Cicero’s maxim , If you want peace prepare for war (Sivis pacem para bellum) is as relevant now as it was 2,000 years ago.

There are two key words missing from this analysis. They are “India” and “Japan”.

Both Indian and Japan and a host of other countries feel uncomfortable living next to an increasingly powerful dragon. I think they will look to an alliance led by India and the US to contain China.

However:

--It’s not a replay of the cold war. In NATO the US was unquestionably the leading power. In Asia the US is more likely to be a first among equals.

--Unlike the old USSR, China has a raison d’etre for existence that transcends military conquest. You could not make money out of the USSR. You definitely can out of China. Australia, for example, would be in deep trouble today if it weren’t for Chinese demand for raw materials.

--The US is simply not the overwhelming power it was in the period 1945 – 2000. In fact the challenge to those powers wishing to contain China will be to try and keep the US engaged.

--In the longer term I suspect India may take the lead.

Many people have complained that the US has too much power. We are be about to see what a world in which the US has much less power will be like. be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

I agree with most of what steven has said. We (Australia) needs to look at what China does, not what it says. Such as their comments regarding our recent white paper, as well as the DPRK and the recent clash between a chinese fisherman in korean (japanese? waters).

http://www.theage.com.au/national/military-buildup-risks-new-asian-arms-race-20090503-arew.html

The rise of nationalism in China worries me, The Chinese people I have contact with seem to be very anti-foreigners (Laowai) and most have the belief that their culture (and now economic system) is superior to others in the world. Of course these are generalizations, but these factors are very important when contemplating the potential for conflict/war. Australia needs to be militarily independent and vigorously defend against the inevitable future political and economic influence from China.

I believe the analysis by Dean Cheng and the comments of StevenLMeyer and those of Stezza are sober.
Having been to China a number of times in recent years and mixing with the locals I have observed:
* strong sense of nationalism, often underwritten by historic greivances – 'we wont be bullied again' – visit a karaoke hall when nationalistic songs or videos are shown and sung to;
* pride in what they have achieved in the past 30 years, eg Olympic Games, Shanghai Expo;
* that there is an increasing air of efficiency in the achievement of large technical and structural projects both civil and military -eg fast trains equal to any in the world and a rapidly evolving nationwide complementary network bigger than any in the world;
* many of the large cities have developed or are in the process of developing modern metros that equal any I have seen in other parts of the world in technical efficiency.
* likewise a massive infrastucture of a top class road is rapidly connecting all major cities
* a large impressive aerospace program with all the military spinoffs
increasing confidence in a sophisticated aircraft industry with building of modern aircraft for civil and military purposes and as noted stealth fighter capacity
* there is a noticeable strong martial and confident spirit and pride (even a touch of arrogance) in the public face of the armed forces
the media is still an instrument of the one party system
* that all all government institutions still have a priority to protect that one party system

These are all seeds for potential geopolitical problems as a super power builds without the checks and balances that moderate democratic powers have – namely free press, freedom of association, free trade unions, protection of human rights, the right to poltical dissidence, competing political ideas and a independent judiciary and legal system.

It is of constant fascination to me that when discussing Western military capability, the assumption is that it is solely destined for "good works".

Like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

But when observing an armament strategy of others, we automatically assume that their purpose and intent are malicious and threatening.

The naivety of such comments as this is breathtaking:

"Where the U.S. has tried to use military-to-military meetings to propose operational steps for minimizing the potential for incidents or misunderstanding, China uses these meetings to demand alterations in fundamental U.S. policy."

Well of course they would. Given the history of the US' military deployment in places where it hasn't been invited, why would you not ask for a change to that policy, rather than agree wholesale to some kind of post-facto de-escalation protocol?

Almost as an aside, the author homes in on the underlying concern:

"Indeed, all of these military efforts are occurring without any pressing military threat to China’s borders or interests."

Remarks such as this are freighted with disapproval, as if to say "what right do they have, if no-one is threatening them?"

Despite the knee-jerk disclaimer - "The U.S. should never... give the Chinese the impression that Washington is dealing with them out of fear" - the entire article expresses just that.

It illustrates the thought processes of a country that knows it will never again wield the same unquestioned right to interfere where it feels like it, since it no longer has the military overkill to do so without endangering the citizens within its own borders.

Which is not a situation they feel at all comfortable with, having been in the position to inflict it on the rest of the world for the last sixty years.

Pericles wrote:

>>It is of constant fascination to me that when discussing Western military capability, the assumption is that it is solely destined for "good works".>>

Speaking for myself I have never assumed anything of the sort.

You do not need to be an admirer of the US or its military to understand that growing Chinese military capabilities pose dangers.

Ok, stevenlmeyer, I'll bite.

>>You do not need to be an admirer of the US or its military to understand that growing Chinese military capabilities pose dangers.<<

To whom, and under what circumstances?

Some evidence supporting your theories in this area would be nice.