Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Real War between USA and China?

Print

China may defeat America in the economy war

This topic has been sticky by szh at 2010-12-15 14:23.

China may defeat America in the economy war


Mao Tse-tung and Nikita Khruschev


Khrushchev Could Not Bury U.S., China Just Might
Wars between major countries are no longer fought on the high seas, or on land with vast armies, but in board rooms and markets. It’s now economic warfare that threatens to alter the global landscape, enriching the winners and creating hardship for losers.


It’s no longer about which country has the largest navy or nuclear arsenal. It’s about which country can win the economic battles.


Someone needs to inform Congress and the Federal Reserve, since they rarely mention China’s oncoming juggernaut.  Congress is currently in a contentious debate over the U.S. defense budget, making sure the country can handle the types of war that threatened in the 1980s. To cut spending on military hardware or increase it, to build more F-22 fighter planes and aircraft carriers, or spend more on unmanned drones and beefed-up ground forces.


While remaining by far the most powerful military presence in the world, the U.S. has not won many battles in the economic war of the last decade. The economic powerhouse has been China.
Over the last ten years China’s economy has surged past those of Canada, Spain, Brazil, Italy, France, Germany, and this year passed Japan, to become the second largest economy in the world.


China’s economy still trails the U.S. economy, but is closing fast. The International Monetary Fund and the CIA’s World Factbook, seem to agree that of the world’s total annual Gross Domestic Product of $70.1 trillion, the U.S. accounts for $14.2 trillion, and China about $9 trillion.


However, China’s annual GDP has grown 800% from just $1.1 trillion in the year 2000, while the U.S. economy has grown 60% from its level of $8.7 trillion in 2000. So current estimates that China cannot overtake the U.S. to become the world’s largest economic power until at least 2020 may be wishful thinking, particularly given the diverging paths of late between the two economies.


The U.S. economy came close to total collapse in 2008, and is still on life support provided by the most massive government rescue effort in history. Still worried more than a year after its Great Recession ended in June of last year, the U.S. government has just commenced another round of quantitative easing to try to lower interest rates even further, in an effort to make sure its economy doesn’t double-dip back into recession.


Meanwhile, China’s economy is so strong that its government has been raising interest rates and taking other aggressive steps to cool it off.


While the U.S. real estate industry is in a Depression with a capital D, China is concerned that its real estate industry is growing too fast and is also trying to slow it to a more sustainable pace.


While the U.S., already the world’s largest debtor nation, is forced to take on increasing debt by issuing large amounts of new treasury bonds to finance its stimulus efforts, China, which overtook Japan this year to become the world’s largest creditor nation, is the owner of much of that U.S. debt, holding an estimated $1.7 trillion of U.S. bonds and dollars.


Now it’s being estimated that 40% of the additional liquidity the Fed has begun pouring into the U.S. financial system will also wind up in China.


For example, as the Wall Street Journal reports, large U.S. chemical company Huntsman Corp. leapt at the chance to refinance $530 million of its long-term debt, which lowered its interest costs and pushed out repayment dates. The company said that will allow it to invest more in its business. But the Journal reports that the company’s biggest investment plans are for operations in the fast-growing economies of Asia.


Every day we read of major U.S. companies borrowing cheaply in the U.S., as intended by the stimulus efforts, but then free to invest that capital in China and other Asian nations. That may be good for their investors, but will produce jobs in China and other Asian nations, not in the U.S. Major U.S. banks and brokerage houses, are similarly using their rescued capital for impressive expansions into China.


There’s something wrong in that activity.


Meanwhile, China’s economic battle tactics are becoming more ominous. This year it began to attack the long-time position of the U.S. dollar as the standard currency in international trade, encouraging the use of its currency, the yuan, in trade settlements. While still a small portion of trade settlements, it has had some success, the use of the Chinese yuan in global settlements tripling in the third quarter of this year. China and Russia have also issued joint announcements that they will begin using their own currencies in bilateral trade between the two countries.


The U.S. doesn’t seem to even be aware it’s in a war, since guns are not firing. But it’s a war the U.S. will be the worse for if it loses.


Providing more liquidity for the U.S. economy only to allow corporations, banks, and investors to send 40% of it to China is the latest strange way to wage the economic war.


Forbes
14
2
TOP
It looks like China is milking the U.S. for its own benefit. Funny and interesting.
TOP

Delusion has its advantages

In 1960s , Europe was supposed to power ahead economically. In 1980s, it was the Japanese. In 2010s it is supposed to be the Chinese. And in the end, it is the US that comes out smiling, proving everyone wrong.
China can be the factory of the world but the ideas & innovation happens in US. It will remain relevant for along time.
TOP
Quote:
Original posted by brraghuram at 15-12-2010 02:11 AM
In 1960s , Europe was supposed to power ahead economically. In 1980s, it was the Japanese. In 2010s it is supposed to be the Chinese. And in the end, it is the US that comes out smiling, proving every ...
Ha! I absolutely don't believe that this time.
TOP

What is the Situation of China's Military Concerns?

Print

Is China's strategic aggression ill-timed?

This topic has been highlight by szh at 2010-12-15 09:43.

Is China's strategic aggression ill-timed?





By Air Cmde Arjun Subramaniam


Within the framework of China’s meteoric rise, analysts across the world have chronicled its recent strategic belligerence without taking a call on whether this aggressiveness is part of a well-thought out ‘coming of age’ strategy, or a premature and ill-timed display of coercive diplomacy. To understand Chinese strategic ambiguity, it is essential to dissect several recent events.


Whether it is ‘shadow boxing’ with India over Arunachal Pradesh (i.e. China's South Tibet area) and the Northern Areas of POK, the face-off with Japan near the Diaoyu islands, or the pronouncements on territorial waters in the South China Sea, China has gradually expanded its zone of core concerns beyond Taiwan. It has also indicated that it is ready to question, if not yet confront the US over its presence in the Eastern Pacific and South China Sea. It is quite clear that China believes that it had successfully completed Phase I of its rise that dealt with creating domestic economic robustness, economic domination of global trade and expansion of economic influence across continents, and was ready for Phase II that called for demonstration of military and coercive capability. Phase III would then leverage the gains accrued from the earlier phases to create a global network of influence that could effectively challenge the US and push for a bipolar world in the coming decades.


Has Phase II been ill-timed? The Chinese are seldom known to take hasty strategic decisions, leading to a suspicion that the aggressive posturing in their immediate neighbourhood has more to do with internal compulsions than with any meaningful geostrategic ambitions. In this context, it would be naive to imagine that the PLA/PLAN/PLAAF have the immediate capability to militarily confront the US in the Pacific or for that matter, force a decisive result in any integrated campaign against India, Taiwan or Vietnam. The recent face-off between North and South Korea could challenge Chinese resolve should the US decide to engage in its own brand of ‘protective coercion’ in the region.


Three internal issues that are unfolding simultaneously in China merit attention. The first is the increasing clout and impatience of the PLA in determining the pace and texture of strategic events. Wide publicity was given earlier this year to the promotion of Mao’s grandson, Mao Zinyu to the rank of Major General. He is being showcased as the youngest General Officer and encouraged to discuss his ideas freely in blogs and other internet forums. 11 other PLA officers in their early fifties were promoted to the rank of General by President Hu Jintao, indicating that a younger PLA leadership was an imperative in these changing times. This also means that the CPC is willing to accept a more assertive and articulate military in the coming years. At the same time, it appears that the PLA is more comfortable with a Maoist legacy and wants to ensure that reformists are kept at bay within the PLA.  Meanwhile, it is also evident that acceptance by the PLA is essential for claiming the top spot in Chinese politics.


The next issue that is dictating Chinese assertiveness relate to schisms that have emerged within Chinese society. Whether it is the growing urban-rural divide, the growing gap between the rich and poor, growing unrest in China’s periphery or the lop-sided export driven economy, there are enough reasons for the Chinese government to want to deflect public attention to territorial issues that have the potential to whip up nationalism around perceived external threats.


The prognosis for India is lukewarm. China’s regional belligerence, leadership challenges over the next two years and internal schisms makes it impossible for India to let her guard down on both diplomatic and military fronts. While India’s military has to continue to build conventional capability to counter any kind of Chinese adventurism, her diplomacy has to be nimble enough to cope with continued Chinese strategic ambiguity. In the final analysis, it is opined that China has played its regional cards prematurely and runs the risk of being seen as an expansionist and revisionist power that seeks to upset global balance; a power that more countries would fear rather than respect.

2
2
TOP

Truth of America's Strategic Aggression

China's strategic aggression?  What strategic aggression?  Oh, you must mean America's strategic aggression that is clear and obvious to the world  except to US stooges and CIA bankrolled writers like Air Cmde Arjun Subramaniam.

China's military modernization is nothing but a response to US naked aggression in the first place.  There is not even a need for me to list the number of provocations, verbally, legally, economically, politically, and physically, by Washington against China.  

If there's anything to be learnt from the Wikileaks episode, it is as how Rupert Murdoch puts it as quoted by Julian Assange - "Between Secrecy and the Truth, the Truth will always and ultimately prevail".  So Mr A Subramaniam, cease and desist your spin and crap about "China's aggression".  You should replace that word with "America's startegic aggression" or "India's strategic aggression" instead.  Now, that would be truer.

TOP

Thursday, December 9, 2010

You keep picking our flowers!!!


 

U.S.-China Tensions Intensify Over Korean Crisis

December 10, 2010
Audio for this story from Morning Edition will be available at approx. 9:00 a.m. ET
 
South Korean Gen. Han Min-koo looks at houses destroyed by North Korean shelling on Yeonpyeong Island.
Kim Ju-sung/AP/Yonhap South Korean Gen. Han Min-koo looks at houses destroyed by North Korea's Nov. 23 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island. Two weeks after the attack, the rivals are still trading threats, while tensions are also rising between South Korea's ally, the U.S., and China, an ally of North Korea.
text size A A A
December 10, 2010
After two weeks of prodding by the U.S., China has sent a top envoy to North Korea to help defuse the growing crisis on the Korean peninsula. Washington has been watching with growing alarm as North Korea has taken a series of provocative actions, and has been pushing Beijing to try to rein in Pyongyang.
North Korea has been blamed for the sinking of a South Korean warship in March that killed 46 sailors. Last month, Pyongyang announced it had a uranium enrichment program. And, just before Thanksgiving, North Korea launched an artillery barrage on a South Korean island, killing four people, including two civilians.
David Schambaugh, director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University, says the incidents have heightened tension on the Korean peninsula and eroded relations between the U.S. and North Korea's traditional ally, China.
"It's an extremely serious situation and in the context of U.S.-China relations only adds further friction and tensions to an already stressful relationship," Schambaugh says.
After each incident, Washington has pressed China to intervene, but with little success. Schambaugh says there has been growing mistrust between Beijing and Washington for more than a year over a series of issues, such as human rights and currency manipulation, and the United States' good relations with Taiwan.
South Korean veterans burn a banner showing photos of North Korean leaders.
Ahn Young-joon/AP South Korean veterans burn a banner showing photos of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (center), his late father, Kim Il Sung (left), and his youngest son and heir apparent, Kim Jong Un, during a rally Tuesday in Seoul denouncing North Korea's bombardment of Yeonpyeong.
Schambaugh says when the U.S. asks Beijing to restrain North Korea, "the Chinese sit on their hands and stick their head in the sand and do nothing." That, Schambaugh says, is irritating, to put it mildly.
U.S., China Clash Over How To Handle Crisis
Meanwhile, the situation on the Korean peninsula has grown more serious after last month's attack. After the incident, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea and staged naval exercises in the region. South Korea has vowed to retaliate the next time it is attacked from the North.
The U.S., South Korea and Japan have created a united front. And as the days wear on, Beijing and Washington are exchanging barbed statements about how to handle North Korea.
Kenneth Lieberthal, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says both sides want to defuse the Korean crisis; they just go about it in different ways. "The United States and South Korea believe that you have to deter North Korea, to demonstrate to North Korea that we are prepared to take very tough actions, military actions," he says. "To Beijing, the way to calm things down is to engage in talks, not challenge North Korea, try to just tamp it down."
Michael Green, an Asia adviser in George W. Bush's White House, says China has real fears about North Korea collapsing.
Now a senior Asia adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Green says Beijing has a legitimate worry about instability leading to a massive influx of refugees into China and destabilizing its own domestic situation.
"They also, I think, at a strategic level, have no stomach for ... unification under the South, which would put a democratic, unified nation of 75 million, aligned with the United States, right on their border," he says.
Chances Of Escalation Very Real
China has been encouraging the resumption of six-party talks involving North Korea and regional powers. But U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg says Washington sees that as simply a reward for bad behavior.
"What we've seen in the past [is] that talks for the sake of talks do not produce the kind of results that we need to see to move the Korean peninsula in a more stable and peaceful direction," he says.
Steinberg will lead an American delegation to China next week to talk with officials there about North Korea. A top Chinese envoy and North Korea's ailing leader, Kim Jong Il, met Wednesday to discuss the situation on the Korean peninsula. The talks were described as candid and in-depth.
The Brookings Institution's Lieberthal says there is no doubt that Beijing has been telling Pyongyang to stop engaging in provocations. But Lieberthal says that's no guarantee North Korea will listen.
"Pyongyang has a habit of not listening to advice if they feel pressured by China or in the past by the United States," he says. "As often as not, North Korea's response to pressure is to do the opposite of what you're asking and to escalate."
Lieberthal says the chances of escalation on the Korean peninsula are very real, in part, because Kim Jong Il is trying to arrange for his youngest son to succeed him. The younger Kim will have to show he is tough enough to take over the reins from his father.

For whatever it is worth


A Smoke Break at the Nuclear Command


We multitask chop, grill, wok, and pickle.
They are fickle, can come all hours, drunk,
after sex, before meetings, during greetings;
hucksters, gangsters, no telling who wants what
stir-fried, steamed rock cod with its head and bulbous eyes.

My father at the meat block hacks spareribs, carves bone from chicken,
mince onions, six sons chow the mein, French-fry the sausage,
whip the gravy, beat the eggs until you can fool the young
into thinking that’s sperm yanked from a calf.
Smoke signals say the pork chops are burnt,
the white sauce turning yellow and the waitresses ladle the soup.
Sounds like feeding at the zoo. Chopsticks tingle from a corner booth.

On and on motors start and stop, door open and shut, ice water
set down as menus are tossed. You need a minute? Mom is helping the girls to wash
glasses and tea pots. It would be sinful to run out of hot mustard during the rush.
My father drinks my coffee and I smoke his Marlboro,
Two cowboys in cattle drive fending off rustlers, and damn!
The waitress says that the women’s toilet has overflowed!

We are going to go fishing as soon as our mental breakdowns are over with.
And we are going to take a smoke break from the nuclear command.
Just then a party of 12 comes in – well, put two tables together,
like a man joining a woman, the yin and yang, and kids with yo-yo’s.
We are family doing family business, money for school books,
Mom’s dentures.



Koon Woon
Circa 2006

First line of defense

Missiles, Pillar of China’s military modernisation

Missiles have been a pillar of China’s military modernisation. After awesome demonstrations of American firepower, in Operation Desert Storm in the first Gulf war, and then in 1996, when the United States sailed two carrier strike groups close to Taiwan to deter Chinese aggression, China felt that it could no longer depend on sheer manpower for its defence. So it has invested heavily in the strength and technical sophistication of its missiles.





The Pentagon has described China’s programme as “the most active land-based ballistic- and cruise-missile programme in the world”. Missiles are good value. Compared with a fully equipped aircraft-carrier, which might cost $15 billion-20 billion, a missile costs about $1m. And missiles can be potent.




The chart shows how, in terms of numbers, China has concentrated on short- and medium-range missiles. This puts Taiwan within easy range of a devastating cruise- and ballistic-missile attack. Military analysts fear that the Second Artillery could retarget the missiles, putting Japan at risk, as well as America’s Asian bases. China also has a few intercontinental ballistic missiles, able to carry a nuclear payload.




And American strategists are closely watching an experimental anti-ship ballistic missile with a manoeuvrable warhead, which could make it hard for American fleets to approach the Chinese shore. China recently hinted that it may be ready to cut the number of missiles targeting Taiwan. Whether this comes to anything will depend upon relations with the island—and they can be highly unpredictable.







From The Economist

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

My limited understanding


Top of Form

Send Email to Author   Koon Woon
4 Mar 09    6:36 AM MST
What is my definition of feminism? Coming from a patriarchal society like I do from China, with women having their feet bound and walking several paces behind their men, the idea that men and woman should be equal is shocking. Or should be shocking to me. But I am not shocked by this, because the Communists that came to power the year I was born in 1949, tried to "overthrow" the archaic thinking about the sexes as they did the foreign powers and the corrupt Nationalist Chinese government. As I get glimpses of Chinese society through contacts from friends and relatives who have arrived recently from China, I know that they have not succeeded or that progress is slow, because things like infanticide of female babies is still practiced in some rural families and Chinese women in rural areas have the highest suicide rate in the world.

Because of the fact that I was raised by my grandmother and an older adopted sister in the village in China, my attitude towards women is best summed up by the Nobel Czech poet Jaroslav Seifert who said, "Women do us the least harm."

And having been a life-long student of the Tao Te Ching, I would say that yin and yang are complementary, and that the soft yields to overcome the hard. The Tao also says that the named is not the eternal name. Therefore, the notion of "feminism" is merely a name given to a phenomenon that is forever changing and eludes description. Women have been the object of worship as well as been treated as cattle in the history of the world in its various locations. I am not trying to wiggle out of taking a stance here. I am saying that giving something a name does not finish describing or understanding it.

I could say I am "a liberated male" because of my past treatments as some Other in the American scheme of things and so I feel solidarity with any and all oppressed people anywhere. But what have I done about it? Isn't the proof in the pudding?

There are women doctors in the US and women crane operators in China. The struggle is everywhere. I believe in the saying that injury to one is injury to all.

I can envision all kinds of ways in a science fiction manner where men may be unnecessary in the future. Women can clone themselves using their own eggs and a somatic cell of their own. So, I believe that this "complicity" that de Beauvoir talks about that the relationship of men to women is different from other exploitive relationships such as the Master/Slave relationship can be superfluous in the scientific future. And so the question is: should we choose it?

Now equality, what is that? Can an orange and an apple be equal? They are not equal in the sense that they are identical but perhaps they are equal in the sense they are in the same category as fruits. This way of looking at a more general category I realize that the family system probably have more to do with property relationships that arose out of agriculture more than anything else. In any case, I would try to look beyond the artificial differences, regardless of complicity or whatever to perpetuate this phenomenon, and try to come to an underlying common cause, fully realizing that what has been and what is now need not be the case in the future.

I have the sense of being evasive here. So, I will just give my own experiences as justification. I have evolved a sense of esthetics in my poetry using a woman as a model and how a particular woman of flesh and blood and breath gave rise to a theory of beauty of the world. It was different from the classical art forms of the ancient Greeks or the Renaissance Italy. It did not idealize. It was probably my Chinese practicality mixed with a certain Western notion of adulation of women. It was as though I was naming the world for myself and at the same time admonishing myself not to love the names I had given to the things in the world. I tried to love the things in themselves. However, this does not justify inequality or injustice (for these two ideas go hand in hand).

I know the world has a long ways to go before it satisfies my own ideas of equality, justice, and beauty. Yet, I try not to take myself seriously, as the Tao Te Ching advises, “A vessel must empty of itself to be of use."
Respond iconRespond
Bottom of Form