As long as the White House and the Pentagon can get used to the idea of smaller Asian nations pushing us away enough to do business with China, the easier it will be to accept that we are still and will always be THE insurance policy against China's ambitions. The claims on northern Korea, the South China Sea, the rest of Mongolia and the Brahmaputra River as well as the damming of the Mekong River, PLA troops in Kashmir and PLA activity in Burma, Laos and Pakistan are more than enough to bring to a modern context thousands of years of past Chinese imperialism.

But we need to stand by our allies even when their gov'ts have to occasionally criticise the US on behalf of the anti-US and Chinese commie shill components of their population.

“Is China a military threat to the US?” Or, if you were a belligerent critic of American foreign policy such as Noam Chomsky, you might ask “Can China effectively counter US militarism?”

---
Professor Chomsky argues that it is possible for China to act as a countervailing force against US aggression and belligerence on a number of issues, including nuclear disarmament.

“[In] this respect, China has a pretty good record. Of all the nuclear-armed states, it has been the most restricted in the measures that it has taken and, in fact, it has led the way in trying to develop an international framework that would overcome the threat of nuclear weapons and the militarisation of space.”
---

Taken from Sunday’s South China Morning Post (March 18):

@David:

Is that factoring in China's handouts of NBC weapons? Iran, NK and Pakistan all have China's NBC technology. Lybia turned over its NBC material in order to get back into the globalization game...and that material (parts, blueprints and canisters of material) had chinese writing all over it.

What else you got?

I don't know what kind of brainwashing the Lamb Kabob there has been through, but his comments closely resemble those of the right-wing US hawks'. China's military strength is a mere fraction of that of the US, and coupled with the plethora of domestic problems such as corruption and an imbalanced economy, it will be centuries before China can even challenge the US militarily. Why do you think with all those rhetoric, China has yet to make one move on Taiwan? It's safe to say that Taiwan won't even be an issue today if they weren't a de facto protectorate of the US. And China knows better not to defy the US right now. All the China-threat talks are only used to justify further US military expansion and hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.

And more specifically:
-The claims on northern Korea--I have never heard of such claims;
-the rest of Mongolia--mainland China has long given up the sovereignty of Outer Mongolia; it is actually the Nationalists in Taiwan who still hold claim to it, and they constantly blame the "commies" in Mainland for losing it;
-the damming of the Mekong River--not unlike the US damming of the Colorado River, depriving its usage by Mexican nationals;
-PLA troops in Kashmir and PLA activity in Burma, Laos and Pakistan--I don't recall when was the last time the PLA was in these regions, but even so, they were in much smaller scale than the US military presence in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.;
-bring to a modern context thousands of years of past Chinese imperialism--the so-called Chinese imperialism is dwarfed by western imperialism.

@David

...says SCMP despite China's blowing a satellite out of the sky. Maybe the military acted on their own, as rumors have suggested, but somehow I find that even more disturbing than if Beijing ordered it.

And are these the same right-wing hawks who are determined to rename countries the way they see fit? Last I knew Libya was still Libya...

don't get drawn in. lamb kebab just looks for any opportunity to use his latest buzz word - commie shill. what else he got?

"China has yet to make one move on Taiwan?"
You mean like firing missiles at Taiwan in the late 90s?
And now there are over 900 missiles pointed at Taiwan?

"All the China-threat talks are only used to justify further US military expansion and hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region."

And Japan, Oz, Vietnam and India are completely blind and unable to make decisions for themselves?

"The claims on northern Korea--I have never heard of such claims"

Because you don't pay attention: link

"mainland China has long given up the sovereignty of Outer Mongolia"
Because the PLA got stomped by the USSR when they tried to invade in the late 60s. Inner Mongolia is as far as the PLA got before running into USSR defensive positions and around 400,000 PLA died.

"the damming of the Mekong River--not unlike the US damming of the Colorado River, depriving its usage by Mexican nationals;"

Except the US honors Mexico's water rights often to the detriment of US farmers and ranchers.

"PLA troops in Kashmir and PLA activity in Burma, Laos and Pakistan--I don't recall when was the last time the PLA was in these regions"

You really don't pay much attention do you George? They are there right now, and in the case of Kashmir, they've been there since the end of China's invasion of India.

"bring to a modern context thousands of years of past Chinese imperialism--the so-called Chinese imperialism is dwarfed by western imperialism."

China is the result of 3000 years of Chinese imperialism, and it is also why Asian nations still keep the US around while they trade with China.

George sounds like some Chamber of Commerce shill who sings the songs and flies the flag of whoever he is doing business with. He has forgotten who he is because he spends his time being whatever others want him to be.

PRC recognized Outer Mongolia on 6 Oct 1949.
link
It's the Nationalists that are still resentful that they lost Mongolia to USSR. The Sino-Soviet conflict in the 1960's occured along the Dongbei Heilongjiang (Manuchurian) border.

Like I said, Lamb Kebab, go get your facts straight before making attacks. And what's with the obsession with the word "shill"?

It's a matter of interpretation. However, Comrade Bowtie's Zhou quote is grievously out of date; the Zhou-Mao comedy duo have been dead for about 30 years. The newer generation of leaders are definitely not in a position to try for similar objectives, at least not in the next 20 years.

There is a great risk for 2008 of a Taiwanese flare-up. CSB is on his way out, and Taiwanese politics is highly polarized and political. He may decide to become a hero... And force America's hand. China also has a problem in that it's hosting the Olympics, it would be extremely unsightly for it to initiate a war. Hence a show of force might be desired; the sat buster test was rigged, and it's possible the Song to carrier operation was also staged.

Back about the original debate issue, quoting Tkacik:
"(The Taiwan) conundrum may resolve itself if/when Taiwan's “Blue” pro-China forces win legislative and presidential elections over the next year."
The "Blue" KMT was and is never "pro-China", if by China he was refering to mainland China (PRC). The KMT (Nationalists) never gave up their claim of rule of the whole China, including Outer Mongolia, Tibet, etc. People like Tkacik don't even know the most basics of the political and historical backgrounds of the region, but insist on meddling in matters don't even concern them.

Is China a military threat to the US?

The answer seems to be a resounding "Yo". Or perhaps "Nes".

Shan: Indeed. As Stephen Colbert pointed out, China is a frenemy of the United States.

"It's the Nationalists that are still resentful that they lost Mongolia to USSR. The Sino-Soviet conflict in the 1960's occured along the Dongbei Heilongjiang (Manuchurian) border."

Here is an article about the partition of Mongolia and declarations of independence. link

Now, in the late 1960s, both the USSR and the PRC had the bomb. The PRC wanted to take the rest of Mongolia, which was pro-Soviet. The Soviets wanted a buffer state so they sent troops to defend "outer" Mongolia. Almost 500,000 troops died, most of them PLA as the "human wave" tactic was consumed by Soviet machine guns and artillery on open plains. The US actually knew little about the conflict until word seeped out from the USSR about it. Now it is spoken of pretty much only in war colleges.

And you've got nothing regarding the rest of my posts. Now go sing "big china".

nanheyangrouchuan: Do you have a better link for that information? The article you've provided mentions the 'buffer zone' but that's pretty much the only thing it says about Mongolian-Soviet-PRC interaction.

Nanheyangrouchuan. Thank you. I'm certainly learning some history I never knew before. I want to learn more about this full-scale war in the late 1960s that no one else seems to know about. I have found one other reference to it - in the comments section over at Shanghaiist - but your description was tantalizingly brief on that occasion as well. Has anyone, anywhere written about this military catastrophe with a little more detail?

@George

"so-called Chinese imperialism"?

However, the Ram Kebab's point about China being the result of 4000 years of Chinese imperialism is more or less on point, however. But you could say the same thing for France and Spain, albeit you must multiply by .1.

I'm told Karl Popper decided that the test of a scientific statement was its falsifiability, that is, if certain conditions were met, the statement could be confirmed to be false. Marxism is thus supposed to be a pseudoscience as explanations are always provided when the prediction fails the reality. Tell me, under what conditions would the Mao-Zhou comedy team not be considered an insane and impossible-to-deal-with dictatorship, and what evidence would you like to be necessary to prove that China is not a threat to world peace?

@ Cat & Joel:

I've looked around alot for any mention of this big war. I learned about from a friend who went to the Army war college and it was only discussed by a guest speaker on the PLA, who also discussed what really happened in the Korean war.

The US had no idea that this conflict took place until well into the late 70s or early 80s. It was a big deal because both sides had nuclear tipped missiles and artillery.

A bowtie and he uses the word "anschluss." That's it for me.

so the only evidence of this big war that kebab has enlightened us on is what he heard from a friend of a friend. thank god for these 'guest speakers' who are ready to tell ignorant americans "what really went on".

wonderful stuff. for a while I thought this kebab character was being serious.

Five minutes on google produced the following excerpt, taken from a paper by Statement by Amb. J. Enkhsaikhan, Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations:

"In early post World War II years following the creation of the People’s Republic of China as its immediate neighbor, Mongolia found itself surrounded by two communist states, which raised the hope for harmony and all-round cooperation among the three of them. However, these hopes have been dashed with the subsequent Sino-Soviet split by the end of 1950s. The seemingly ideological split by mid-1960s grew into an overt inter-state Sino-Soviet hostility. Unable to be ‘neutral’ in the conflict, Mongolia again sided with the Soviet Union. Thus between the 1960s to the end of 1980s Mongolia fell victim of two prolonged and costly “cold wars”: East-West and Sino-Soviet.

In the East-West conflict, Mongolia firmly sided with the Soviets, including on the questions of international security, arms control and disarmament. In January of 1966 it signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union, according to Article 5 of which the latter pledged to assist Mongolia in case of an external attack. When the Sino-Soviet dispute acquired inter-state character by mid-1960s, the Soviet Union and China both had heavily fortified their common border. In 1967 the Soviet Union introduced its troops into Mongolia. Soon Mongolia’s two neighbors with numerically the strongest armies (China - 4.7 mil. and the Soviet Union - 2.9 mil.) were confronting each other, with the Soviet Union having up to 52 divisions stationed in its eastern border regions, including in Mongolia. In its turn, China deployed almost 1 mil. men in the adjacent military regions of Sinkiang, Lanchou, Peking and Shenyang. While the dispute grew tense, the Soviets perfected their nuclear arsenal, and China, having successfully tested its nuclear weapon in 1964, began developing various types of nuclear weapons, from tactical to strategic.

At the height of Sino-Soviet conflict in 1969, when the armed clashes occured along their border, Moscow had around 60-75.000 troops, including two tank and two motorized rifle divisions, plus unspecified air force units stationed in Mongolia. Some of the troops were equipped with intermediate range ballistic missiles with nuclear and chemical warheads."

(from http://www.un.int/mongolia/disarm3.htm)

If a Mongolian ambassador asserts that armed clashes between the CCCP and PRC occurred in 1969, it's probably reasonable to assume this happened. Now all that remains is to research the scale.

One point to the mutton kebab.

Perhaps, Du Yusa, but the text quoted refers to armed clashes only on the Sino-Soviet border; nothing in the link you've provided implies that Mongolia was involved as anything more than a Soviet staging area, and in fact the document speaks only hypothetically of battles involving Mongolia: "in case of a conflict, Mongolia would have surely been turned into a battlefield."

Ok, I quickly threw up a comment between tasks at work. I apologize for being too hasty.

I've now spent a lot more time on google searching in English, Chinese and Russian, and I haven't been able to find anything anywhere near the scale the south sea mutton kebab has mentioned. The highest casualty counts I've been able to find have been in the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands - and, as Joel rightly observed, none of these clashes is recorded as having occurred on Mongolian soil.

However, I did find a peculiar Russian article - translated from Chinese - about how PRC and Soviet soldiers used to try to humiliate each other in hand-to-hand skirmishes in 1968-69. It does say that the PRC sent waves of men to the Soviet border to get their butts beaten for Mao (I'm only slightly paraphrasing here), and that they decided to save face by then sending troops trained in wushu, ultimately armed with wooden sticks used like broadswords. One of these fights escalated into a shooting match, after a Russian officer who was a boxer had his hand broken by a stick and responded with his pistol. Numbers of casualties are not given, however.

This oddity is here: http://www.chelushu.narod.ru/ist4.html

That's my valuable contribution to this discussion. I am now going to go stick my head in a cangue.

The ultimate proof of Asia's fear of Chinese hegemony is evident by the actions of one country...Vietnam.

After that horrible mess of a war including millions of Vietnamese dead, the Vietnamese leadership, many of whom were VC fighting against the US, has been inviting the US Navy for port calls and training exercises as well as high level military and dipomatic exchanges. And of course many senior US military people served in Vietnam.

Imagine that. Now ask yourself why. Because Vietnam has 2000 years of history of being bullied and tormented by China. So does the rest of Asia.

I am so happy that Israel, at least, is afraid of Chinese hegemony over Asia.

Mostly when it comes to traditional anti-Chinese sentiment of what are currently sovereign states (as oppposed to East Turkestan / Xinjiang and Tibet / Xizang), it's limited to Vietnam and possibly Mongolia. Korea was pretty happy being a Chinese vassal state for 500+ years, and Japan has never had the experience of being under Chinese control. Okinawa, formerly the Ryukyu Kingdom, sent emissaries to Qing China to beg them to bail them out from a formal Japanese annexation. Too bad, Qing was in heavy decline by then and the Japanese were ascendent, so no dice.

This discussion is becoming evre side-tracked. The original issue is whether China, as of right now or in the near future, is a military threat to the US. Some people here just want to keep digging (or making) up stories of little relevance. Yes, we all know about the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the 1960's, but as any reputable historian will tell you, those happened on the direct border between the two countries and Mongolia was never involved. So when that story was dismissed, people like Lamb Kabob tries to come up with something new. Now it's Vietnam. Before you know it, they will start blaming Hurricane Katrina and everything before on the Chinese commies. Gimme a break! Name one major country that has not had a skirmish at some point in history. That does not mean they automatically constitute military threats to anyone. Once again, the China-threat theroy is nothing more than justification for American expansionism in the Pacific wipped up by Sinophobic right-wing hawks. And one more time, check your facts before dumping your brain-washed propagandas here.

George is right that the original issue raised by Jeremy's post is whether the PRC constitutes a military threat to the US (read: US interests). The general consensus on this question seems to be 'not yet'. The disagreements revolve around how things will develop.

However, in contradistinction to what George wrote, please note that the 'China-threat theory' is hardly unique to the US. It is a major factor behind Japan's current military policy, and the PRC's 'string of pearls' strategy and close support of Pakistan are serious security concerns for India, which the Indian media has been treating vociferously. Anyone who doesn't know these things really isn't paying attention.

Finally, I assume that George raised the issue of blaming Hurricane Katrina on the PRC as an example of absurdity - which it is. On this point, I'd like to mention that the Egyptian (government-controlled) media claimed the 2004 tsunami was the result of co-operative covert weapons testing by India and Israel, in spite of the civilian deaths suffered by the former. The latter is subjected to similarly risible accusations on a regular basis, in addition to simply witless comments such as the one by Inst above.

Moreover, if George is going to assert that the 'China threat' theory in the US is nothing other than "justification for American expansionism in the Pacific", it might behoove him to produce some evidence of this 'American expansionism'. Otherwise, he might be reasonably suspected of "dumping... brain-washed propagandas [sic]" here.

NB 'American hegemony' =/= 'American expansionism'; in the Pacific, the former is deteriorating, as Nanheyangrouchuan implicitly acknowledged in his initial comment; claims of the latter require evidence.

George, you should look at what officials in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia etc. are actually saying (and doing) about the PRC before you confine security concerns about it to "Sinophobic right-wing hawks" in the US. It seems to me that you suffer from an overly US-centric bias (as do many 'left-wing' US intellectuals, such as Prof Chomsky, whom David cited above).

That must be enough to offend someone, so my work here is done for now.

Cheers

George, my Vietnam example was simply to highlight the seriousness of "the china threat" to all nations. China's pollution problem is a direct threat to the US as mercury and lead dust setting in California and the Rocky Mtns can be traced to China's coal factories.

As for the military threat. Check up on China's "Green Island Chain" strategy, but that is a long term plan.
China gave NK and Pakistan their-n bombs. NK also received alot of PLA help for its long range No Dong series missiles, the ND-2 can theoretically reach Hawaii with a chem or bio, if not nuclear warhead.

Proof that China has been handing out NBC know-how and hardware? Lybia's re-admission into the world community happened because Qaddafi turned over nuke warhead blueprints and parts WITH CHINESE WRITING ON THEM. One little known tibit about the first invasion of Iraq is that Iraq launched a concrete warhead at US troops just outside of Baghdad. Concrete warheads are used to keep microbes protected from the heat of launch and travel experienced by warheads. A Chinese scientist later told the CIA that China had supplied bio-weapon and chem material to Iraq. And I can say from first hand experience that our troops did get exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq during the first Gulf War.

Du, I'm not offended, but I don't entirely agree. I'm not saying China might not become a threat to X, Y or Z - my thoughts on that are summed up by Shan and Jeremy above. But does the US want to expand its military dominance - everywhere, not just the Pacific? Well there is this statement:

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/deploy/info/index.shtml

Then there's the updated practical reality behind this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionI.html

And then of course there's this:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002837.html

Nan, if China sold North Korea its nuke, it doesn't appear to have been a very good one. Maybe Mr Kim bought it from that guy on the street who sold me those dodgy DVDs:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1230/nork-data-it-was-a-dud

I thought the unfortunately named Nodong could only fly just past Japan - that's a few thousand miles short of Hawaii. It *might* be a component of the Taepodong 2 which *might* be able to reach that far but in last year's test the TD fell a little short:

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200609/kt2006091718310968040.htm

(By the way, on the left hand side of the arms control wonk link, is an ad for a book that could have some bearing on this discussion)

I should be focusing on writing my dissertation, but gosh, I just couldn't refrain from returning to this post. But since I'm here, I'll respond to a couple of the recent posts.

It should be no surprise at all that China is considered a "threat" by Japan, a stanuch ally of the US and ruled by right-leaning poiticians. Contrary to the picture painted by Western media, China is not the only East Asian country currently having a difficult relationship with Japan. Japan's conservative gov't and its practices have drawn protests also from South Korea. The most recent example is Abe's statement on the WW2 comfort women. I personally don't think these issues (in particular old ones) should be impediments in the normal diplomatic relationship among nations. The point here is that China's positions are not always so outlandish and isolated as the West has portrayed.

As for India, their beef with China is mostly because China is an ally of Pakistan, whom they (India) absolutely despise. (I have an Indian colleague who once told me she wants to drop nuclear bombs on Pakistan.)

And regarding some of the other perimeter countries who are wary of China's rise, part of that (I'm not saying all) is a form of Sinophobia

Just look at how many of those countries have had anti-Chinese policies and Chinese extirpation practices in the recent past. For them it's more desirable to appease the US. Besides, I can think of a myriad of countries with negative opinion of the US, so maybe we should proclaim the US as a military threat to all those countries.

Like I said last time, this post was originally about the issue of China being a "military threat" to the US, but some of y'all keep bringing in other issues. Now it's pollution. It really seems that Lamb Kabob is inching towards blaming Katrina on China. And if you want to talk about pollution, the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has the highest energy consuption rate, and refused to sign the Kyoto Pact, etc. I think the evidence really points to the US being a "military" threat than anyone else in the world.

And Du, if you want real evidence of American expansionism, how's the largest military budget in the world for a start? Expansionism does not have to be official acquisition of territory. Modern expansionism takes the form of having military presence and thus expanding a nation's influence in other parts of the world, which is want the US has been doing since WW2. Anyone who honestly believes that a budget like this is because the US faces genuine military threat from other countires needs a reality check. There has never been any sizable invasion to the US mainland, and certainly noone will attempt it now. And Kabob, don't tell me that the US has never shared its military technology and hardware with its allies. Case in point, weapon sales to Taiwan. Not to mention all the help it has provided to Israel.

Proponents of the "China threat" theory, on the other hand, have yet to produce any solid evidence for their arguments. The only they seems to favor now is the steady increase in China's military spending. But keep in mind that it has been growing because it was small to begin with, even if it were under-reported as claimed, still a fraction of the US's or even Japan's (and Japan is supposed to have a pacific constitution). Moreover, the latest figures show that China's military budget is actually the same (or even smaller) than its buereaucratic spending, a sign of the heavy corruption in China that is likely to impede development, including in military. The corruption in China is something people like Lamb Kabob love to point out when discussing other topics, but conveniently forget when tlking about "China threat".

Finally, before I go, Du if you want to accuse me of suffering from "left-wing intellectual bias", then my characterization of you being the product of "right-wing brainwashing" is no less valid. Sometimes this is really just partisan politics, which means the "China threat" argument is merely a tool, and that's my original point. I guess we can keep calling each other names, but I think I'll get back to writing my dissertation.

Dear George

For someone writing a dissertation, your observations are depressingly glib. This is a polite way of saying you're sloppy. I will briefly go through point by point. However, let me first say I partly agree with your original response to Nanheyangrouchuan's comments. Now let's tangle:

1. In your response to Japanese security concerns about China, you counter that a) Japan is a "staunch ally of the US", b) it is "ruled by right-leaning politicians", c) "China is not the only East Asian country currently having a difficult relationship with Japan" [with the additional dig "Contrary to the picture painted by Western media", although there have been numerous reports in Western media about Korean, Taiwanese and other concerns regarding Japan], d) Abe's recent gaffe regarding 'comfort women', and e) a general claim that "the West" presents "China's positions" as "outlandish and isolated".

For goodness sakes, George. Grow up. You didn't raise a single point actually addressing competing security concerns among nations. To conflate points a-e above with actual security concerns is simple obfuscation. It doesn't clarify anything - unless you can actually demonstrate some kind of causal relationship, which you entirely failed to do. The most polite term I can think of for this form of argument is 'rhetoric', in its debased contemporary sense as a reference to intellectual vacuity. Normally I wouldn't be so acerbic, but if you're actually writing a dissertation, you should be expected to do better.

Now let's look at your penetrating insight regarding geopolitical conflict in South Asia:

"As for India, their beef with China is mostly because China is an ally of Pakistan, whom they (India) absolutely despise. (I have an Indian colleague who once told me she wants to drop nuclear bombs on Pakistan.)"

George, this isn't even cartoonish. You have one Indian colleague who made an impromptu remark about bombing Pakistan and you have generalized this to explain the entire scope of friction between China, Pakistan and India (viz. your use of the word 'mostly')? Good luck on that dissertation.

Regarding your next point, bigotry against Chinese people does exist, and is reprehensible. However, the remainder of your argument is incoherent. You wrote:

"Besides, I can think of a myriad of countries with negative opinion of the US, so maybe we should proclaim the US as a military threat to all those countries."

First of all, the US is unquestionably a military threat to many countries - a fact I am personally willing to proclaim without hesitation. However, what is at issue is not 'opinion', of whatever valence, and we should not be determining whether the PRC, US or Burkina Faso constitutes a security threat to other countries on that basis. Please note you have failed to make a single substantive claim thus far. Here's one: the reason the Vietnamese government is displeased with PRC naval attacks on their fishing fleet probably isn't merely due to Sinophobia.

Your next point that "the evidence really points to the US being a [bigger] "military" threat than anyone else in the world" is an interesting one. This really depends on what constitutes a threat. The US administration isn't currently blathering about eradicating other nations, doesn't hold frequent mass rallies calling for their destruction, doesn't hold sermons demonizing their citizens a subhuman filth in its state-sponsored and -controlled religious institutions, isn't sponsoring, arming and training paramilitaries overtly dedicated to conducting a terrorist campaign against an entire civilian population (although the US has sponsored groups responsible for terror attacks), etc. Most men are physically able to rape, but most men don't. The minority who constitute a real threat are not necessarily the strongest or most powerful. If I feel frightened because a big Dongbei guy is standing next to me, is this threat actual or imaginary? A more precise and reliable analysis is clearly necessary.

Regarding your next paragraph specifically directed to me, having a larger military does not necessarily equate with military expansionism - unless you want to define the PRC's current military buildup as expansionist. There is no question that US power relies heavily on its military, and this forms the basis of the current Pax Americana in the Pacific. However, you have to put US plans in the context of what other countries are doing before you blithely accuse the US of expansionism. Look at it this way: the PRC is cooperating militarily with both Myanmar and Pakistan, including the construction of listening posts and seaports that can support naval stations. This clearly expands PRC military influence (much to the concern of India, which justifiably sees it as part of a containment policy). Would you accuse the PRC of expansionist policies on this basis? Is there no difference between this behavior and the forceful annexation of Xinjiang, Xizang and part of Kashmir? I'd like to see a coherent argument.

Regarding your next paragraph about the PRC's military budget, the general consensus is that actual spending is vastly under-reported. Moreover, it's not necessary to spend so much when labor (including talent) is cheap and one reverse-engineers as much technology as possible. I'm willing to grant you that the PRC military is somewhat hobbled by corruption.

It wouldn't surprise me if certain elements in the US were using 'China threat' bombast as an excuse for their agendas. However, even if this is true (let's assume it is), we shouldn't automatically assume it defines the discussion for everyone else involved.

In closing, let's look at your final comment:

"Finally, before I go, Du if you want to accuse me of suffering from "left-wing intellectual bias", then my characterization of you being the product of "right-wing brainwashing" is no less valid. Sometimes this is really just partisan politics, which means the "China threat" argument is merely a tool, and that's my original point. I guess we can keep calling each other names, but I think I'll get back to writing my dissertation."

I never accused you of "left-wing intellectual bias". This is entirely your invention.

You've reiterated your position: "the "China threat" argument is merely a tool," and anyone who thinks otherwise is "the product of right-wing brainwashing"". You have entirely confirmed my assertion that you suffer from an overly US-centric bias (cf. my comment on 25 March), insofar as you perfunctorily attribute the concerns of countries other than the US (viz. India, Vietnam) to 'Sinophobia'.

It seems imprudent of me to accuse you of "left-wing intellectual bias". If you had such a bias, the PRC's treatment of its own citizens might cause you pause when considering its dealings with its neighbors. You're just egregiously sloppy due to arrogance and intellectual laziness, that's all. Unlike you, I bothered to follow up on Nanheyangrouchuan's improbably claim, to see whether there was any truth to it. You dismissed it out of hand, because you accept as a given that "the China-threat theroy is nothing more than justification for American expansionism in the Pacific wipped up by Sinophobic right-wing hawks" [24 March].

I have questioned this premise, and you have done precious little to defend it. If you want to know how dependable it is, you might want to consider whether there is any validity to counterarguments.

Again, good luck on the dissertation.

Dear Du,
All the big words aside, I don't see any solid arguments in your last message, most of which are subtle personal attacks on me. For the record, I wrote my last comment here on the run, sneaking away from my dissertation (some of us have real work to do), and felt really guilty about it. So this time I won't waste my time and go through everything in the ever-growing debate. I'll try to make it quick.

So far I have not seen any real evidence regarding this so-called "actual security concern" of the US from your camp, or any demonstrated causal-relationship. So it seems your arguments are no less "rhetoric" than mine.

My example of my Indian colleague is a case in point, not the sole basis of my point. I'm not sure if your miss-interpretation was a result of unfamiliarity with concise writing or something else.

About the PLA's budget, the consensus is the actual number is 2-4 times the official one, which still puts it way below the US or Japanese one. And I would like to shift the burden of proof to you for once and ask that you provide the substantial evidence for this consensus claim.

Much of the rest of your arguments involve heavy double standards, a critical component typical of US foreign policy. I know what I just said will push your buttons, but if you ask others to put US plans in context, how about do the same for other countries (not only China) as well?

There are still several points I haven't addressed, but I've already spent more time than I should. I really should get back to my dissertation and try to be more "coherent" and less "glib". Maybe I can incorporate some of these big words in my diss., too.

I'll use short words this time.

On second thought, screw that. If you can't understand English, get a dictionary.

Well, at least you're consistent.

First, your claimed inability to see any "solid arguments" in my last post provides a convenient explanation for your failure to address them.

Second, there are no "subtle personal attacks" in my previous comment, which is a series of overt attacks on your demonstrably confused thinking. Based on the quality of your comments here, I'm far from convinced your dissertation (such as it is) constitutes "real work". That's a personal attack, by the way. However, it's not an ad hominem attack, as it has a basis in your argument (such as it is). For the record, I wrote my previous comment on my lunch break. I have a job from which I can't simply 'sneak away' whenever I wish. Nice cut-down, George.

Third, you have absolutely no clue what my "camp" is. This is partly because you don't pay close attention to what others write, as I clarified my position earlier that the PRC does not as yet pose a serious military threat to the USA. You claim my arguments are "no less "rhetoric"" than yours, when in fact you have totally failed to address them, evidently because you misinterpreted them as "subtle personal attacks".

Your argument involving your Indian colleague is a case in point. You used an anecdote to support a very specific assertion: that "[a]s for India, their beef with China is mostly because China is an ally of Pakistan, whom they (India) absolutely despise." This happens to be inaccurate, ignorant, and, well, dumb. There. I wrote it.

Here's what happened: You held a mistaken assumption about South Asian geopolitics, and used a convenient anecdote to support it. You were too lazy to look any farther, and accordingly broadcast your ignorance over the internet. Congratulations. You're a budding scholar. That's a personal attack.

George, did you ever stop to ponder why the PRC might be conducting military exercises with Myanmar and Pakistan, and what those exercises might entail? Any ideas?

Fourth, regarding the evidence to support the consensus that PRC military spending is higher than its official figures, General Cao Gangchuan himself admitted some years ago that R&D wasn't entirely included in the budget. Other areas of concern include nuclear forces, state subsidies to the military-industrial complex, arms imports (mainly from Russia), nuclear forces, PLA reserves, the People's Armed Police, etc. The evidence isn't absolutely conclusive, and the official budget might be gradually coming more in line with actual expenditures, but many China-watchers believe the official numbers just can't account for developments. Moreover, your assertion that the Japanese military budget is larger than that of the PRC is disputed.

Next, your claim that my arguments involve double-standards is amusing. I would like you to identify one.

For the record, here's the "camp" I belong to:

I am intensely irritated by stupidity, and resent the dumbing-down of conversations on this website. Yes, George. That's a personal attack. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that your comments are riddled with stupidity. The chief stupidity is that you assume so many false premises regarding your interlocutors. Look it up.

For the record, I am not a cheerleader for the United States. It is a hegemon, sometimes benevolent, often not. It acts in its interests, as every state must do - the alternative is national suicide. Sometimes these actions are benign and even beneficial to others, sometimes they are anything but. The moral question to be asked of US actions is not whether they serve its national interests (this is a given) but whether they are morally acceptable. As it happens, I consider both the PRC and US militarily expansionist. The reason I challenged you regarding the latter is that any evidence you produced would have equally implicated the former. That said, I appreciate cat's comment, which I consider to have added constructively to the discussion.

A quick reading of Chinese history - including current PRC history - amply demonstrates that its leadership finds few moral qualms with any actions which serve its self-perceived national interests. A good (but somewhat dated) book on Chinese military strategy is Alistair Iain Johnston's "Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). He's written more since then, but I haven't read it.

For those who are interested, there's an interesting survey of PRC military thinking by Michael Pillsbury from January 2000 at

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/pills2/index.html

George, I am also a member of the camp that absolutely insists on putting the actions of all countries in context. For example, India sees the PRC's "string of pearls" strategy as a containment strategy, which it is. PRC spokespeople will counter that it is intended to secure access to raw materials, which it is. It is both.

Simply, the US is a security threat to PRC interests, and the PRC is a rapidly developing security threat to US interests. No one is claiming that the PRC is going to launch a direct attack on US soil anytime soon, George. That was just one of the many straw men you set up to sound reasonable to yourself, and again served to dumb-down the discussion.

Finally, for your information, 'glib' is a four-letter one-syllable word, which is not particularly big by the standards of either English morphology or orthography. Heck, it's not even complex phonetically, considering there's only one obstruent in word-final position (unlike, say, 'sixths'). You might want to get out that dictionary again.

I think this is enough of a diss for now.

ps Regarding your point about the US sharing military technology with its allies (27 March), please note that both Egypt and Turkey receive almost identical military aid to Israel, and have done for some time. The US will use tax money to subsidize the sale of military equipment to almost anything that moves - with the exception of the PRC and a few other countries. So what? So PRC weapons sales present a strategic threat to US interests, just as US weapons sales present a strategic threat to PRC interests. The PRC has made a strategy of developing relations with states at odds with the USA, just as the US is now developing relations with Vietnam. Please show me the "double-standard" in this analysis, because I can't see it. Hmmm... George, do you think that assessment could actually be the result of yet another false premise? Nah. My failure to see a double-standard must be just another case of "right-wing brainwashing".

Dude, you are still at this? For someone who "can't sneak away" from his work, your writings are sure long-winded (that's pleonastic if the last adjective was too layman for you). Even Lamb Kabob gave up on this debate. Tell you what, I'll let you have the last word, so you can proclaim victory here. Kinda like how the US should declare victory now and pull out of the quagmire in Iraq. Sorry that I won't write as long or big now, since I've been "dumbing-down" the conversations.

Hmm... there's some harsh words going around here and bilateral relations are going through some twists and turns. Being the coward that I am, I don't want get too involved. So please bear in mind that the following should not be interpreted as taking sides.

I just think one small clarification is necessary. During this war of words, Du said:

"The US administration isn't currently blathering about eradicating other nations, doesn't hold frequent mass rallies calling for their destruction, doesn't hold sermons demonizing their citizens a subhuman filth in its state-sponsored and -controlled religious institutions, isn't sponsoring, arming and training paramilitaries overtly dedicated to conducting a terrorist campaign against an entire civilian population."

My first interpretation of this was that *China is* doing these things, which confused me because I certainly hadn't noticed that taking place here. Then I realized Du was referring to Iran.

This is a subject that divides opinion within Iran itself and I don't think we should move the discussion in that direction on a China website.

But I would like to say that we are perched dangerously on the edge of taking that famous Clash of Civilizations to a whole different level and no one is going to win in that war. There's a power struggle going on in Iran. Our countries' governments and media would be wise not to give even more ammunition to extremists by ratcheting up the threats. It was these threats (despite an Iranian offer of peace with Israel) that helped bring Ahmadinejad to limited power in Iran.

Here's an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post that was written in what already seem like more peaceful times - just over a year ago:

http://tinyurl.com/3xelvv (Thanks to the original incarnation of Tenement Palm for the link.)

To paraphrase Chinese diplomats and Churchill, talking is better than fighting. And talking politely is better.

Thanks cat.

The point about Iran is that the degree to which a country poses a threat to international security does not directly correlate to its military power. There is a relationship, but it's not 1:1. The challenge was for George to provide a consistent set of criteria to judge 'threat value', if you will. Again, it's my contention that measuring the US in this way should equally implicate the PRC - they both present a military threat to each other's national interests.

As George continually refers to writing his dissertation, he should be able to defend his views against robust criticism. Note that my initial challenge (March 22) had no more than 6 words - depending on how one counts - and that my second challenge (March 25) used no pointed language.

His responses have been consistent in terms of content.

If George had actually made an attempt to engage the issues in a responsible way, he could have contributed something other than confused rhetoric to the conversation. For the most part, he didn't. Even his final comment, with its reference to the Iraq war, failed to address a single substantive issue.

I didn't expect to make friends with George by writing that his comments were 'riddled with stupidity'. The fact that I used such language was because I had already given up on him. Sometimes accuracy is of greater value than politeness, and I consider the issues under discussion too important to be confused by empty rhetoric. It is precisely this which offended me. I stand by my comments. For example, there is no excuse for George's dismissive remarks about Japan's and India's security concerns. Such laziness does not deserve respect. This also applies to me. If I'm lazy, please tell me. If I treat you with respect by following up, you may reciprocate. If I can't be bothered, then I have disrespected not only you, but anyone affected by the issue under discussion.

Of course, if I simply insult those with whom I disagree, I'm being a jerk. My intent was not to insult; merely to state the obvious openly rather than hiding it with politeness. If I offended anyone, I apologize. It wasn't my intent. However, I stand by my comments.

Du, I've said I will give you the last word, and I will keep that promise. So I will not respond to your message, including your continued derision of me. Besides, my response can only further legitimize your pompous comments. This discussion has turned quite childish in the last few days.

Ok, I guess I'll take that last word.

George, it seems to me that you first entered this discussion to defend the PRC from what you saw as unfair criticism, and I respect that. If you notice me writing anything you consider similarly unfair, I hope you will respond. The reason I say this is for my own benefit, because I'm ignorant about a lot of things, and there are issues you probably understand better than I do.

You seem like a smart guy, and I agree with some of your comments (for whatever that's worth), as I wrote before. Actually, when I wrote my March 27 comment, I thought Jeremy & Joel wouldn't post it, because in my opinion it didn't "adhere to generally accepted standards of courtesy". I can only assume the reason they allowed it was that they saw something inside worth reading, in spite of the vitriol. Otherwise, my previous comments speak for themselves.

Here's how I see things:

Nations have both competing and mutual national interests. The rise of China creates both problems and opportunities. Expressing concerns about how this rise progresses, including actual and potential threats it poses to other countries' interests, is not the same as saying that the rise of China is bad per se.

This means that when people propose that a "China threat" exists, it does not mean that the PRC is only a threat (although some might take such an unfairly jaundiced view). It doesn't mean the PRC is inherently belligerent, or that its rise is regrettable. It is simply a fact of international relations that nations have competing interests and unequal power.

I don't see anyone on this list holding up the PRC as a bugbear. (As an aside to cat, it wasn't my intent to do this with Iran either.) Rather, in relation to the USA and other countries (notably Russia and Japan) it is both a strategic ally and rival. As the PRC becomes more powerful, these rivalries can only increase.

To argue that the claim of a 'China threat' is nothing but an excuse by elements in the US to expand American military power actually belittles the PRC, by assuming it hasn't or can't develop enough to become a strategic threat. It has, and seems likely to continue to do so.

Finally, my personal favorite source of free online information on international relations is here:

http://www.pinr.com/

The following article is particularly topical to my previous comments:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=434&language_id=1

Please bear in mind, I only offer this as an introduction to those unfamiliar with the subject. More detailed information is available elsewhere.

Best wishes

Mr. Du Yisa (while Yisa sounds like a conversion of Lisa, a man called a woman is demoted while a woman called a man is promoted. Acknowledge the extant misogyny), I'd like to know how you define militarily aggressive. Beyond the Tibet and East Turkestan affairs, China has never threatened a sovereign state's existence. The Taiwan matter is up for grabs, it, if recognized, is considered the one true government of China, not a sovereign state comprising only the island and its islets.

After the Taiwan issue is resolved peacefully or militarily, for or against the CCP, what else? The Taiwan issue is a matter of lunatic obsession for the CCP, but things like the Spratlys and Diaoyutai/Senkaku (D before S, C before J) are purely matters of oil. Siberia, perhaps? So much of China's military equipment is made in Russia, and still overall, Russia has a technology advantage. By the time China can actually fight for Siberia, the Chinese population would have become dominant in southern Siberia, and China would perhaps have become so rich that it could just buyout the region.

You're just trying to make me provoke J&J (a rightfully famous pair of initials) into closing this conversation, aren't you?

Ok, let's see if I can post something worth reading, with less emphasis on venting than in my previous outbursts.

I'd like to start by noting that the term I used was 'expansionist', not 'aggressive', and I understand these terms somewhat differently. I consider the former more objective and empirical (no pun intended), whereas the latter is too open to interpretation to use outside a legal framework. That said, your question still stands.

Before I attempt to tackle it, I'd like to address a few details:

First, If I correctly understand your comment about the PRC not threatening a sovereign state's existence, your intent is to raise an issue that George raised previously: there is ample evidence that the US is militarily aggressive (viz. the current occupation of Iraq), but what has the PRC done to deserve such a description?

My initial response is that I never described it in such terms. Moreover, the PRC is not currently capable of carrying out such an operation, and we should look at what it does with the capability it has. It is currently rapidly increasing both its military capability and foreign influence, particularly in South Asia and Africa. I don't consider it reasonable to label such behavior aggressive, but it's certainly expansionist.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, Xinjiang was never recognized as a modern nation-state under public international law (aka the 'law of nations'), and Tibet has a very limited basis on which to claim it was - although both had independent governments for periods in the 20th Century, and of course historically. However, China has legitimate - albeit not absolute - historical claims to both regions, so I'm not comfortable simply condemning the PRC for its actions in either area. These situations are problematic partly because they're not legally and historically clear-cut.

Third, I'm not willing to characterize the PRC's concerns with Taiwan as a "lunatic obsession". Again, the situation is historically and politically problematic. That said, it seems to me the PRC has one very simple reason to want to nationalize Taiwan, and that is an increased ability to project military power in the Pacific. It is also my opinion that current US support of Taiwan has less to do with moral concerns than it has to do with the island's role as part of a containment strategy.

Fourth, your point about territorial disputes between China and Japan being "purely matters of oil" is lost on me. It is exactly these sort of issues that prompt military conflict.

Fifth, I don't forsee any attempt by the PRC to expand its territory into Siberia. I can only assume your raised this issue to point out that the idea of further Chinese territorial expansion is far-fetched.

Now I will try to address your big question regarding military aggression. It seems to me that public international law was created precisely to create a framework whereby relations between nation-states can be defined, so my first answer would be: military aggression is any military action by one nation-state against another that contravenes public international law. I'd have to actually look at the laws to provide a more detailed answer, as I'm not very familiar with them.

Perhaps this definition won't satisfy or do justice to Uighurs, Tibetans and many others who are left out of the legal framework of which it is a part. However, I'm unaware of a better alternative. Are you?

Cheers

Sir, it's not my intent to provoke a continuation of your argument and I greatly appreciate you taking your time to respond to my comment. And thank you for both the Michael Pillsbury article, I now feel like a frog in a well, and taking the time to read deeply my shallow writing. However, could you define military expansionism?

If I understand, China's traditional method of expansion has been through people, not through armies. Chinese people settle new territories, usually displacing the tribal locals via better technology and a more advanced society. China's uses of force, when successful, are usually to weaken and destroy political units, not to absorb them. Through my cursory knowledge of Chinese history, China has never successfully "conquered" another nation. It has managed to destroy countries and peoples, Nanyue and the Xiong Nu, for example, but it failed to invade Korea and failed to occupy then sinify Vietnam. Rival Chinese states are an exception, of course, but with Qin Shi Huang, he had a brutal police state, and with subsequent unifications, there was a cultural precedent.

As to your point about Taiwan being power projection, Old Deng commanded the CCP to follow a policy of keeping their heads down. Currently, the CCP has begun to take a different tack, but, at least according to the Pillsbury summary, there's a lot of study on how to avoid getting into a losing confrontation with the United States. The desperate things that have been said (not willing to trade Taiwan for Los Angeles) and their lack of current capabilities suggest that this is a lunatic obsession, that this does not make sense from a realist perspective but can only be explained by culture and ideology. Hopefully, Ma Yingjiu gets an easy win in 2008 and CSB doesn't try anything odd before then, so that this becomes merely a mystery, instead of a mysterious danger.

Lastly, Michael Pillsbury's comments on Japan and India look strange. Japan has a militaristic history and every nation in East Asia is intensely nationalistic, while the West may have Christianity and humanism, East Asian countries seem to have in lieu the Nation. India, I don't know so much about, but some Indians I've met have strong sentiments in favor of an independent Tibet. For China, the latter is particularly bad, Tibet has the headwaters of many of East and South Asia's great rivers, and defending against Tibet is a big problem, the Tibetan plateau is a crescent with Lhasa as its focal point. It's easier to defend from the focal point of a crescent than from its opposite, and Chinese troops in a counter-attack would have to deal with altitude acclimization. If I recall, Tibetan soldiers in the Tang dynasty sacked Xi'an twice.

Thanks.

Inst

First, my friends call me 'nongmin'.

Second, I'd like to thank you for bringing me back to this conversation and making me reread what I wrote, to see how incredibly nasty I was to George. This gives me the opportunity to apologize.

George, if you happen to read this, I apologize. I was rude, and I'm sorry. It was totally unnecessary for me to be so unpleasant. As I wrote previously, I initially assumed my nastiest comment wouldn't get posted. Again, I apologize. I was a jerk.

Next, I'd like to quote from a comment by George (March 27) which is directly pertinent to the first question raised by Inst: "Expansionism does not have to be official acquisition of territory. Modern expansionism takes the form of having military presence and thus expanding a nation's influence in other parts of the world, which is want the US has been doing since WW2." I would like to add that this is also what the PRC has been doing with increased assertiveness since the presidency of Jiang Zemin.

On this point, I'd like to reference cat's comment about US military dominance (March 26), which provides a link to worldwide US troop deployment locations (with the caveat that I thought the defensetech article on US space policy was pretty weak). As most of these troops are not employed to capture territory - the traditional definition of expansionism - then what justifies the difficulty and expense of maintaining them? Simply put, a strong military supports a strong economy. Stronger countries are in a better position to dictate trade terms and establish economic relationships more to their advantage. Given the modern history of China, it's no surprise that officials in the PRC are alert to this dynamic.

Inst, to answer your first question, I would define military expansionism as any military enhancement (technological, logistical, etc.) that serves to strengthen a nation-state's 'comprehensive national power' (总合国力), to employ PRC terminology. Yes, this definition is very broad, but I would suggest such breadth is necessary to properly assess the interactions of nation-states in a global marketplace. This is hardly my area of expertise, but I believe we can look for precedents in practices such as mercantilism.

I'm not aware of any serious analysts who view expansionism purely in terms of territorial acquisition. To get a comprehensive strategic picture, one has to look at military, commercial and cultural dominance, or both hard and soft power, to employ Joseph S. Nye Jr.'s terminology (which has gotten a lot of attention in the PRC media in recent years).

Your challenge about Taiwan is interesting. I'm not in a position to say whether the 1996 threat by General Xiong Guangkai - to strike Los Angeles with nuclear weapons as a response to any US military defense of Taiwan - was calculated or not. Both the general's comment and his subsequent promotion could have resulted more from ideology than a 'realist perspective', as you state. However, as you have noted, the PRC has become increasingly bold in challenging US (and, I would add, Japanese) military power in recent years, and to me this looks consistent with a basic strategy by the PRC to convince others that it's just not worthwhile to enter a military conflict with it. Someone might George might argue that such a strategy is primarily defensive, which isn't wrong, but I would argue that defense is a partial and short-term goal, based on statements in PRC sources (cf the Pillsbury study cited above [March 27]).

Regarding your concerns about Pillsbury's comments on Japan and India, could you please be more specific as to what you find strange about them? It seems you agree with PRC strategic concerns vis a vis Tibet, so I'm not certain what you find problematic.

This was written in haste (again, using my lunch break), so I hope it makes sense. If not, I imagine you'll let me know.

ps Your use of the phrase 'lunatic obsession' and sentiment surrounding it rather remind me of comments made by a notorious blogger in Shanghai... merely coincidence, I'm sure. Regardless, thank you for the challenge. As an unrelated aside, I also fail to appreciate 'Catcher in the Rye'. Your comment elsewhere on Danwei made me want to revisit it to see if I missed something.

Cheers