Ross Terrill's most valuable point here is that there are two Chinas - as he puts it, there is the Communist Party seeking a raison d'etre and the hundreds of millions released as individuals seeking a better life. I lived in Indonesia in the late 1990s and I saw first hand how a system that was lionised by many as virtually indestructable imploded by its own internal contradictions within months due to the seemingly innocuous act of the devaluation of a neighbouring country's currency (on July 2, 1997). The Chinese people, as classic proponents of democracy and human rights will point out, has no means of peacefully changing its government and for that reason we can have no confidence in its peaceful transition over coming years.

Yes Ross' article is well-balanced.

It rightly points out that there are other contries (such as Japan, India and Russia) in the power competition before it can be seen as the main threat to US economic or military supremacy.

US Governments have traditionally been hypersenitive to China's military position and have frequently exagerated it - perhaps a side effect of the Korean War. China's military commitments to internal security and defence against Russia have often been underestimated while its ability to invade Taiwan have been overestimated.

The US' overwelming ability to deploy two carrier battle groups in defence of Taiwan (at fairly short notice) has often been met with an exaggerated description of China's own naval assets (ie. numerous old style cruisers, submarines and destroyers).

In addition to the US's higher technology and firepower it is usually forgotten that China has not been involved in major naval battle since 1894 (which it lost). So there is not much corporate knowledge in China's navy and that also includes its airforce.

So its likely to be many more years until China can project long range military power.

Be wary saying that the US can project the power of the 2 carrier fleets. Not widely publicised (for obvious reasons) is that a reasonably good conventional submarine have regularly “sank” carriers in exercise. And has become clearer in these exercises the US ASW capability is not as crash hot as one would expect from the worlds only superpower. And thus China does not have to project its might that far to have an impact. Because the US may not be able to project its power as far as it wants.

Big Fish

Yes I agree that conflicts between "unequal" forces often don't go according to size.

A further example to the one you rightly state was a RAAF officer who told me that in an exercise against a US carrier a lone F111 flying very low (under the radar) "took out" the carrier (presumably with Harpoons). Such was the US Navy's embarassment that they curtailed the exercise then and there.

My point about the Chinese Navy is based largely on its lack of experience. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a Chinese submarine has ever "fired" a torpedo in anger. All not really equivalent to the last major submarine-"capital ship" engagement of Conqueror (with the UKs long wartime submarine experience) sinking the Belgrano.

Actually I think most of the Chinese effort (for the Taiwan Strait) seems to be centred on land based anti ship missiles which when nuclear tipped would do terrible damage.

Just another flashpoint (along with North Korea, Iran and India-Pakistan) towards Armaggedon.

I think the Chinese do what they do by having basically slave labour, and of course that forementioned rational dictatorship.
The soldiers always look great marching round the square, and the other military achievement that is often overlooked and certainly would take some effort to match concerns a certain prime minister at Torquay in Victoria some years ago.
Australia does itself no favours chasing the quick bucks, the natural gas deal comes to mind.
All the best and thanks for coming!

Just to add something to the naval discussion...
I believe china is in the process of finishing its own air craft carrier (bought incomplete from the russians if I remember correctly).

Their inexperience may indeed be a problem, but their hardware is actually almost on par's with the US in terms of technology (But not necessarily in numbers).

I agree with Ross that China is going to go through a very nasty phase internally if the status quo continues...Although a major conflict may help China to keep itself stable. (Expansion and limited attrition can do that)

i would agree with grey's last post, its a case of the classic orwellian principal that governments like china's (well most governments really) maintain internal stability by focusing the public towards external enemies and confilicts. i guessing that its in the chinese governments internal interest, at least in the short term, to keep the re-taking of taiwan as a national goal rather than actualy undertaking the invasion. such an invasion at the present would be disasterous for china, both socialy and economicaly, reguardless of the actual sucess of the mission. hell, the way the economies going they could probably just buy it back in 15yrs or so.

Although there are other subjects on which I would have to differ
from "Omnipotent Voice," he is absolutely right about the Chinese
dictatorship using slave labor. I might add that some of the slaves
get "retired" by being deliberately killed so their vital organs
can be harvested for transplants.

I bear no ill-will to the Chinese people (in fact, my sister and her
husband adopted two darling girls from China); but their masters are
flat-out evil. Their idea of "maximizing stability at home" is to
crush all dissent. And as for whether they are a threat to other
nations: why do you suppose Vietnam, while unrepentant of its own
Communist tyranny, is trying so hard to be conciliatory toward
America (even swallowing its pride and admitting to the fact that
Hanoi would have had no chance of conquering the South if America
had not been tricked into giving up)? It's because Vietnam is afraid
of being taken over by China! Sort of like "It takes one to know
one," the Hanoi dictatorship understands the evil nature of the
Beijing dictatorship.

One problem with the "pre-eminent China" scenario is the peril of extrapolation. Annual growth of 10% is easily recorded from a low base but is a much bigger ask when the full suite of consumer durables is already in house. For that is when the reality on the ground really starts to impact on the projection.

Economies like Australia's achieve continuing growth through larger housing, weekenders, second cars etc, and in relation to China one must ask, where will they fit this stuff? Will we see a boom in Condominiums to soak up the chill winds of Singkiang?

More importantly, lets not forget that demography is still destiny. And the current boom is based on supplying Mao's baby boom with household comforts. The implications of the one child policy have not yet played out but there is only one likely outcome when it does.

That is, a substantial contraction in demand for consumer goods, a reduction in general household expenditure, exacerbated by a shortage of breeding females. And a significant absence of upward pressure on house sizes.

If they manage this well there will be a plateau, if not, a crash based on oversupply and excess capacity. Either way, don't bet your mortgage on a hegemonic superpower just yet.

Grey

I've been doing a little more research on China's aircraft carrier program.

The site to look at is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm From reading the immense detail in it I'll give you one guess what the Washington based organisation "globalsecurity" is a front organisation for.

Anyway I think the carrier you are referring to the is the Varyag - bought in early 1998 by a Macau-based company, Chin Lot Tourist and Amusement Agency for $20 million dollars.

"The carrier is [now] surrounded with heavy security in Dalian [a coastal city in northern China], which bars civilian access; police flank the shipyard entrance [all really dramatic]'.

'This fueled speculation that the Varyag is being used by the Chinese military. It is not evident that China could actually turn Varyag into an active military warship, since he is badly deteriorated. Presently 70 percent complete, Varyag displaces about 33,600 tons [versus the 67,000-ton design displacement]."

I have to disagree with you on your belief that Russia's carriers (or the rustbuckets China has bought from them) are almost at the technical level of the US.

I'd say that having had no wartime experience Russia's carriers have never been near the technical level of the US. Its pretty hard to know what works technically or operationally when you have not tested equipment, or the people who use it, in a realistic setting.

Russia also lacks experience in fleet operations generally. Its most recent experience was at the Battle of Tsushima (it lost miserably) against a Japanese fleet - in 1905.

Plantagenet,
Good to see people doing their own research.
China has mostly been tight-lipped about their plans for the varyag.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20050826-122944-9316r.htm
The washinton times reports that "While China's eventual intentions for the Varyag remain unclear, a military strategist from a Chinese military university has commented publicly that the Varyag "would be China's first aircraft carrier."

http://www.strategypage.com Stategy Page floated the idea that the Chinese are merely going to use it as a basis for their own designed carrier and/or use it mostly as a helicopter carrier.

My reference to military technology was more to do with non carrier related naval, air and land based technology. But even so, the carrier related technology is probably coming along quickly in several systems.

For some more info, check out
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050627-124855-6747r.htm

Even with its major military spending increases however, it has a long way to go before it can phase out its 1950's era technology.

In all honesty, I suspect China would invade tiawan in 2009 or 2010, after the olympics.

Thanks Grey

I also agree that China will act to takeover Taiwan.

However I think China has more to gain, and more power to do this through economic means rather than military.

I read some time ago (can't recall the source) that there are more than a million Taiwanese nationals working in China.

As China becomes stronger economically it will forge closer economic ties with Taiwan (something that is also attractive to most in Taiwan's business sector).

As time goes on the US will also see China as economically crucial to its own economy so the US' tradional opposition to a merged China will diminish. Basically the aging Taiwan lobby in the US will steadily be overidden by the pro trade lobby.

I think we'll more likely see a European EC type relationship between Taiwan and China and political merger will steadily occur later (say 30 years from now).

Meanwhile the "military-industrial state" (as General/President Eisehower said) of both countries will continue their sabre rattling to justify large defence budgets and "jobs for the generals".

Planetagent,
I suspect that (unlike me) you have never lived in a dictatorship. You are being naive if you think that Taiwanese people would be willing to merge with the PRC while that country remains under the rule of the Communist Party. I can't think of any examples in history where a people living in a stable economically prosperous democracy surrendered their freedoms to live under a dictatorship. Such a merger could only occur were the Communist Party in China to be overthrown.

China is a complex of huge forces each following a different path. Occasionally they may intersect or run parallel, but not as a rule. One of the biggest mistakes we often make from the outside is to think of the forces as linear and to approach China in our usual linear way. China is not simply a colossal machine controlled by a single-minded dictator with a clear goal.

The individual enterprise of ordinary shopkeepers, taxi-drivers, teachers and professionals in China is gigantic. The economic liberty that has grown since Deng Xiao Ping's "opening up" has unleashed a drive that cannot be switched off by a finger on a button in Beijing. "Opening up" is one pillar, and its twin is "Communism with Chinese characteristics". Perhaps pillar is the wrong word because they are not static factors: as the economy continues to modify and grow, so the nature of the government and its operations must progressively adapt and mutate. This has been happening and is likely to proceed in the future.

China has huge problems with the feeding, clothing and education of its 1.3 billion people. Development of an effective national health system is another pre-occupation. There are strong tensions between ethnic and regional groups and government, fast-growing religious affiliations straining for legitimacy, and an urgent need to simply get the country using the same language effectively. The one-child policy has been successful in easing the overall population-pressure, but replaces it with new social problems -- ageing, male-female imbalance, and possibly generations of "little emperors" who expect to get their own way in all things.

I could go on, but wordage prevents me. After living and working in China last year, I returned convinced that the country had far too much to worry about without getting into a war or international power struggles. China has been dealing effectively with many of its gravest problems. It will continue to move towards greater freedom, health and prosperity with understanding and encouragement from countries like Australia.

Grey

I don't think China would wish to wage a war, potentially involving a regional nuclear exchange with a (the) superpower, in the next 10 years.

Any scenerio that China could succeesfully launch a conventional surprise invasion, thus achieving a fait accompli, also seems difficult to imagine.

Rogindon

Its sad if you suffered under a dictatorship - but that shouldn't (and doesn't) prevent the majority of OLO posters (who haven't suffered like this) from discussing dictatorships.

As Crabby says China is complex and in state of flux.

Its no longer simply a the "Red Menace" or "Yellow Peril".

China may become less communist and freer market or it may have a "Tianmin Square" reversion, who knows.

My main point is China appears to be getting closer economically to Taiwan - increasing bilateral trade, some trade barriers are dropping and more are living in each others country.

Over 30 years these economic and demographic shifts may lead to some type of political union.

I'm glad that people are talking about the exaggerated attention being paid to China. We would be better off putting more effort into developing trade with our fellow Commonwealth members in democratic India. We should also be more prepared to stick our necks out to support Taiwan. Favouring dictatorships over democracies is not a good move.

Some scholar said that want to know or study China must take the stance with Chinese mood.Maybe China just want to be master her region rather than a expansionist.Maybe she just assert her deserving ownness.