnamese continental coast. A war with US is not unimaginable: concerns about it were warned by author from Foreign Affair, in which the author wrote “both sides have to be certain about red lines and are ready to protect them”. But where is those lines, when the list of “core benefits” Beijing presents to US in recent years grows longer and longer, making sub-conflicts become a fight to death? Where is those lines, when the world watches a new phenomenon rises like a raging volcano for decades? That said phenomenon, that serious danger, is NATIONALISM. Reading US papers, it is easy to notice experts shift their attention from elements like economy, military, geo-politics to the danger of nationalism. Like a Chinese expert said “the question about whether China is a danger to other countries cannot be answered by looking at China power in the future – economical numbers, technological advancement, military budget – those cannot be used to predict anymore. Power is but one part of the answer. How China chooses to use its power is the clue of peace or war”. External observation is not enough, it must be combined with internal observation, a deep look inside the core of the giant culture, a look at how the giant defines himself.
2. An internal observation: Chinese self-definition
2008, the year of Olympics, the torch of Olympics was carried from Athens to Beijing, passed a 85,000 miles travel, stopped on 135 cities. During that time, China was criticized for human rights and Tibet oppression. London, Paris , San Francisco, Canberra… everywhere, human rights organizations protested when the Torch passed. But, everywhere, Chinese oversea fought back, with high spirit no less than those from mainland, especially the youth, students from famous universities in Duke, Berkeley, Chicago… everywhere! French Carrefour supermarket was one victim. Chinese poured in and attacked its stores, while shouting slogans:
“Say no to Carrefour!!! Say no to Imperialist France!!!”
“Object the 1860 British-French invasion!”
“All Chinese stand up!”
Brilliant, what does Olympics relate to British-French army, from the time their great great grand parents were not born? But the bleeding history is still new to many Chinese. Whoever dare to touch a Chinese, especially those who are born Westerners or Japanese, watch yourself. “Wuwang guochi!” – Never forget national humiliation – Those 4 letters are worshiped by nationalism followers who are ready to trample all those who dare to provoke. Experts who are willing to bet on peace must also watch themselves. The flame of the new ideology might burn their mustache without their knowing.
It’s too easy to prove that by using some big incidents that happened: US mistakenly bombing Beijing embassy in Belgrade in 1999 or the clash between US EP-3 and Chinese F8 in the airspace right next to Hainan in 2001. Strangely, people might think that the youth are not interested in the news, no one expected Chinese students to vigorously protest in front of US embassy, surround, throw stones, burn down cars and even the house of the US ambassador. Those flame, the world has talked about them. But to deeply understand “anh Tau” (literally Boat Bro), we don’t need to look for big things. In the smallest things, we Vietnamese understand anh Tau better than Westerners. For example: the Olympics gold medal.
Every county see sport as an investment for international politic, as well as civil politic because government shares the fame with winners. Same goes with China… or NOT. It must be THE GOLD MEDAL! Don’t say: it’s like that everywhere! Nope, totally different. To other nations, silver or bronze medals should be enough to celebrate. To China, it must be gold. Silver and bronze can go to the trash. It must be gold to be precious. According to Mao, gold medals are psychological nuclear weapon. Why you ask? Because of history, because of “wuwang guochi”. In the old time, Japanese and Westerners said: China is the “sick man of East Asia”. Dongya bingfu! Honestly, the sentence originally implied the impotent of Qin dynasty, like the Ottoman empire as the European “sick man of East Asia”. But followers of nationalism have twisted that sentence: those imperialists dared to look down on our physical bodies! So we must show them how our bodies can beat theirs. So they starting shoving the Olympics history in young heads from 2004:
“Before 1949, Chinese athletes joined Olympics 3 times, but always went home empty handed. A foreign paper posted a gag comic: under the Olympics flag, a group of sick, skinny Chinese wearing Qin era costume and Western clothes were holding a giant zero. That comic was captioned “Sick man of East Asia”. That was humiliating”
In fact, the gag comic was not posted on a Western paper, but on a Chinese Singaporean one. But it doesn’t matter, this is not sport, this is national humiliation that must be avenged.
So Liu Xiang’s gold medal in 2004 Athens Olympics was precious! The whole world witnessed that the body of “sick man” can now beat the body of Westerners. Liu made a speech in Athens: “My victory proves that yellow athlete can run as fast as black or white athlete”. Who said that was Chinese sport victory certainly didn’t understand anh Tau. That was the whole Chinese ethic rised and washed away the humiliation of the century.
So it must be the gold medal. Silver or bronze can only mean that Chinese are still “bingfu”, are still sick man, are still inferior to Westerners physics. The gold medal washes away the humiliation and bring fame to Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 1 billion hearts supporting Liu is 1 billion hearts supporting CCP. Who would bring that honor without CCP? Who would bring China from the 1932 big zero to 2008 100 medals with 51 gold? What field can bring forth compassion, agreement, happiness and cheerfulness like sport? Long live the CCP!
The unfortunate of 19th century China became the fortunate of the current government. When Mao ideology is not enough then the nationalism rises up, just in time, to replace the old communism with a new one suitable with the majority, to wake up cultural values deep within the national sub-consciousness. So, the burning question of many US experts is in fact a bit naïve: does Chinese nationalism starts from the top or the bottom? The answer is simple, from both. What is fearsome about it is that the by-product of Chinese nationalism: war.
From the top to bottom: “wuwang guochi” is the slogan of a whole nation education. Adult teaches kids that by using textbook, museums, group talks, novels, poems, music, films, holidays, maps, historical sites… Adult teaches kids to never forget the “century of humiliation” from the 1840 Opium war. Adult teaches kids to remember the definition of China, the nature of the ethics, the nature of the Chinese people, the individual. Never forget: the humiliation caused by Westerners and Japanese.
And they must remember, China/ “Middle Kingdom” is the center. Center here does not bear geography meaning, but cultural and political one.” Who controls the center controls the country” – Chiang Kai-shek. China calls itself literally “Middle Flower”/ Trung Hoa. I heard a scholar explained these words: “Flower” means beauty, beautiful clothes, beautiful jewelry. China considers itself “flower”, all those around it is “yi”/barbarians. With its good culture, China considers its responsibility to civilize those barbarians/ “yong xia bian yi” like Mencius said. Barbarians get civilized change from “yi” to “flower”, become China citizens. Our scholars in the old time fell for this, spent all their lives trying to be similar, not seeking difference like Japanese samurai. Just read historian god Ngo Si Lien to see that. I am also explained more: China is also called “Shenzhou”, meaning the holy ground. The Chinese youths now love using Thien Trieu (the way vassal countries used to address China in the old time, it’s hard to find an English equal word so I just use the original Vnese text, any helps from Chinese mems are appreciated) to call China.
We must also remember: Chinese traditional mindset has no definition of “nation”, only definition of “Thiên Hạ”/ literally under the sky (again helps are appreciated) in which China is the center. “Thien Ha” has many meanings. First, it’s a group based on culture, different from groups based on race, politic or law in Western definition of “nation”. Civilization is the basic of “thien ha” definition. To Confucism, China consider itself the center of civilization, a higher civilization, a higher moral ground. Second, “thien ha” has no border like modern nation. Who are with Hans are Hans: Manchu for example. Third, I am the center, I am the highest, then how can I see the world and its members equally? China is the world, not a member in it. At the beginning of the Opium war, Charles Elliot sent a letter for Lin Zexu, Qin government officials dealing with opium trading. In the letter British official mistakenly called Britain and China “2 countries”. Liu was angry and did not reply. He thought the Western barbarian could not be helped, and “under the sky there is no place that can be equal to Thien Trieu”. Fourth, “thien ha” focuses more on soft power, like culture, morality, rules than on hard power – military, economy – to maintain the world balance. Bow before the civilization of “thien trieu”, pay your tribute, know your place, those were the order of “thien ha”. Who can say that does not explain the way modern “thien trieu” is now acting?
Don’t forget, must remember the humiliation and the glory. The definition of modern China is based on those two elements. The former glory is restored thank to CCP. CCP is no longer “volunteers of lower classes”, but the most extreme patriots. CCP mission is no longer building a communism society, but to restore the former glory of China. “Don’t forget, must remember” policy is forced on people through a system of education and propaganda. The result is a success. US pays a lot to sway Chinese students, believing that they will be seduced by Western culture. Yet, young generation is no less nationalistic than old generation.
In fact, this is the second wave of Chinese nationalism. The first one was weak in 19th century, and did not unify the whole China. Qin government was corrupted. Chinese civilians were uneducated, loved to do “revolutions” like Lu Xun’s A.Q. Nationalism at that time was started by middle class and students, an example was the 1919 五四运动(literally the Five Four movement). The first wave of nationalism was a defensive nationalism. It was rightful and didn’t harm anyone. The second one is an offensive nationalism. It’s dangerous because it comes from an expansionism country. It’s even dangerous when Chinese people are eager to go on the offense, are aggressive enough that the government has to restrain them, fearing that they might not be able to control the raging fire. From an ideology created by CCP to justify its rightfulness to rule, state nationalism becomes social nationalism when it makes contact with the society. Mearsheimer believed Chinese “popular nationalism”, or like he called it “hypernationalism”, might create unexpected dangers. Or like Hu Ping said: “To Chinese, history is our religion… We might not have a super natural standard about right or wrong, good or bad, so we make history the highest court… Every single Chinese was born a nationalism follower”.
3. Conclusion
The history of every nation has its low time. The history of every nation has its own wounds. Strangely, China wants the world to suffer the same wounds and to accept that those bleeding wounds will never heal. Nationalism, every country has that, less or more. But China wants the world to see that theirs is unique, different, and precious, that everyone should bow before Chinese nationalism. Wanting to work with China? You have to sign papers with the same lines around the world “Taiwan is a part of China…” Such nationalism is the seed of war.
I will summarize into 4 conclusions
a. It’s easy to realize China’s expansion intention goes along with “guoxi” policy. We have to avenge by taking back what we lost, such as lands. About this, Chinese communists and Chinese republicans were not different. 27/3/1934, Chiang Kai Shek wrote in his diary about planning on publishing a textbook about duty and responsibility of citizen to the nation. In that book, point 3: “Reclaim Taiwan and Korea. Reclaim original territory which was belong to Han dynasty and Tang dynasty…; so that we, descendants of the Great Emperor, will not feel ashamed”. 60 years later, Beijing history textbook recorded Korean Goguryeo dynasty (37 B.C – 668 A.D) was a historical part of Chinese history. Is it only Korea? Listen to Chinese ambassadors in 20th century: we lost “our Hongkong”, “our Myanmar”, “our Thailand”, “our An Nam”. The cursed imperialists chopped our lands like they chopped a watermelon. Continuing the tradition, Chinese communists said Paracels are an “unarguable part of China” in a 1999 map. Those were territories we (China) lost in the “century of humiliation”, of course they must come back to us. Another textbook clearly wrote:” A whole century of humiliation reminds China about foreign races invaded us by the sea. Those experiences remind us that warships appear from the Pacific, our country is not unified; the fight for sovereignty over Spartly, Diaoyu Dao and India-China border still keep going… We must build a strong naval force to reclaim the territory and protect our sovereignty and exclusive rights of the sea”. Bravo, bravo! China avenges by rebuilding the Qin dynasty, by asking for the “rightful position in the international community”. The “guoxi” policy sounds dangerous more than ever.
b. So, the world must be frank with China: you should stop your “guoxi” policy. “Guoxi”! National humiliation! What humiliation? That humiliation is more than one hundred year old. Someone asks China: when will it (humiliation) end? China doesn’t answer, because it the tantrum China uses to threaten the world. What nation? The modern China is not the opium addicted China of the old time! “It’s time China stops playing victim and behaves like a normal country” an American expert said. Or like a Chinese writer, Wang Shuo, in his novel “Please don’t call me Human”, wrote “Saving the nation! What nation? Saving from what? Thank you, our country business is getting better, day by day”
Everyone loves a healthy Chinese business, especially US. Nothing can stop a rising China, a powerful China. But a powerful China must be a responsible China, that’s the US mindset right from the beginning. But China acts like everyone must be responsible for its humiliation, first the US, then now both US and Japan. Someone analyzed “Chinese government will never immediately deal with Senkaku. If tomorrow Japan gives China Senkaku, Beijing will start talking about Okinawa. They will say ‘We don’t want Senkaku anymore. We want Ryukys’”. It might be exaggerating, but his next sentence was not wrong “Their (Chinese) political system needs to be hostile towards Japan. It’s the fuel of the system. They cannot survive without being hostile to Japan. You cannot defuse the tension, because China absolutely needs tension”. It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter about China cannot monopoly nationalism. No matter how wrong Japan was in World War 2, China keeps provoking Japanese national pride, forces them to the dead end then Japan will react, violently. (That’s for you, @Nihonjin1051).
c. The third conclusion relates to the use of “guoxi” ideology. Different from Chiang, Mao never put the “guoxi” topic on top during the fight with Japan. Mao’s primary enemies are internal, not external: namely Chiang, namely the capitalists. Mao’s directions to high level officials of CCP in 1937 wrote: “Our purpose is to develop the military power of the CCP is to revolt. So we must follow this direction closely: 70% is to expand, 20% is to fight ROK, and 10% is to fight Japan. All members must follow order, never disobey this direction”. Mao was different from Chiang about culture. To Chiang, Confucism was still the core of the nation. To Mao, it is the imperial culture, making China undeveloped. Mao didn’t put the might of CCP on using “guoxi” policy but on victory of the Revolution. “Dongfanghong”(The Red East Sky, literally) was the national anthem during Mao regime (1949-1976). The song has no word reminding people of the past, only to praise the leader, the party, praise the bright future.
Historians report: during Mao regime till Tiananmen Square incident (1947-1990), not a single book mentioned “guoxi”. The Nanking massacre was taken out systematically. In 1962, historians of Nanking University wrote “Imperial Japan and Nanking massacre” book but it was only for internal use and was never published. Until 1982, government noticed that incident. Historians explain: one, in Mao ideology, classes are important, not races. Two, nationalism is different from imperialism. Three, the under development of China is caused by corruption and impotence of imperial, capital classes. Four, “victory” is the word used to justify the CCP; “hero” is the model to rally people: Mao led people from victory to victory. There is no humiliation, because there is only pride. Not to mention during the Nanking massacre, there were no communist “hero” in Nanking because it was Chiang capital in 1937. Those who died in Nanking, Shanghai or anywhere southward were mostly Chiang soldiers. Historians add: Mao must feel grateful to Japan because if Japan hadn’t increased the size of the invasion from 1937 to 1945, Mao’s army would have been wiped out by Chiang. Hiding in the mountain and avoiding direct conflict, Mao’s army grew from 30,000 to 1 million troops. The follow conversation between Mao and Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakue was recorded in 27/9/1972, when Japan followed US to established official relationship with Beijing. It’s very interesting and must be fully written out to understand PM Mao’s humor:
Mao: “We must be thankful to Japan. If Japan hadn’t invaded China, we would never have joined hands with ROC, we would never have developed and gained control. Thank to Japan that we can meet each other in Beijing.
Tanaka humble: “By invading China, Japan caused a lot of damage to China”
Mao replied: “If Japan hadn’t invaded China, CCP would have never won, and we would never meet today. That’s historical logic.”
So how comes that logic is twisted? Take the national anthem for example. In the beginning it was “March of the Volunteers”, lyric by Tian Han, music by NieEr. Written in 1932, 1 year after Japan took Manchu, the song rallied the people to stand up and join the resistance. “Stand up, stand up, stand up! China is facing the biggest threat”. In 1949, when discussing a national anthem for the newly established PRC, some suggested replacing that sentence, saying that “China has been liberated”. Chou En-lai disagreed, saying that the original sounded better and were always suitable for fighting back foreign invaders. During the Cultural Revolution, “March of the Volunteers” was replaced by “Dongfanghong”, like said above. When Mao passed away in 1976, HuaGuofeng reused “March of the Volunteers” as national anthem, but changed the lyric to praise Mao and CCP. 4/12/1982, Deng Xiao Bing changed back to the original 1935.
So since 1921, the year CCP was established, to 1949, the year PRC was established, the rightfulness of Chinese government was based on communism and nationalism. From 1949 to the end of Cultural Revolution 1976, it was based on PM Mao and his bright red vision of Communism. From 1976 to 1991, there was confusion right inside CCP: black cat or white cat, which cat can catch the mouse? During the 1980s, China suffered ideology crisis had 3 major trust crises - “san xinweiji”. Those 3 were: xinxinweiji – meaning crisis on trusting socialism, xinyangweiji – meaning crisis on trusing Marxism, xinrenweiji – meaning crisis on trusting CCP. Those crises replaced the religious faith, and now they were gone too. What would replace them?
Tianenmon incident in 1989 was the people answer. Students brought in the Goddess of Democracy to worship, in the place of CCP, of Mao. That was wrong, seriously wrong. So huge education campaigns were launched to direct the youth attention from civil problems to foreign affairs; to re-establish the rightfulness of CCP based on nationalism. Did they forget the fight between classes? No! 太平天國, the biggest rebel in Chinese history (1851 – 1864) was farmers rebelled to fight back oppression. And China was not the only victim: Japanese workers and farmers were also victims of Imperialism. China does not forget communism, but they are letting nationalism drive them forward.
China forsakes the victorious images of winners over ROC to use the humiliated image of victims of Imperialism Western and Japan. Before, people taught kids to praise, to love. Now, people teaches kids to vengeful, to hate. From 1994 to 2002, Jiang Zemin performed a silent revolution, transformed CCP from a revolutionary party to a nationalistic party, replace communism with nationalism in the core ideology place. CCP teaches kids how to be a true Chinese: hate foreign invaders, despise traitors and love patriots.
Recently, what did Xi Jinping declare when he moved Haiyang 981 rig to Paracels water? The same as before : “Our past weakness let invaders break our defense in land and on the sea hundrends of times, pushing China to the brink of catastrophe”, “we cannot forget that humiliated past and have to strengthen our border”. Who can forget that humiliated pass if it wasn’t for us Vietnamese reacting to your aggressive actions?
Many modern writers said: Lu Xun (might be the most favorite Chinese author to many VNeses) wrote A Q to mock Chinese and their society. Scholars at that time did know humiliation caused by foreign empires, but they aimed at the old-fashion, under-development of Chinese culture to criticize, to re-new, to bring China to modern world. After Tiananmen Square, people went to the opposite direction, drove nationalism to support expansionism. On one hand China redefines “I” of each Chinese, on the other China turns the “I” into a constant threat. Chinese guns or ships do not scare us, what scare us is such self-centered culture.
Writer of this article (he is talking about himself) is not a follower of Western culture. I make my fourth point is not to praise, but to compare Eastern vs. Western culture in defining “I”.
d. Yes, the first comparison is the gold medal. In 2008 Olympics marathon, US got bronze, Japan got silver and China got gold. US team celebrated and held the bronze medal high. When interviewed, Jonathan Horton the athlete answered: “The most important is that we can stand on this place. Gold, silver or bronze are not important”. Whoever wants to comment on that, feel free to do so. But let’s think about the question discussed by Beijing netizens that night:”Strange, why are the Americans so happy with the bronze medal?” And here is a comment of a Chinese author: “A nation which is obsessed with gold medals enough to use nationalism to justify the rightfulness of the government is not a confined nation. And a crowd that cannot accept defeat in sport is not a calm and secured crowd.”
The second comparison is about “The humiliation day of the nation”. A lot of countries have the same kind of date, calling it National Humiliation Day: Britain, US, India, Korea… Because British-US culture, especially in previous centuries, was a Christian culture. Peace or war, victory or defeat are all decided by God. So all nations nationalizes God, believes that God was with them. But it’s not the matter here when talking about national humiliation day. Here, enemies or allies are not a nation, but God himself. It’s scary to imagine God as the enemy in war. So victories could not be achieved through strategies or military forces, but through being ashamed before God for sins that the nation had committed and being apologetic. Using true shamefulness to wash away the nation sins is the way to victory. That is the theory The Church teaches on National Humiliation Days. They add: the reason of war is the relationship between a nation and God, because war is God’s judgments on a nation sins. On the battlefield, enemies might not be your nemesis, because revenge is sinful. Many churches suggest 2 sides to re-establish a friendly relationship. We Vietnamese do not need anyone to teach us. We are free to “hello” with American, French.
Of course I know crusades were never this honorable. But I explained the theory of the Church is to quote Abraham Lincoln, US president, speech on establishment of “National Humiliation Holiday” after the end of the North-South Civil war:
“…We all know, by the holy order of God, nations, as well as individuals, receive judgments in this world. So we are not afraid of the catastrophes of the civil war that is ravaging this nation as a judgment punished us for our ignorance, because it is to reform our nation as a whole. We are chosen to receive the greatest gifts of God; we have protected them for many years with peace and prosperity; we have grown in number, in prosperity, in power more than ever. But we have forgotten God... So now we bow before the forgotten power, to admit our nation sins and pray for His Almighty forgiveness.” (Sorry to US mems for my bad translation)
When Lincoln made this “Declaration” (1863), US was yet an Imperial power. 100 years later, during Vietnam War, Bob Dylan, in a famous song “With God on your side”, criticized the contradiction between theory and action of a Christian America. Anyways, there is something beautiful in this, something to compare to Chinese “guoxi”: enemies should be found inside each of us.
The enemy should be found inside the “I” of China. The enemy of China is its own definition of yourself, is the power allowing to reach such definition: China is the child of history, is the center of the world, is the kingdom ruling the earth. Such ambition drives China forward stronger, faster, but it also makes both China and the world feel insecure. China is insecure because ambition will always clash with ambition, power will clash with power. Therefore China must create external enemies, create a “guoxi” for unlimited period, which will only end in war. China is a giant, an insecure giant, a Goliath insecure. To conclude, finding God as ally is finding psychological security to support armed security. But today, in British-American culture, psychological security is with another God, the God of Democracy, and that God is with the people. China has no God, even the God that Confucius worshiped. China only has nationalism to rally, to support its security. But even with it, China still feels insecure, because the voice of predecessors still echo from Tiananmen: “People are like water, water can carry boats but can also flip boats”. Insecure in psychological security, China keeps firing its “guoxi” policy cannon to our East Sea.
What does China wants? To be the god father of the world. To colonize Vietnam. To enslave our people. It’s ridiculous that we used to call them “comrades”. Comrades with their nationalism? Comrades with those who want to Chinalize our nation?
Note (there are citation in the original text that I didn't translated correctly, you can read them further using the below source):
1 Thomas J. Christensen, The Avantages of an Assertive China, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2011.
2 MAD, shorten of Mutual Assured Destruction
3 Thomas Hammes, US. eyes on Japan’s Security 3/ Threat of Blockade, allied presence key to deterrence. The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 11, 2014.
4 Jack Levy and Katherine Barbiery, tríchbởi John J. Mearsheimer, Can China Rise Peacefully, Foreign Affairs, April 8, 2014. Michael Vlahos, History’s Warning: A US-China War is Terrifyingly Possible, The National Interest, July-August 2014. “Economic fears does not brake on war”
5 John J. Mearsheimer, Can China Rise Peacefully?
6 Alain Frachon, Moscou, Pékinetleurspetitsvoisins, Le Monde, 16-5-2014. MoscouetPékin, même combat, Le Monde 22-5-2014. C’estune histoire du monde multipolaired’aujourd’hui”. Robert Cohen, China’s Monroe Doctrine, New York Times, 8-5-2014.
7 Charles Glaiser, Will China’s Rise Lead to War?, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2011.
8 James B. Steinberg and Michael O’Hanlon, Keep Hope Alive.How to Prevent US-Chinese Relations from Blowing Up, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2014.
9 Zheng Wang, Never Forget National Humiliation, Columbia University Press/New York, 2012, Preface, XIII.
11 William A. Callahan, National Insecurities: Humiliation, Salvation, and Chinese Nationalism, Alternatives 29, 2004.
13 Ryan Kilpatrick, National Humiliation in China, 20-10-2011,http://www.e-ir.info/2011/national-humiliation-in-china/
16 Edward Luttwak, The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 09, 2014.
17 Bangkok Post, 30-6-2014,http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/417832/xi-demands-stronger-defenses
19 Allen Carlson, China’s Conflicted Olympic Moment, Current History, Vol 107, N° 701, September 2007
20 What Brzezinski said about Russia can also apply to China: “Russia can be a democratic or an imperial country, but can’t be both”. Ross Terrill, What does China Want?, Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2005.
I take no credit for the content and image of the below article.
The content might be offensive to some mems, so please don't use vuglar words. I want to keep my first thread alive as long as possible
I am no professional translator so there might be grammar or spelling errors. There are several expressions that are hard to translate into English so please bear with it.
So here we go:
What does China want?
20 years ago, the world talked about China as a “Rising Power”, and wondered: what was China rising for, and when she done rising, what would she do? 20 years later, China has risen, fast, unbelievable, and spun the whole world around. And now the question becomes clearer than it was: when China done rising, will there be war?
20 years ago, under the banner of Deng Xiaoping, “韜光養晦” hiding power and laying back waiting, China made the world believe that she was rising peacefully, that “China gets powerful the whole world gains benefits”. After that, the world wakes up from the peaceful slumber when China changes her voice, changes the way she acted. From soft to hard, defensive to offensive, polite to threatening, aggressive. She quarrels with US, creates tension with Japan, oppresses neighboring countries, sticks out the cow tongue and licks the whole South China Sea (East Sea in the original), licks it all, maybe licks all the way to the Indian Ocean. So is war the inevitable result of China rising? What does China want? That’s the question asked in this article.
No one can answer that question, for one simple reason: nobody can predict the future. Furthermore the future of China is well-known for its complexity and unpredictability. On the surface China is a fearsome power, both military and economy. Hearing that China will surpass the US in several decades makes people panic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has even more scary calculation result: China economy will surpass the US from now to 2016. But this face of China also has negativities that we all know: fluctuation, social inequality, instability, questions about government decisions… Is it certain that China will keep rising like this? It is unsure how China will be in the future while asking “What does China want”. It’s like asking if a dish is delicious without tasting it. So those who only know theories, they can only using theories to answer, using theories to find the way of reality.
Up until now, all theories about the future of China are all based on the outside observation, meaning that people use subjective standards about power to judge China. Because doing so is “scientifically”, because those standards can be measured and calculated. Military, economy, population, technology, resource, politic… are such standards. But when asking “What does China want”, those subjective standards are not enough because those seeking the answer need to know what China really really want, deep down inside. Knowing what is inside a person head is hard enough, so how can people know what is inside the head of a group? But it is important, maybe the most important to understand our giant neighbor. So how can we know that? The question here is the necessarily of a look from inside to combine with the outside observation. The inside look also needs to be based on a subjective standard. What is that standard? The only way to know “What does China want” is asking China “What does China want”. To be precise “What does China define herself?” Recently, theory about new international relationship presents such new cultural standard. And that’s why in international media, culture is the most important element deciding peace, tension or war among countries and ethnic groups.
This article present 2 theoretical observations, both inside and outside. From outside look, looking at power capability. From inside, looking at how a race define itself. The first look intends to explain: intentions expressed through capability ( the more powerful you are, the more ambitious you are). The second look intends to explain: how you develop your power based on your definition about yourself. So let’s start with the first one.
1. An external observation: Capability
Capability can mean both economical and militarily. Economically, Liberalism believes that the new world order requires open trade. China wants to get powerful then she has to follow that order, never disobey or break it. Otherwise China is destroying its own benefits. “We welcome you with open arms to join the big game so all of us, we and you, can get rich” – that the mindset of US and EU from the very beginning till now. In this world order, all economies are connected; one’s loss is all other losses. No one gain anything from a weak China. Furthermore, now that China is stronger, China helps strengthen that world order, helps us (US and EU) deal with “rule breakers”: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan civil war, Somali pirate, nuclear spreading, economy crisis, global warming… countless problems are waiting for China to deal with. Prove yourself a responsible super power. A stable world order is an essential for an improving economy. Market should replace war, competitions should replace arms. Make money, not war! Optimism and its followers hold their firm belief that even when China becomes aggressive, its competitions become no less effective than blades and swords, and its soft power expands to strategic fields of EU. Not only the universities but also US political experts never stop warning: when dealing with China, persuasion, not containment.
Liberalism is also optimistic about China social structure. As China gets richer, the middle class also grows along. As the middle class grows, it gets harder for the government to make war. Sound logical. But what is “middle class”? People rarely agree on a definition, a standard. Fewer people agree that there is a connection between the middle class and the democracy movement in China. Though, once discussing peace or war, there are always people putting trust on middle class: they are getting richer, they are enjoying, why would they risk going to war to lose it all? Furthermore China needs to develop its economy more and more, to overcome the US. Because of that, even when tension grows, they never cut off the economic link between the two countries to get into a crazy situation called MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, like the US and Soviet used to be in. If I (the author) am an American, I am certain to support such policy, because optimism may suit US situation and benefit. But I am a Vietnamese, living right next to China, knowing too well that economy alone can kill off a whole country, without a single shot fired. So I am not too optimistic with the connecting-economies theory. To be honest, I am with American experts who are against that theory who believe that despite of tension and containment policy, we still can trade, still protect our benefits, especially between the 2 countries China is the one which gains more. Is it true that connecting-economies have the highest value in China calculation? In case Taiwan announces independence, what will be Beijing reaction, war or MAD? In case China makes a swift attack to punish Vietnam in SCS, leaving an already-happen-event for US and the area to deal with. It certainly will not bring economical negativities like a long-term war, so will China create a second Paracels, South Johnson Reef events? The First World War teaches China: that Britain, France and Russia still kept trading with Germany in 20 years before the war, even when the 3 powers had created alliance to contain Germany. War, like the author wrote, didn’t forbid 2 sides of conflict to keep trading with each other if both sides saw it beneficial.
Because of above reasons, I feel “Realism” is more suitable for Vietnam and I feel close to the author of such theory, Mearsheimer. I will summarize his theory:
First is the realism’s definition of the world system: it is a non-government system, each nation aims for the highest priority which is the survivability of its own by maintaining and improving its power. Concerning about power brings forth competition because everyone is afraid of each other. So big countries develop their power to the maximum level to successfully compete with other big countries, to gain advantage on the balance of power, moving towards world domination.
There were times, under the lead of President Bush (not sure which Bush, the author did not say it clearly), people had thought the USA had already dominated the world. Now everyone can see: no matter how strong it is, the USA cannot control lands on the other side of the Pacific. What US can do, like super powers used to do in history, is to take total control of its territory and let no other super power to get close. The US is strong enough to chase out any competitors on the America, but they can achieving that by centuries of fighting since the birth of the countries. What US has done, what other super powers have done in history, what can stop China from doing the same? China is not a monk, not a saint, not a vegetarian. China will stop US from intervening in its territory. On the other hand the US won’t let China mess around its backyards. And, according to the theory of power and the reality of history, China will try to get into US territory in America and in fact, has started and kept doing that for a while.
So far, the US can poke their noses all around the world because they are 100% sure about their own security back home. No one dare to cause trouble, except Cuba. In the next decades, if China surpasses the US like people say, what can stops China from playing the world police like the US now? And then, to be sure about their country security, why won’t China copy the US, meaning first and foremost, discharge all disputes, set up a total control on the region? No one has a second voice, takes a second action, has different dreams without Beijing nods. Island are Chinese, the sea is swimming pool for Great Leader Mao children. What the world has seen in recent years prove that: developing naval fleets, sticking out the cow tongue (man, this author loves the cow tongue joke), licking Japanese islands, concerned US-South Korean drill in 2010, discussing establishing “The first island chain”, “The second islands chain”, etc. If China succeeds, Japan and Philippines can’t be allies with the US anymore. Not to mention Chinese plan for the “Blue Water fleet” to master the ocean, to ensure the sea travel security, to ensure no one can cut off oil lines from Middle East. And not to mention, to Vietnam, Chinese act of putting the rig in the water right next to Paracels is no different from digging well on other people land.
Like a hungry tiger, with naked intention, with a big brother rude attitude, Chinese increasing power makes other countries feel nervous about their own securities. The inevitable result is “stepping up security”. Countries join the arm race, the race to war. Nowadays, even if people keep saying economic collaboration, Beijing neighbors are afraid of China rise, thinks of ways to contain China. Love or hate, want it or not, believe or distrust, all of them have to think about the containment policy of the US during the Cold War. And the US has no better or more effective policy against China other than the containment policy. Meaning allying with neighboring countries which feel threatened by China: India, Japan, Philippine and, why not, Vietnam.
The question here is: why won’t those countries dare to frankly ally themselves with the US? Will they together with the US to re-establish the balance or join side with China? Or playing the swinging game? Hard to imagine when the US-China conflict gets heated, 2 super powers won’t force extreme pressure so no one can play swinging. So who join side with whom depends on who threaten the survivability of other, who are far away who are the neighbor, who need us stay who need us gone. The US have troops stationed in Japan, in Korea, but if there are rumors US might withdraw troops then both countries ask them to extend their stay (I don’t agree with the author but well…). China have no stationing troops, but tens of thousands of workers and countless working villages rise as mushroom, and the owner loses his land without knowing.
So smaller countries can’t stop thinking about containment policy. Big countries also do the same. India and Japan signed “Declaration of collaboration security” in 2008 when China increased its power. India and US get closer while US still needs Muslim country (Afghanistan?) to fight against Al Qaida. Human rights are the things US always talks about but when in need they ignores those to shake hand with Indonesia (?). Singapore says they are on China side but lends Changi harbor for US fleet. And Japan, even if the civilians protest, Okinawa still welcome US marines stationed there with red carpet and flower (don’t hate me @Nihonjin1051). The more China threatens, the more countries fall into US arms. Asia cheers when Obama changes US strategic attention from Europe to Asia. Then Asia is concerned when US show weak reactions on Syria, Ukraine.
In conclusion: China growing stronger put pressure on security competition with US and neighboring countries. The more China wants to get rid of US in the area, the more countries want to ally with the US to balance out the power. There will be tension, many tensions. The newest tension is the Haiyang 981 rig. Problem is: can those tensions cause war? To answer this we first must ask: China also has nuclear weapons, can they prevent wars in Asia like they did in Europe before?
Mearsheimer doesn’t believe the 2 situations can be related. First and foremost is geography. The core of Cold War is one point on the map: Berlin, right in the middle of Europe. The chessboard is too grand, if war had broken out, it would have been inevitable lead to nuclear fallout, meaning the total destruction of Europe, not to mention the destruction could reach the territories of both players. No one dare to think about that. The purpose of nuclear weapon was not to be used, but to force the other side not to use them. The core of nuclear weapon is to create deterrence, saving force to ensure nuclear retaliation against nuclear attack. Because of that possible nuclear retaliation that no one dared to fire the first shot, and no war broke out. Asian geography is totally different. There is no central point as Berlin. Conflicts happen around different places but no place is as important as Berlin. So if war happens, the result might not be so severed. So the possibility of a US-China war is higher (than a US-Soviet war).
For example the North Korea crisis. In case of a war between North and South Korea and 19,000 US troops are forced to battle with forces from China. That war will still be small scale compare to the possible US-Soviet war in Berlin. Taiwan, South China Sea, Senkaku are the same, cannot compete with Berlin. Furthermore those conflicts will only happen on the sea, a nuclear war has little chance to happen. So a traditional war between US and China is easier to imagine than a nuclear war between US and Soviet in Europe.
The second reason is the structure of the world system. Before it was a bi-polar structure, with US on one side and Soviet on the other. Now it is multi-polar in Asia. Even Japan and India are powers. Even India has nuke. Even when those two are not as powerful as China, even the multi-polar structure is not equal in power, China still has yet became a super power like Soviet. In that multi-polar world, there are multiple reasons makes wars easier to broke out. Firstly, big countries are eager to start wars, with each other or with smaller countries. Secondly, big brother bullies second kid, third kid, take them out one by one. Thirdly, being the biggest, rising to be the overlord of the region, making everyone fear, making them either surrender or fight back after taking too much crap.
The Chinese Haiyang 981 incident in South China Sea and Russian intervention in Ukraine make the world pay more attention the multi-polar theory. A large number of experts can see that there is no 100% chance that there are oil in Paracels water. It’s possible that Beijing just “shout out their rights as a power”. Like Russia, China want to prove “I” am the master of “MY” backyard, similar to Russian and Chinese version of “Monroe theory”, meaning nobody touch “MY” stuff. The famous French newspaper Le Monde had an article about the 2 incidents in May, came to a conclusion while mentioning Monroe theory :” Considering what has happed in the last few weeks, the multi-polar world has predictably informed its people: this is the world of barbarians”.
The conclusion of Le Monde summarized all said above about the picture of Mearsheimer vision. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I can’t be too optimistic like Liberalism. Its followers said: one, even though the world structure that Realism describes is correct, US and China can always smartly avoid high tension. Two, even if US alliances with Japan and South Korea can cause troubles (they are always troubles) between US and China, war is not necessary. Three, to not chase the US away, don’t overestimate China power. And four, we need to step down before China in some situations that are not critical (life or death) to US, for example Taiwan. But South China Sea (original text East Sea) is ours, who protect it with me, for me? Even you (Liberalists) are not 100% optimistic. You say, vaguely:” China rise is peaceful, but that conclusion is not concrete.”
There is nothing to be sure, especially recently, China threateningly claimed over Japanese Senkaku islands and aggressively set up rig on Vietnamese continental coast. A war with US is not unimaginable: concerns about it were warned by author from Foreign Affair, in which the author wrote “both sides have to be certain about red lines and are ready to protect them”. But where is those lines, when the list of “core benefits” Beijing presents to US in recent years grows longer and longer, making sub-conflicts become a fight to death? Where is those lines, when the world watches a new phenomenon rises like a raging volcano for decades? That said phenomenon, that serious danger, is NATIONALISM. Reading US papers, it is easy to notice experts shift their attention from elements like economy, military, geo-politics to the danger of nationalism. Like a Chinese expert said “the question about whether China is a danger to other countries cannot be answered by looking at China power in the future – economical numbers, technological advancement, military budget – those cannot be used to predict anymore. Power is but one part of the answer. How China chooses to use its power is the clue of peace or war”. External observation is not enough, it must be combined with internal observation, a deep look inside the core of the giant culture, a look at how the giant defines himself.
2. An internal observation: Chinese self-definition
2008, the year of Olympics, the torch of Olympics was carried from Athens to Beijing, passed a 85,000 miles travel, stopped on 135 cities. During that time, China was criticized for human rights and Tibet oppression. London, Paris , San Francisco, Canberra… everywhere, human rights organizations protested when the Torch passed. But, everywhere, Chinese oversea fought back, with high spirit no less than those from mainland, especially the youth, students from famous universities in Duke, Berkeley, Chicago… everywhere! French Carrefour supermarket was one victim. Chinese poured in and attacked its stores, while shouting slogans:
“Say no to Carrefour!!! Say no to Imperialist France!!!”
“Object the 1860 British-French invasion!”
“All Chinese stand up!”
Brilliant, what does Olympics relate to British-French army, from the time their great great grand parents were not born? But the bleeding history is still new to many Chinese. Whoever dare to touch a Chinese, especially those who are born Westerners or Japanese, watch yourself. “Wuwang guochi!” – Never forget national humiliation – Those 4 letters are worshiped by nationalism followers who are ready to trample all those who dare to provoke. Experts who are willing to bet on peace must also watch themselves. The flame of the new ideology might burn their mustache without their knowing.
It’s too easy to prove that by using some big incidents that happened: US mistakenly bombing Beijing embassy in Belgrade in 1999 or the clash between US EP-3 and Chinese F8 in the airspace right next to Hainan in 2001. Strangely, people might think that the youth are not interested in the news, no one expected Chinese students to vigorously protest in front of US embassy, surround, throw stones, burn down cars and even the house of the US ambassador. Those flame, the world has talked about them. But to deeply understand “anh Tau” (literally Boat Bro), we don’t need to look for big things. In the smallest things, we Vietnamese understand anh Tau better than Westerners. For example: the Olympics gold medal.
Every county see sport as an investment for international politic, as well as civil politic because government shares the fame with winners. Same goes with China… or NOT. It must be THE GOLD MEDAL! Don’t say: it’s like that everywhere! Nope, totally different. To other nations, silver or bronze medals should be enough to celebrate. To China, it must be gold. Silver and bronze can go to the trash. It must be gold to be precious. According to Mao, gold medals are psychological nuclear weapon. Why you ask? Because of history, because of “wuwang guochi”. In the old time, Japanese and Westerners said: China is the “sick man of East Asia”. Dongya bingfu! Honestly, the sentence originally implied the impotent of Qin dynasty, like the Ottoman empire as the European “sick man of East Asia”. But followers of nationalism have twisted that sentence: those imperialists dared to look down on our physical bodies! So we must show them how our bodies can beat theirs. So they starting shoving the Olympics history in young heads from 2004:
“Before 1949, Chinese athletes joined Olympics 3 times, but always went home empty handed. A foreign paper posted a gag comic: under the Olympics flag, a group of sick, skinny Chinese wearing Qin era costume and Western clothes were holding a giant zero. That comic was captioned “Sick man of East Asia”. That was humiliating”
In fact, the gag comic was not posted on a Western paper, but on a Chinese Singaporean one. But it doesn’t matter, this is not sport, this is national humiliation that must be avenged.
So Liu Xiang’s gold medal in 2004 Athens Olympics was precious! The whole world witnessed that the body of “sick man” can now beat the body of Westerners. Liu made a speech in Athens: “My victory proves that yellow athlete can run as fast as black or white athlete”. Who said that was Chinese sport victory certainly didn’t understand anh Tau. That was the whole Chinese ethic rised and washed away the humiliation of the century.
So it must be the gold medal. Silver or bronze can only mean that Chinese are still “bingfu”, are still sick man, are still inferior to Westerners physics. The gold medal washes away the humiliation and bring fame to Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 1 billion hearts supporting Liu is 1 billion hearts supporting CCP. Who would bring that honor without CCP? Who would bring China from the 1932 big zero to 2008 100 medals with 51 gold? What field can bring forth compassion, agreement, happiness and cheerfulness like sport? Long live the CCP!
The unfortunate of 19th century China became the fortunate of the current government. When Mao ideology is not enough then the nationalism rises up, just in time, to replace the old communism with a new one suitable with the majority, to wake up cultural values deep within the national sub-consciousness. So, the burning question of many US experts is in fact a bit naïve: does Chinese nationalism starts from the top or the bottom? The answer is simple, from both. What is fearsome about it is that the by-product of Chinese nationalism: war.
From the top to bottom: “wuwang guochi” is the slogan of a whole nation education. Adult teaches kids that by using textbook, museums, group talks, novels, poems, music, films, holidays, maps, historical sites… Adult teaches kids to never forget the “century of humiliation” from the 1840 Opium war. Adult teaches kids to remember the definition of China, the nature of the ethics, the nature of the Chinese people, the individual. Never forget: the humiliation caused by Westerners and Japanese.
And they must remember, China/ “Middle Kingdom” is the center. Center here does not bear geography meaning, but cultural and political one.” Who controls the center controls the country” – Chiang Kai-shek. China calls itself literally “Middle Flower”/ Trung Hoa. I heard a scholar explained these words: “Flower” means beauty, beautiful clothes, beautiful jewelry. China considers itself “flower”, all those around it is “yi”/barbarians. With its good culture, China considers its responsibility to civilize those barbarians/ “yong xia bian yi” like Mencius said. Barbarians get civilized change from “yi” to “flower”, become China citizens. Our scholars in the old time fell for this, spent all their lives trying to be similar, not seeking difference like Japanese samurai. Just read historian god Ngo Si Lien to see that. I am also explained more: China is also called “Shenzhou”, meaning the holy ground. The Chinese youths now love using Thien Trieu (the way vassal countries used to address China in the old time, it’s hard to find an English equal word so I just use the original Vnese text, any helps from Chinese mems are appreciated) to call China.
We must also remember: Chinese traditional mindset has no definition of “nation”, only definition of “Thiên Hạ”/ literally under the sky (again helps are appreciated) in which China is the center. “Thien Ha” has many meanings. First, it’s a group based on culture, different from groups based on race, politic or law in Western definition of “nation”. Civilization is the basic of “thien ha” definition. To Confucism, China consider itself the center of civilization, a higher civilization, a higher moral ground. Second, “thien ha” has no border like modern nation. Who are with Hans are Hans: Manchu for example. Third, I am the center, I am the highest, then how can I see the world and its members equally? China is the world, not a member in it. At the beginning of the Opium war, Charles Elliot sent a letter for Lin Zexu, Qin government officials dealing with opium trading. In the letter British official mistakenly called Britain and China “2 countries”. Liu was angry and did not reply. He thought the Western barbarian could not be helped, and “under the sky there is no place that can be equal to Thien Trieu”. Fourth, “thien ha” focuses more on soft power, like culture, morality, rules than on hard power – military, economy – to maintain the world balance. Bow before the civilization of “thien trieu”, pay your tribute, know your place, those were the order of “thien ha”. Who can say that does not explain the way modern “thien trieu” is now acting?
Don’t forget, must remember the humiliation and the glory. The definition of modern China is based on those two elements. The former glory is restored thank to CCP. CCP is no longer “volunteers of lower classes”, but the most extreme patriots. CCP mission is no longer building a communism society, but to restore the former glory of China. “Don’t forget, must remember” policy is forced on people through a system of education and propaganda. The result is a success. US pays a lot to sway Chinese students, believing that they will be seduced by Western culture. Yet, young generation is no less nationalistic than old generation.
In fact, this is the second wave of Chinese nationalism. The first one was weak in 19th century, and did not unify the whole China. Qin government was corrupted. Chinese civilians were uneducated, loved to do “revolutions” like Lu Xun’s A.Q. Nationalism at that time was started by middle class and students, an example was the 1919 五四运动(literally the Five Four movement). The first wave of nationalism was a defensive nationalism. It was rightful and didn’t harm anyone. The second one is an offensive nationalism. It’s dangerous because it comes from an expansionism country. It’s even dangerous when Chinese people are eager to go on the offense, are aggressive enough that the government has to restrain them, fearing that they might not be able to control the raging fire. From an ideology created by CCP to justify its rightfulness to rule, state nationalism becomes social nationalism when it makes contact with the society. Mearsheimer believed Chinese “popular nationalism”, or like he called it “hypernationalism”, might create unexpected dangers. Or like Hu Ping said: “To Chinese, history is our religion… We might not have a super natural standard about right or wrong, good or bad, so we make history the highest court… Every single Chinese was born a nationalism follower”.
3. Conclusion
The history of every nation has its low time. The history of every nation has its own wounds. Strangely, China wants the world to suffer the same wounds and to accept that those bleeding wounds will never heal. Nationalism, every country has that, less or more. But China wants the world to see that theirs is unique, different, and precious, that everyone should bow before Chinese nationalism. Wanting to work with China? You have to sign papers with the same lines around the world “Taiwan is a part of China…” Such nationalism is the seed of war.
I will summarize into 4 conclusions
a. It’s easy to realize China’s expansion intention goes along with “guoxi” policy. We have to avenge by taking back what we lost, such as lands. About this, Chinese communists and Chinese republicans were not different. 27/3/1934, Chiang Kai Shek wrote in his diary about planning on publishing a textbook about duty and responsibility of citizen to the nation. In that book, point 3: “Reclaim Taiwan and Korea. Reclaim original territory which was belong to Han dynasty and Tang dynasty…; so that we, descendants of the Great Emperor, will not feel ashamed”. 60 years later, Beijing history textbook recorded Korean Goguryeo dynasty (37 B.C – 668 A.D) was a historical part of Chinese history. Is it only Korea? Listen to Chinese ambassadors in 20th century: we lost “our Hongkong”, “our Myanmar”, “our Thailand”, “our An Nam”. The cursed imperialists chopped our lands like they chopped a watermelon. Continuing the tradition, Chinese communists said Paracels are an “unarguable part of China” in a 1999 map. Those were territories we (China) lost in the “century of humiliation”, of course they must come back to us. Another textbook clearly wrote:” A whole century of humiliation reminds China about foreign races invaded us by the sea. Those experiences remind us that warships appear from the Pacific, our country is not unified; the fight for sovereignty over Spartly, Diaoyu Dao and India-China border still keep going… We must build a strong naval force to reclaim the territory and protect our sovereignty and exclusive rights of the sea”. Bravo, bravo! China avenges by rebuilding the Qin dynasty, by asking for the “rightful position in the international community”. The “guoxi” policy sounds dangerous more than ever.
b. So, the world must be frank with China: you should stop your “guoxi” policy. “Guoxi”! National humiliation! What humiliation? That humiliation is more than one hundred year old. Someone asks China: when will it (humiliation) end? China doesn’t answer, because it the tantrum China uses to threaten the world. What nation? The modern China is not the opium addicted China of the old time! “It’s time China stops playing victim and behaves like a normal country” an American expert said. Or like a Chinese writer, Wang Shuo, in his novel “Please don’t call me Human”, wrote “Saving the nation! What nation? Saving from what? Thank you, our country business is getting better, day by day”
Everyone loves a healthy Chinese business, especially US. Nothing can stop a rising China, a powerful China. But a powerful China must be a responsible China, that’s the US mindset right from the beginning. But China acts like everyone must be responsible for its humiliation, first the US, then now both US and Japan. Someone analyzed “Chinese government will never immediately deal with Senkaku. If tomorrow Japan gives China Senkaku, Beijing will start talking about Okinawa. They will say ‘We don’t want Senkaku anymore. We want Ryukys’”. It might be exaggerating, but his next sentence was not wrong “Their (Chinese) political system needs to be hostile towards Japan. It’s the fuel of the system. They cannot survive without being hostile to Japan. You cannot defuse the tension, because China absolutely needs tension”. It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter about China cannot monopoly nationalism. No matter how wrong Japan was in World War 2, China keeps provoking Japanese national pride, forces them to the dead end then Japan will react, violently. (That’s for you, @Nihonjin1051).
c. The third conclusion relates to the use of “guoxi” ideology. Different from Chiang, Mao never put the “guoxi” topic on top during the fight with Japan. Mao’s primary enemies are internal, not external: namely Chiang, namely the capitalists. Mao’s directions to high level officials of CCP in 1937 wrote: “Our purpose is to develop the military power of the CCP is to revolt. So we must follow this direction closely: 70% is to expand, 20% is to fight ROK, and 10% is to fight Japan. All members must follow order, never disobey this direction”. Mao was different from Chiang about culture. To Chiang, Confucism was still the core of the nation. To Mao, it is the imperial culture, making China undeveloped. Mao didn’t put the might of CCP on using “guoxi” policy but on victory of the Revolution. “Dongfanghong”(The Red East Sky, literally) was the national anthem during Mao regime (1949-1976). The song has no word reminding people of the past, only to praise the leader, the party, praise the bright future.
Historians report: during Mao regime till Tiananmen Square incident (1947-1990), not a single book mentioned “guoxi”. The Nanking massacre was taken out systematically. In 1962, historians of Nanking University wrote “Imperial Japan and Nanking massacre” book but it was only for internal use and was never published. Until 1982, government noticed that incident. Historians explain: one, in Mao ideology, classes are important, not races. Two, nationalism is different from imperialism. Three, the under development of China is caused by corruption and impotence of imperial, capital classes. Four, “victory” is the word used to justify the CCP; “hero” is the model to rally people: Mao led people from victory to victory. There is no humiliation, because there is only pride. Not to mention during the Nanking massacre, there were no communist “hero” in Nanking because it was Chiang capital in 1937. Those who died in Nanking, Shanghai or anywhere southward were mostly Chiang soldiers. Historians add: Mao must feel grateful to Japan because if Japan hadn’t increased the size of the invasion from 1937 to 1945, Mao’s army would have been wiped out by Chiang. Hiding in the mountain and avoiding direct conflict, Mao’s army grew from 30,000 to 1 million troops. The follow conversation between Mao and Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakue was recorded in 27/9/1972, when Japan followed US to established official relationship with Beijing. It’s very interesting and must be fully written out to understand PM Mao’s humor:
Mao: “We must be thankful to Japan. If Japan hadn’t invaded China, we would never have joined hands with ROC, we would never have developed and gained control. Thank to Japan that we can meet each other in Beijing.
Tanaka humble: “By invading China, Japan caused a lot of damage to China”
Mao replied: “If Japan hadn’t invaded China, CCP would have never won, and we would never meet today. That’s historical logic.”
So how comes that logic is twisted? Take the national anthem for example. In the beginning it was “March of the Volunteers”, lyric by Tian Han, music by NieEr. Written in 1932, 1 year after Japan took Manchu, the song rallied the people to stand up and join the resistance. “Stand up, stand up, stand up! China is facing the biggest threat”. In 1949, when discussing a national anthem for the newly established PRC, some suggested replacing that sentence, saying that “China has been liberated”. Chou En-lai disagreed, saying that the original sounded better and were always suitable for fighting back foreign invaders. During the Cultural Revolution, “March of the Volunteers” was replaced by “Dongfanghong”, like said above. When Mao passed away in 1976, HuaGuofeng reused “March of the Volunteers” as national anthem, but changed the lyric to praise Mao and CCP. 4/12/1982, Deng Xiao Bing changed back to the original 1935.
So since 1921, the year CCP was established, to 1949, the year PRC was established, the rightfulness of Chinese government was based on communism and nationalism. From 1949 to the end of Cultural Revolution 1976, it was based on PM Mao and his bright red vision of Communism. From 1976 to 1991, there was confusion right inside CCP: black cat or white cat, which cat can catch the mouse? During the 1980s, China suffered ideology crisis had 3 major trust crises - “san xinweiji”. Those 3 were: xinxinweiji – meaning crisis on trusting socialism, xinyangweiji – meaning crisis on trusing Marxism, xinrenweiji – meaning crisis on trusting CCP. Those crises replaced the religious faith, and now they were gone too. What would replace them?
Tianenmon incident in 1989 was the people answer. Students brought in the Goddess of Democracy to worship, in the place of CCP, of Mao. That was wrong, seriously wrong. So huge education campaigns were launched to direct the youth attention from civil problems to foreign affairs; to re-establish the rightfulness of CCP based on nationalism. Did they forget the fight between classes? No! 太平天國, the biggest rebel in Chinese history (1851 – 1864) was farmers rebelled to fight back oppression. And China was not the only victim: Japanese workers and farmers were also victims of Imperialism. China does not forget communism, but they are letting nationalism drive them forward.
China forsakes the victorious images of winners over ROC to use the humiliated image of victims of Imperialism Western and Japan. Before, people taught kids to praise, to love. Now, people teaches kids to vengeful, to hate. From 1994 to 2002, Jiang Zemin performed a silent revolution, transformed CCP from a revolutionary party to a nationalistic party, replace communism with nationalism in the core ideology place. CCP teaches kids how to be a true Chinese: hate foreign invaders, despise traitors and love patriots.
Recently, what did Xi Jinping declare when he moved Haiyang 981 rig to Paracels water? The same as before : “Our past weakness let invaders break our defense in land and on the sea hundrends of times, pushing China to the brink of catastrophe”, “we cannot forget that humiliated past and have to strengthen our border”. Who can forget that humiliated pass if it wasn’t for us Vietnamese reacting to your aggressive actions?
Many modern writers said: Lu Xun (might be the most favorite Chinese author to many VNeses) wrote A Q to mock Chinese and their society. Scholars at that time did know humiliation caused by foreign empires, but they aimed at the old-fashion, under-development of Chinese culture to criticize, to re-new, to bring China to modern world. After Tiananmen Square, people went to the opposite direction, drove nationalism to support expansionism. On one hand China redefines “I” of each Chinese, on the other China turns the “I” into a constant threat. Chinese guns or ships do not scare us, what scare us is such self-centered culture.
Writer of this article (he is talking about himself) is not a follower of Western culture. I make my fourth point is not to praise, but to compare Eastern vs. Western culture in defining “I”.
d. Yes, the first comparison is the gold medal. In 2008 Olympics marathon, US got bronze, Japan got silver and China got gold. US team celebrated and held the bronze medal high. When interviewed, Jonathan Horton the athlete answered: “The most important is that we can stand on this place. Gold, silver or bronze are not important”. Whoever wants to comment on that, feel free to do so. But let’s think about the question discussed by Beijing netizens that night:”Strange, why are the Americans so happy with the bronze medal?” And here is a comment of a Chinese author: “A nation which is obsessed with gold medals enough to use nationalism to justify the rightfulness of the government is not a confined nation. And a crowd that cannot accept defeat in sport is not a calm and secured crowd.”
The second comparison is about “The humiliation day of the nation”. A lot of countries have the same kind of date, calling it National Humiliation Day: Britain, US, India, Korea… Because British-US culture, especially in previous centuries, was a Christian culture. Peace or war, victory or defeat are all decided by God. So all nations nationalizes God, believes that God was with them. But it’s not the matter here when talking about national humiliation day. Here, enemies or allies are not a nation, but God himself. It’s scary to imagine God as the enemy in war. So victories could not be achieved through strategies or military forces, but through being ashamed before God for sins that the nation had committed and being apologetic. Using true shamefulness to wash away the nation sins is the way to victory. That is the theory The Church teaches on National Humiliation Days. They add: the reason of war is the relationship between a nation and God, because war is God’s judgments on a nation sins. On the battlefield, enemies might not be your nemesis, because revenge is sinful. Many churches suggest 2 sides to re-establish a friendly relationship. We Vietnamese do not need anyone to teach us. We are free to “hello” with American, French.
Of course I know crusades were never this honorable. But I explained the theory of the Church is to quote Abraham Lincoln, US president, speech on establishment of “National Humiliation Holiday” after the end of the North-South Civil war:
“…We all know, by the holy order of God, nations, as well as individuals, receive judgments in this world. So we are not afraid of the catastrophes of the civil war that is ravaging this nation as a judgment punished us for our ignorance, because it is to reform our nation as a whole. We are chosen to receive the greatest gifts of God; we have protected them for many years with peace and prosperity; we have grown in number, in prosperity, in power more than ever. But we have forgotten God... So now we bow before the forgotten power, to admit our nation sins and pray for His Almighty forgiveness.” (Sorry to US mems for my bad translation)
When Lincoln made this “Declaration” (1863), US was yet an Imperial power. 100 years later, during Vietnam War, Bob Dylan, in a famous song “With God on your side”, criticized the contradiction between theory and action of a Christian America. Anyways, there is something beautiful in this, something to compare to Chinese “guoxi”: enemies should be found inside each of us.
The enemy should be found inside the “I” of China. The enemy of China is its own definition of yourself, is the power allowing to reach such definition: China is the child of history, is the center of the world, is the kingdom ruling the earth. Such ambition drives China forward stronger, faster, but it also makes both China and the world feel insecure. China is insecure because ambition will always clash with ambition, power will clash with power. Therefore China must create external enemies, create a “guoxi” for unlimited period, which will only end in war. China is a giant, an insecure giant, a Goliath insecure. To conclude, finding God as ally is finding psychological security to support armed security. But today, in British-American culture, psychological security is with another God, the God of Democracy, and that God is with the people. China has no God, even the God that Confucius worshiped. China only has nationalism to rally, to support its security. But even with it, China still feels insecure, because the voice of predecessors still echo from Tiananmen: “People are like water, water can carry boats but can also flip boats”. Insecure in psychological security, China keeps firing its “guoxi” policy cannon to our East Sea.
What does China wants? To be the god father of the world. To colonize Vietnam. To enslave our people. It’s ridiculous that we used to call them “comrades”. Comrades with their nationalism? Comrades with those who want to Chinalize our nation?
Note (there are citation in the original text that I didn't translated correctly, you can read them further using the below source):
1 Thomas J. Christensen, The Avantages of an Assertive China, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2011.
2 MAD, shorten of Mutual Assured Destruction
3 Thomas Hammes, US. eyes on Japan’s Security 3/ Threat of Blockade, allied presence key to deterrence. The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 11, 2014.
4 Jack Levy and Katherine Barbiery, tríchbởi John J. Mearsheimer, Can China Rise Peacefully, Foreign Affairs, April 8, 2014. Michael Vlahos, History’s Warning: A US-China War is Terrifyingly Possible, The National Interest, July-August 2014. “Economic fears does not brake on war”
5 John J. Mearsheimer, Can China Rise Peacefully?
6 Alain Frachon, Moscou, Pékinetleurspetitsvoisins, Le Monde, 16-5-2014. MoscouetPékin, même combat, Le Monde 22-5-2014. C’estune histoire du monde multipolaired’aujourd’hui”. Robert Cohen, China’s Monroe Doctrine, New York Times, 8-5-2014.
7 Charles Glaiser, Will China’s Rise Lead to War?, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2011.
8 James B. Steinberg and Michael O’Hanlon, Keep Hope Alive.How to Prevent US-Chinese Relations from Blowing Up, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2014.
9 Zheng Wang, Never Forget National Humiliation, Columbia University Press/New York, 2012, Preface, XIII.
11 William A. Callahan, National Insecurities: Humiliation, Salvation, and Chinese Nationalism, Alternatives 29, 2004.
13 Ryan Kilpatrick, National Humiliation in China, 20-10-2011,http://www.e-ir.info/2011/national-humiliation-in-china/
16 Edward Luttwak, The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 09, 2014.
17 Bangkok Post, 30-6-2014,http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/417832/xi-demands-stronger-defenses
19 Allen Carlson, China’s Conflicted Olympic Moment, Current History, Vol 107, N° 701, September 2007
20 What Brzezinski said about Russia can also apply to China: “Russia can be a democratic or an imperial country, but can’t be both”. Ross Terrill, What does China Want?, Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2005.
