The Elephant in the Room.

[arsenal]

Back in January of this year a rather prophetic Fancois wrote:

"Haven't you heard of Donald Trump? The Germans elected HItler and the Americans could just as easy elect someone like Donald Trump just as dangerous as Hitler in his own demented way."

Well they did and he is. Nothing to do with Thailand I hear some of you say. Well think on. China is replacing (has already replaced in many areas) America as the dominant power in world politics and it's unlikely that The US will exit stage right without a fight. That is likely to be in Asia and that will certainly involve Thailand.

[cdnmatt]

In what ways exactly? The US is still the strongest economy and military in the world.

Especially militarily.... China is nowhere even close to the US on a military level. For sake of comparison, it's like the US is already exploring other galaxies and solar systems, while China just reached the moon.

Obviously, this is all assuming Trump doesn't plummet the US into a 3rd world shithole during his term, which it sounds like are his intentions.

[Steve1903]

What happened to the elephant?

[fountainhall]

The US is still the strongest economy and military in the world.

Especially militarily.... China is nowhere even close to the US on a military level. For sake of comparison, it's like the US is already exploring other galaxies and solar systems, while China just reached the moon.
For your Christmas present, do yourself a favour and buy two books. "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy was written about 30 years ago but remains totally relevant today. Just as the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, British and other empires collapsed because their military might overreached their ability to create the wealth to finance them, so will the empire of the United States. It's a given.

Secondly, "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Peter Frankopian written last year to ecstatic reviews. Frankopian paints a stunningly fascinating picture of a world returning to its natural centre. Two quotes -


“For centuries before the early modern era, the intellectual centres of excellence of the world, the Oxfords and Cambridges, the Harvards and Yales, were not located in Europe or the west, but in Baghdad and Balkh, Bukhara and Samarkand”

“We are witnessing . . . the birthing pains of a region that once dominated the intellectual, cultural and economic landscape and which is now re-emerging. We are seeing the signs of the world’s centre of gravity shifting – back to where it lay for millennia”.
As one amazon reviewer writes, "The short term approach of the USA in contrast with the long term view of China is just one of the blatantly obvious worries highlighted. An incredibly timely book."

[arsenal]

Matt: China is the biggest trading partner with most of Asia now. China will spend over $300 billion on tourism alone every year. This is a new type of empire and imperialism. One where control is exercised not through a huge big fuck off Aircraft carrier but with a diplomat threatening to close the cheque book. But, hey...believe what you want to. A few years ago every American I met took the same view as you but today their opinion has palpably shifted to a grudging acceptance. Did you not notice how quickly some of the United States staunchest allies joined the new world bank set up and controlled by China? Did you not notice how The Philippines switched sides virtually overnight? I could go on

[latintopxxx]

...havent u guys realised it that the whole world are whores....they follow the cash....all gogo/MB....but i can certainly guarantee u that the moment China over reaches by seriously bullying a close neighbour... Im absolutely positively sure that that neighbour will come wimpering at Trumps door...I can only hope that its the Philippines so that Trump can give them the middle finger....by twitter naturally....last thing we need is some limp wristed jimmy carter

[cdnmatt]

fountainhall, good point on the crumbling empires, and that could very easily happen, Playing devil's advicate, one could also argue the main difference between then and now is due to technology,, the world is a much smaller place than it used to be. The US military currently monitors every square inch of this world, and can strike by air or land anywhere on the globe within hours.

I know you'll probably bring up the defeciet, but first, the USD is the global reserve currency. There's been several attempts to knock it from its poisition over the past couple decades, none of which were remotely successful. Second, this world needs a #1 super power to lead the way on global issues (ie. climate change), set precedent, set the tone for a moral compass across the globe, and so on. Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, the US is in that position, and most in the world look to the US for that level of global leadership, and there is nobody else to fill the void if the US crumbles. I'm not very happy with who the next President is, but I am happy the US is in the position it is. For those who aren't, that song "you don't know what you got until it's gone" rings a bell.

Then you're implying the intellectual centers of the world are moving back to places like Baghdad? Ummmm... have you read the news any time in the past 14 years? I don't think Baghdad is going to become a mecca for intellectuals anytime soon.

arsenal, US GDP is $16.77 trillion, while China's is $9.24 trillion. US annual military spending is about $598 billion, whereas China is about $146 billion.

In other words, you can put the "China #1" foamy finger away.

[arsenal]

Matt wrote:
"US GDP is $16.77 trillion, while China's is $9.24 trillion. US annual military spending is about $598 billion, whereas China is about $146 billion."

Did you actually read what I wrote? Did you actually understand it? Clearly not. Nor what Fountainhall posted either for that matter. And if you want to play the numbers game.
US debt: $19,643,000,000,000
China debt: $1,680,000,000,000

[cdnmatt]

Well, if you want to change the definition and metrics of what is and isn't considered a world super power to fit your own biases, then go for it. Doesn't make you right, nor does it change the facts or the reality of the world we live in.

[arsenal]

Matt: It is you who isn't facing the new reality of the world we live in. Under Clinton if China had decided to build a military base in the middle of international waters he would have sent a Nimitz or two and put a stop to it. Today it's all but finished and ready for action. Besides any new conflict is likely to involve cyber attacks as much as tanks and squaddies and in that respect China has 2'000'000 people on the payroll.

Plus, America has always linked investment and trading privileges to democracy while China isn't interested in that and will happily do business with the most brutal dictator. Therefore for most countries and their Presidents China is the better option. But hey...leave that head in the sand if you choose to.

[cdnmatt]

No, it's you who due to living in China for so long has decided to become a cheerleader for them, and is currently wearing rose tinted glasses because he wants to live in da #1 country in da world!!!!

So are you still sticking with what you basically said in the OP? China is now the world's #1 syper power, and will begin causing turmoil in SE Asia, including in Thailand?

Is that what you're still going with?

[arsenal]

Matt wrote:
"No, it's you who due to living in China for so long has decided to become a cheerleader for them, and is currently wearing rose tinted glasses because he wants to live in da #1 country in da world!!!!"
If you say so dear.

While also writing:
"So are you still sticking with what you basically said in the OP? China is now the world's #1 syper power, and will begin causing turmoil in SE Asia, including in Thailand?

Is that what you're still going with?"

I wrote:
"Did you actually read what I wrote? Did you actually understand it?"
Yes. I am certainly still going with that.

[cdnmatt]

Why would China cause any further turmoil in Thailand? If you haven't noticed, in various ways they already own the place. Ever notice those people disappearing off the streets of Bangkok, only to later reappear in a Chinese prison giving a confession?

n

[arsenal]

Matt wrote:
"Why would China cause any further turmoil in Thailand? If you haven't noticed, in various ways they already own the place. Ever notice those people disappearing off the streets of Bangkok, only to later reappear in a Chinese prison giving a confession?"

That is exactly my point. Didn't need any military stuff for that now did they. And it's not just Thailand...it's a whole load of countries with loads more to follow. Look at the warning they gave Vietnam recently. It was gentle but very clear.

[fountainhall]

fountainhall, good point on the crumbling empires, and that could very easily happen, Playing devil's advicate, one could also argue the main difference between then and now is due to technology
But isn't that true of every great power - and the reason for every great power's decline? The British were way ahead in the technology stakes. Then it got bogged down in too extensive an empire and too many wars it could not pay for. Result - end of empire! The US is ahead for now - but I stress "for now". Technological innovation in China is progressing massively - which is why American companies are investing heavily in Chinese technology companies.


this world needs a #1 super power to lead the way on global issues (ie. climate change)
Why? If you think the USA is going to do something major about climate change in a Trump administration, what planet are you living on? China and India are on course to do more. Besides, the world has lived under a multi-polar system before and, like it or not, we already live in a multi-polar world. Can anyone seriously believe that the USA under George Bush and Barack Obama has left the world in a better place than before? Tell that to the people of Iraq and Syria and other parts of the Middle East! And as for moral compass, I'll leave that to others, but it is nothing but ultra right-wing Christian BS!


Then you're implying the intellectual centers of the world are moving back to places like Baghdad?
You make a totally silly, childish inference from an absolutely true statement. 1,250 years ago Baghdad was a landmark for civilisation and a major centre of learning at a time when Europe was adrift in the Dark Ages and America living under the tribes that recent generations of Americans all but wiped out - all in the name of civilisation (Christian civilisation)! Whilst we're at it, the capital of the Khmer Empire at Angkor was a more beautiful and advanced city than any in Europe 900 or so years ago.


China is now the world's #1 syper power, and will begin causing turmoil in SE Asia, including in Thailand?
China has matured from an undeveloped peasant society to the second wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet in less than 40 years. And what has the USA done in that time? Crumbled, riven with dissent, a Congress that gets little done because the parties are constantly at war with each other - except when it wants to start a series of wars that it has been waging at humungous expense for 14 years.

China wants to regain its place in the world - and it will get it. It does not need to spend on massive overseas military wars. Throughout history the country has virtually only done that to protect its own borders. Whatever problems it is now facing economically are domestic in nature. It has massive financial reserves and is using them to assure its future development and its place in history. The Trump and future administrations will tinker with China at their peril.

[arsenal]

Anyone who genuinely fails to understand what is happening is one, not using the same media as I am (BBC...The Guardian...Sky...etc and two, in for a right shock. As Donald Trump said himself. "China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters." Do you get it now Matt? Or are you just being obtuse for it's own sake?

[fountainhall]

this world needs a #1 super power to lead the way . . . set precedent, set the tone for a moral compass across the globe, and so on. Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, the US is in that position. . .
That is one humungous misinterpretation of recent history!

Which country in 1953 was it who helped kick out the democratically elected champion of Iranian democracy Mohammed Mosaddegh and put all its weight behind the Shah? The USA and its CIA in Operation Ajax. Which country pulled out all the stops to prop up the Shah until its people finally rebelled and invited the Ayatollah Khomeini to return? The USA and its CIA. Which country is therefore responsible for that country following a strict theocratic rule that has resulted (almost) in its developing nuclear weapons? The USA.

Which country then removed Iraq from its list of countries "supporting terrorism" and sided with Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, providing him with a huge arsenal of weapons including poisons and pesticides that would be used to create chemical and other deadly gases - weapons which were eventually to be used against its own peoples? The USA and its CIA.

Which country armed the Taliban and made it into a highly effective fighting force, enabling it to recruit radical Islamists from various parts of the world - including one Osama Bin Laden? The USA and its CIA after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1980. So strong did the Taliban become they eventually took over the country after the Russians withdrew.

And which country then turned a full 180 degrees? The USA invaded Iraq, murdered hundreds of thousands of its citizens and so destabled the Sunni/Shia divide the country is now a shell. Which country then invaded Afghanistan? The incoming President of which country is now planning to undo all the work of recent years to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

To that list you can add East Timor, West Pakistan, Chile, Syria and goodness knows how many other countries where the "moral compass" you extol was so desperately out of whack to the extent that countless millions were needlessly murdered.

[Marsilius]

For your Christmas present, do yourself a favour and buy two books... Secondly, "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Peter Frankopian written last year to ecstatic reviews. Frankopian paints a stunningly fascinating picture of a world returning to its natural centre...

Just in case anyone enjoying this lively thread is tempted to order it, the excellent The silk roads is actually written by Peter Frankopan (with no letter "i").

[christianpfc]

Second, this world needs a #1 super power to lead the way on global issues (ie. climate change), set precedent, set the tone for a moral compass across the globe, and so on. Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, the US is in that position, and most in the world look to the US for that level of global leadership...

Maybe after reading this again, you will realize what utter bullshit you wrote? The US as moral compass, I'm close to tears reading such ignorance of history of the last 200 years (starting with the almost eradication of native inhabitants, nowadays romanticized as "Wild West", what was in fact a genocide). Fountainhall gave more recent examples.

You posted such nonsense before, I clearly remember but won't search for it now, as this might just be trolling.

[arsenal]

Matt: A small country of no importance and one until 5 minutes ago I confess I hadn't heard of. But still.......

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38388181

[cdnmatt]

Ummm, so??? There is not a single metric out there that shows China as the world's current super power. Nor is there any idication whatsoever that Chhina is going to start rolling through Thailand and causing turmoil, so no idea what the point of your OP was.

Again, feel free to change definitions or metrics to fit your biases, and feel free to live in a world of assumptions and future predictions. That doesn't change the reality of the world.

[Moses]

the reality of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

[a447]

I think the Chinese government is shit scared the USA will ferment trouble among the masses and potentially lead to mass demonstrations - a Chinese version of the Arab Spring.

Although we see a prosperous, bustling China which is now flexing it's muscles in the South China Sea, we can not forget that over a billion Chinese still live in abject poverty and are ripe for exploitation. They have seen the hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens who have been shunted into the middle class and are now awaiting their turn. But how long are they willing to wait?

And the more prosperous people become, the more educated they are about the outside world. So the middle class are now speaking out and seem interested in political reform.

The USA would have worked out by now how to set the spark and would have warned the Chinese not to cross the line.

[Moses]

I think the Chinese government is shit scared the USA will ferment trouble among the masses and potentially lead to mass demonstrations - a Chinese version of the Arab Spring.

Although we see a prosperous, bustling China which is now flexing it's muscles in the South China Sea, we can not forget that over a billion Chinese still live in abject poverty and are ripe for exploitation. They have seen the hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens who have been shunted into the middle class and are now awaiting their turn. But how long are they willing to wait?

And the more prosperous people become, the more educated they are about the outside world. So the middle class are now speaking out and seem interested in political reform.

The USA would have worked out by now how to set the spark and would have warned the Chinese not to cross the line.

most funny proof of presumption... esp. about poverty... as per CIA in China 6.1% are living below national poverty line... in USA 15.1%

[arsenal]

The untapped revenue available to the Chinese government is colossal. One example. A 10 rmb (about $1.40) fine for every motorist and e-bike rider who breaks the road rules. That's about $3billion per day or 1095 $billion per year. Get it or don't get it Matt. It's up to you.

And a447. You are right about the government being shit scared but it's not of America because with all due respect it's only a seriously insular person who can't see what is obvious. They are however scared of their own people as history shows that as the middle classes grow so does social discontent and demands for greater freedom and democracy. Hence the brutal crackdown on human rights lawyers.

[a447]

They are however scared of their own people as history shows that as the middle classes grow so does social discontent and demands for greater freedom and democracy.

Yes and I think America, or maybe Taiwan, will take advantage of that discontent and start stirring the pot.

But it's not just poverty or demands for more freedom that cause discontent. How long will people be willing to put up with horrendous air pollution, for example?

[arsenal]

The air pollution is indeed horrendous and people do gripe about it on social media as it's one of the things the government doesn't really censor. However most people do realise that China came late to the party and are basically having an industrial revolution so the pollution is a by-product of that. Clean energy is one of the areas that I think China will take the lead in and produce new and sustainable sources of energy that will benefit everyone over the next 20-30 years. Along with food production and mass transport. In fact my belief is that due to China we are now entering the second age of the railway.

[MiniMee]

The untapped revenue available to the Chinese government is colossal. One example. A 10 rmb (about $1.40) fine for every motorist and e-bike rider who breaks the road rules. That's about $3billion per day or 1095 $billion per year. Get it or don't get it Matt. It's up to you You would only generate $30bn if you could collect $1.4 from 21.4bn people. That's a lot of felons to apprehend and you would only hit your target of $1095bn if you did that each and everyday of the year. Think of the cost of the manpower and administrative infrastructure you would need for such an operation. And even if there were so many offenders, they would soon learn to follow the rules, or find a way to avoid being caught, and then your investment would fail to yield any return! Yours is not a get-rich-quick scheme that I would subscribe to and I doubt Matt or anyone else would either.

[Moses]

or maybe Taiwan

Today news: Taiwan lost one more country which recognizes it as a sovereign state just today... Now only 21... +1 in favor of China

[arsenal]

Minimee: It was a for instance. I calculated that each motorist could be caught twice a day and fined accordingly. In fact most drivers and e-bike riders could be fined a few times every kilometer such is the recklessness of their driving. But the fines for parking, speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road at 40 miles an hour could be much higher along with an incremental increase for a more expensive car. It wasn't an economists economic prediction. And you're wrong about manpower. China does have the manpower and even low paying jobs within the government structure are some of the most sought after. There are cameras as well although not as many as in The UK. But that was just one example I gave. There are hundreds more small charges the government can make on everything from airline tickets to items brought back from abroad by tourists.

[fountainhall]

we can not forget that over a billion Chinese still live in abject poverty and are ripe for exploitation
What a load of bollocks! Where on earth do you get that convoluted and frankly idiotic idea? The suggestion that there are 1 billion below the poverty line in China is nuts! China lifted 500 million out of poverty between 1981 and 2012 - and those are figures from the World Bank. The same organisation states that in the same time period of 31 years the poverty rate dropped from 88% to 6.8%. (And yes, figures do vary depending on who collates them, but the World Bank has little bias).

The official figure is that 82 million now live below the poverty line, although once international standards are applied, that figure could certainly be almost as high as 200 million. That higher figure equates to 14.7% of the population.

And what of the USA? How many did it lift out of poverty during those same 31 years? According to the country's Census Bureau, the official rate of those below the poverty line is now 14.3%. And that poverty rate in the USA actually increased by more than 50% when China was lifting 500 million out of poverty!

As for the masses of new middle class Chinese consumers seeking political reform, there speaks someone who knows precious little about China. Yes, I agree China has several internal problems, but as arsenal points out these are more to do with their own people on their own borders and maintaining stability in a country that has known little but war and internal instability for more than 150 years.

The suggestion that the more Chinese travel and learn about the outside world, the more they will seek political reform is also highly questionable. Some will, I agree. But the majority will probably be glad they live in a more stable society than what they see in some other countries in the world! And whilst on the subject, what about wealth that was discussed earlier?

Foreign Exchange reserves are not a key indicator of a country’s wealth, but when you compare the figures you can see at a glance where Asia stands. 7 of the top 10 countries are in Asia with China at the top. Compare those reserves with those of the USA which ranks 19th in the world -

China - $3 trillion
USA - a mere $116 billion.

Surely odd that the USA has less than one half of Singapore’s reserves and less than one third of those of Hong Kong! And lest we forget, the USA has a national debt of $19.19 trillion. And you think the USA is in a position to further stretch its foreign activities with adventures unsettling China?

As for the suggestion that China is shit scared about whatever the USA will do, that is frankly laughable! China has a better grasp of how to deal with the USA than the USA has to deal with China. And if Trump and his cohorts try to destabilise China and tinker with internationally ratified agreements, he will soon discover that his obvious stick and carrot approach will not work!

[arsenal]

I agree with most of what Fountainhall says. I do think that as the middle class grows and with it their levels of non state run education and awareness of the outside world the desire for more of a say in how the country is run will grow. Historically this has been the case in most countries.

It gives me no pleasure to see the decline of the US. They have been the bedrock of a peaceful and prosperous west for over 60 years but it is clear that both China and Russia sense a weakness now that wasn't there before. Like it or not, this has happened on Obamas' watch but it would have happened eventually anyway. The costs of maintaining their borders of security both in Europe and Asia as well as the Middle East were always going to prove too high at some point. But the good news, for Americans at least is that as Empires dwindle the lot of the citizens tends to improve because the money can be spent at home rather than on military endeavors.

[fountainhall]

But the good news, for Americans at least is that as Empires dwindle the lot of the citizens tends to improve because the money can be spent at home rather than on military endeavors.
I'm not so sure that is historically fact. Usually when Empires decline, it is a steep decline that affects the majority of the population. That's because Empires normally have run up massive amounts of debt in trying to maintain their positions that they end up with austerity for decades if not centuries. And although democracy has taken firmer root in much of the world over the last 100 years, decline has often resulted in fertile ground for the rise of dictators.

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: Well it's difficult to quantify because empires don't come along that often and the information stretches back centuries into very different poltical times. However if you look at the most recent examples Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman, The British. The Japanese (short lived I grant you) and The Soviet Union it is clear that the general citizenry has it considerably better now than they did at the height of their empires powers. Once the empire no longer occupies the attention of those in power they have the time and resources to improve the lives of the everyday people.

[a447]

What a load of bollocks! Where on earth do you get that convoluted and frankly idiotic idea

Fountainhall, ochitsuite kudasai!

I'm the first to admit I'm no China expert and rely totally on what is reported in the media - and there have been countless documentaries and news items over the past few years which give us a good idea of what is happening in China. So that's where I got the 'idiotic " idea from.

To completely understand the situation there, first of all you need to speak the language and talk to locals living outside the big cities. That I can't do.

Everyone talks about the poverty line but that seems to be a Western concept. I never mentioned it; I said they live in abject poverty and that is different. It does not relate to any Western standard.

Go talk to the people living in the villages far away from the bright lights of Beijing and Shanghai and ask them what they think of the "poverty line." Ask the millions of young people who have abandoned their villages and headed for the big cities whether or not they felt they were not poor compared to their cousins living it up in Beijing.

And as for the amount of foreign reserves, that seems in some way to be irrelevant as the Chinese have many more mouths to feed compared to the USA. Their reserves have to stretch a lot further.


As for the masses of new middle class Chinese consumers seeking political reform, there speaks someone who knows precious little about China

Wellman I was actually looking at the situation in Hong Kong.


But the majority will probably be glad they live in a more stable society...

Again, I was looking at what's happening in Hong Kong. Maybe they don't make up the majority but they are certainly making their voices heard. Why do you think that is the case? And why could that potentially never happen in mainland China?

But as I said, I'm maybe not up to speed with the current situation in China but am always willing to learn.

[a447]

As for the suggestion that China is shit scared about whatever the USA will do, that is frankly laughable!

So you don't think China is worried about internal dissent? That they are not at all worried about the Uighers, for example? You don't think the USA is aware of their concerns and their constant need to control the masses? You don't think the USA could, and would, take advantage of that situation?

I think that is a "laughable " and rather naive position to take.

[fountainhall]

I'm the first to admit I'm no China expert and rely totally on what is reported in the media - and there have been countless documentaries and news items over the past few years which give us a good idea of what is happening in China. So that's where I got the 'idiotic " idea from.

To completely understand the situation there, first of all you need to speak the language and talk to locals living outside the big cities. That I can't do.
There is a lot of misperception written and aired about China. My understanding is based on 20 years living in Hong Kong and returning regularly for 16 years thereafter because I run a small business there. My Mandarin Chinese is no more effective than my simple Japanese and so speaking to those in the countryside who do not communicate in any other way is not possible.

But I have many Chinese friends from a wide variety of backgrounds - including a couple consigned to the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, a couple of westerners (one who has recently celebrated a 23-year relationship with his mainland Chinese boyfriend) who speak fluent Mandarin and have lived there for 26 and 11 years respectively. One is a senior school teacher in a relatively small city virtually in the middle of nowhere! And over 36 years I have travelled relatively extensively within the country - outside Beijing and Shanghai.

As for "abject poverty", if the World Bank states that the percentage of those living below the poverty line is virtually the same in China as in the USA, how can you determine that one country's peoples live in "abject" poverty whilst the other live in "just" poverty. It makes no sense! And how do you explain that poverty rates in one country, the USA, are rising and in the other, China falling?

As for Hong Kong, what is going on there has about 0.0001% or less to do with what is going on in mainland China. An earlier thread in this forum (* see below) discussed the democracy movement in that city/territory. The reason is deeply historical, goes back to the fact that it was a British colony with one of the freest economies in the world, a British-style education system and a legal system almost totally based on British common law. Mainland China it was not! Unfortunately, it ended the colonial era with a deeply flawed experiment by a former failed UK politician, Christopher Patten, who unilaterally decided to break international treaties signed by the UK and China and registered with the United Nations and push through democratic reforms before the handover. He had no mandate to do so from the ruling colonial power (as far as I am aware). But having exploited every loophole in the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong's future and broken the agreement on the Basic Law, he so angered Beijing (rightly in my view) that Beijing cancelled the smooth through-train transition of power - something it was perfectly entitled to do and the British government did not want! Patten opened a Pandora's box that the British had deliberately decided to keep firmly closed for many, many decades. Had it remained closed with the mere token democracy that a former governor had introduced, the present confrontation just would not exist. Period!

Hong Kong is in a unique situation. Its population certainly does not "make up the majority"! In fact, that population amounts to just 0.0051% of China's total population. To suggest that what is going on there is indicative of what is happening with the rest of the 1,350 billion Chinese is - well - bollocks!

Whether we like it or not, Hong Kong is ruled by Beijing now, not London. And it is Beijing that calls the shots. The democracy movement has already taken several hits. Beijing will not permit it to continue and flourish - at least not for the next decade or so. And the main student leader of the protests 2 years ago has admitted quite openly that he believes realistically democracy will take many, many years to achieve.

Within mainland China, there are many problems and inequalities - not the least being the present transition from being an export led economy to a consumption led one. But one thing Beijing has made clear time after time. It will not be told what it must do!

Finally - and with respect - you have frequently complimented me on my understanding of the Japanese, despite the fact that I lived there for only two years (along with many dozens of visits). Why would my understanding of China be any less when I actually lived in what is now China and travelled far more extensively in the country for vastly longer?

* the relevant thread is http://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showthread.php?18230-1976-and-2016&highlight=patten

[fountainhall]

So you don't think China is worried about internal dissent? That they are not at all worried about the Uighers, for example? You don't think the USA is aware of their concerns and their constant need to control the masses? You don't think the USA could, and would, take advantage of that situation?

I think that is a "laughable " and rather naive position to take.
Look back at your history and geography! Of course Beijing is concerned about internal dissent - with the Uyghurs and Tibetans proving the most problematic. China fought several wars with both India and the Soviet Union over these very borders.

Xinjiang Province where most of the Uyghurs live now borders mostly Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan, but also Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan - and partly India, Mongolia and Russia. The Uyghurs are descended from Turkic peoples and not Han Chinese and there is certainly a definite Uyghur underground movement. But if the USA is going to "take advantage" of this independence movement, what is it going to do and how is it going to do it? Is it going to put CIA operatives into China to foment revolution from within? Is it going to infiltrate operatives from those countries bordering Xinjiang Province? How will those countries react when that becomes public (as it eventually will)?

The fact is that the USA is running out of options in the Asia-Pacific region. Its main allies have been Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Despite a strong right-wing movement in Japan, that relationship is unlikely to change. South Korea is going through major political changes and uncertainty with its President now being impeached. The Philippines is now led by a seemingly mad individual who has announced he is terminating one of the USA's longest-standing regional relationships in favour of one with Beijing. Who replaces The Philippines?

So the USA is running out of allies. It is at war in Afghanistan, has 40,000 troops in South Korea, around 40,000 in Japan, in March it announced five new planned military bases in the Philippines to monitor the South China Sea developments, bases that are now in serious doubt - and a rogue North Korea with missies and nuclear warheads that can reach US allies in the area. Frankly, the US absolutely needs its China relationship. China may not do exactly what the US wants, but if China were to become a foe rather than a friend, the US would be totally unable to meet its treaty obligations in the region!

I have often praised Kevin Rudd, the President of the Asia Society Policy Institute, former Prime Minister of Australia, fluent Mandarin speaker and lifelong China scholar. In a recent interview in The Diplomat, he said this -


The spirit of the American dream is well-known, the Chinese Dream has begun to emerge, and how China and the U.S. can work together to achieve a “Dream for All” would be of significant relevance for us all. How Beijing and Washington shape their future does not just affect those two countries. It affects all of us, in ways perhaps we have never thought of: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the fish we eat, the quality of our oceans, the languages we speak in the future, the jobs we have, the political systems we choose, and of course, the great question of war and peace.
How can we craft a basis for a common future between these two? I argue simply this: we can do it on the basis of a framework of constructive realism for a common purpose. Such a framework would allow the U.S. and China to be realistic about the things that they disagree on and keep those matters from sparking conflict or otherwise harming the relationship. Even though the U.S. and China cannot resolve all their differences in the short term, they can still be constructive in areas of the bilateral, regional, and global engagement. If they can do that, then they can realize “a dream for all humankind.”
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/interview-kevin-rudd-2/

[arsenal]

a447 wrote:
"So you don't think China is worried about internal dissent? That they are not at all worried about the Uighers, for example? You don't think the USA is aware of their concerns and their constant need to control the masses? You don't think the USA could, and would, take advantage of that situation?"

I have to agree with you on this. I think China is extremely worried about internal dissent because in my opinion there is no such thing as a universal Chinese nationality. This is a country of 56 diverse nations held together at the point of a gun. So I can fully understand the hard line the government takes because they know (as Fountainhall has pointed out) that it will be a return to the constant unrest and civil war of the last century if dissidents are allowed to go unchecked.

[a447]

Fountainhall, of course I bow to your superior knowledge of China but that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion.


how can you determine that one country's peoples live in "abject" poverty whilst the other live in "just" poverty. It makes no sense!

Westerners living in advanced democracies have a totally different view of what constitutes poverty. To many Chinese I'm sure the lifestyle of those Australians living in government housing estates and surviving on welfare would be very attractive. In Australia they are considered "poor." But they have a roof over their heads, full stomachs and free medical care.

If you find that hard to believe go and speak to the young couples working in the sweatshops making products they can not afford. Ask them how they feel about having to abandon their children in the village so they could find work in the city. There is an entire generation of children being brought up by their grandparents and so only see mum and dad one a year if they are lucky.

Poverty should not be solely defined by the possession of material goods.


And how do you explain that poverty rates in one country, the USA, are rising and in the other, China falling?

I'm not trying to explain that; I'm simply trying to see the situation through the eyes of those most affected. Quoting statistics to them would be a meaningless exercise. I mean, what are they going to say when you tell them some Western organisation they've never heard of has produced statistics which demonstrate they are living above the poverty line? Are they going to rejoice?

"What? You mean we are not living in poverty? Thank god for that. For a minute you had us worried!"

I think not.

[fountainhall]

Fountainhall, of course I bow to your superior knowledge of China but that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion.
Of course not - as I bow to your unquestioned greater knowledge of Japan but sometimes have different opinions!


Westerners living in advanced democracies have a totally different view of what constitutes poverty.
And that is surely perfectly natural. Poverty in an advanced economy can not be identical to poverty in underdeveloped and developing countries. The poor in the west expect and have accommodation that many in China would consider closer to luxury (even though the Chinese might look after it better!). But poverty is relative and international comparative rates as designed by organisations like the World Bank do take that into account.

But we have to remember also that poverty is relative to what existed in the relatively recent past. What the vast majority who live in the middle of China have now is a huge advance from the miserable existence they endured in Mao's collective farms less than 50 years ago.

You do hit on one issue China has to solve and which President Xi has already stated is a key priority - the quite new imbalance between incomes in the big, mostly coastal cities and the countryside - despite the many improvements already made in the countryside. Yes, lots of parents do leave to get a much better income and leave children to be looked after by grandparents. I think this is disgraceful, but I am not Chinese and I have not been brought up in the Chinese system of the extended family caring for each other. And of course some kids leave and are therefore unable to look after their ageing parents.

You also have to take into account another factor in the new China - the one child policy. There are no longer several children around to help on the farm or to send money back from their city workplaces. Chinese are facing a new reality and learning how to cope - whatever the problems.

Re sweatshops, I suggest you look more at places like Bangladesh than China. Sure China has its own bad factories and owners, but it has also improved conditions for vast numbers of workers - many working for Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other international companies who have had a say in the improving conditions for the workers. And you don't hear of many factory workers complaining about the wages they can now earn - again compared to what their parents were able to earn 30 or so years ago.

Lastly, I suggest you cannot compare countries like Australia, Britain and America which have developed their societies over hundreds of years. China effectively became a new country 40 years ago - as arsenal pointed out in another thread. Developments in society, laws, government etc. all take time. You just cannot expect all problems to be solved in 40 years!

As for not affording the goods they make, how often have you been to China and travelled around? You'll be surprised at the Haier white goods products in most homes and the Xaomi mobile phones "poor" people carry around. Both happen to be huge Chinese companies with major expansion in the rest of the world.

[a447]

Fountainhall, I've always appreciated your insightful comments on a vast array of topics over the years and will continue to do so.