Mr Hennessy's article had one intriguing observation: that China should 'lighten up', and not take itself so seriously.

I don't want to read more into that than necessary, but is he saying that satire, irony and lampooning of political figures is still risky there today? Perhaps it's the ability of healthy societies to laugh at their own foibles and learn from their scandals that makes a nation great. Where are the truly great Chinese comedians today?

There is the assumption in the article that China is going to be the bureaucratic hidebound society that it has been in the past. I believe that is a false assumption. Classical Greece exemplified extreme creativeness during the Golden Age, and then Greece entered the backwaters of history after it became Christian.

China even with a hidebound bureaucracy had the blast furnace 1700 years before the west, the seed drill accounting for its large share of the world's population 2,000 years before it penetrated to Sicily which at one time was part of classical Greek glory and printing with movable fonts 700 years before the west.

The past as predictor of the future is limited. At one time the Middle East contained the only centres of civilisation in the planet. Now, except for Israel, it is way behind Europe technologically, culturally and politically.

During classical civilisation the inhabitants of the British Isles painted themselves blue and worshipped trees. Later their culture became so dominant that English is now the international language.

China may have a magnificent future. Brian Hennessy does not know what lies ahead.

Hi Brian

You ask "But what took China so long?"

The cycle of manmade disasters ( "recently" the Taiping rebellion, Boxer rebellion, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) have not set China back socially or economically since the 1970. Millions haven't starving or been killed outright for decades. So relative peace has permitted growth.

My main theory though is that the Chinese's longterm tradition of arch-conservatism in science, education and government were the main explanations for China's relatively slow growth compared to the West.

Specifically practices such as wrote learning, worship or traditional methods and kowtowing to elders and leaders, prevented the voicing of new ideas. Chinese emperors, pre 1990 communist leaders and their officials relied more on a tradition of Confucian centralised thinking rather than external notions of democracy. Even Euro/Russian communism was not adopted. Confucian continuity ("we know whats best for you") ruled - from court officials to communist apparatchiks up till 1990.

Today seems to be a mixed economy and ideology. Not only does the CCP have centralised control of key sectors of the economy but most Chinese billionairs and/or their kids are CCP members. That is the core communists hold most of the private wealth - therefore they have a significantly capitalist profit motivation. This motivation has lead to rapid growth since 1990, innovation and a need to reach out and trade rather than the tradition of shutting China off from Western contacts and ideas.

Unlike many ignorant rightwing hardliners in Australia I'm not automatically anti-China. Its just important that given China's growing military and economic strength it doesn't push Australia around.

Pete

plantagenet,

The situation you allude to has been studied, wherein when comparing societies, one may distinguish between technology and science. China from the Chou to the Qing Dynasties shows a slow progressive increase in the development of technology, yet China did not apply Science, as it would be undrestood from the Great Divergence (c.1760).

In the modern era, I suspect China will put the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution behind, yet retain the conservatism and deference to authority that sustained these events.

In the way that Spain of Isabella, the England of Elizabeth I to Victoria, Hitler of the 1930s exploited colonies and satellites, the power structure will exploit China itself. In centuries past, this behaviour has happened and led to peasant revolutions. However, the current power structure is possibly to strong to defeat.

I suspect the Entrepreneur class, the Shang of earlier times, will be essentially two-faced. They will act as corrupt oliarchs, within China itself, while building legitimate wealth in the West. I guess the Russian oliarchs have provided a template.

[I have worked in China]

G'day Oliver

China's power structure could turn out as you suspect.

With regard to Australia the main risk appears to be from China's rising economic might and the increasing degree that our economy is geared to service China's economy.

China's ability to make state based economic decisions may be to the disadvantage of Australia's market driven economy.

Naturally the UK and US have exerted considerable economic control over Australia in the past - but they were or are our protectors, Anglo and the "devil we know". No such proximities apply to China which is as secretive and difficult to gauge as ever due to huge cultural and language barriers.

So Mr Rudd has his work cut out bridging the gap or selling the concept of a special Australia-China economic/cultural bond.

China's military power is probably a lesser consideration for the next 15 years. That is aside from the chance that China might use East Timor as an air then naval base - perhaps within the next 7-8 years. The Americans would dearly love to smite China if China attempted to mobilise a fleet or blockade against Australia within the next 20 years.

Pete

Hi Pete,

As Samuel Huntington pointed out Australia tends to hitch its wagon to the superpower of the day, for which, it has been called “the branches of the Empire” and “Deputy Sherriff”, in relation to the UK and the US, respectively. Sovereign investment companies appear to be a threat to retaining ownership of our resources in light of us being not being particularly good at bilateral negotiations, especially where we are the smaller economy. While we have a trade balance in our favour with China, the nature of FDI is that once dividends start going offshore, the balance-of-trade could reverse.
When one looks at agrarian economies suddenly modernising one’s mind might turn Veblen whom saw dangers in the rapid rise Japan and Germany.

I haven’t thought about Timor as a staging point for a strike on Australia. China, like Japan, certainly has been known to use its cheque book to buy favour and votes in international forums, from small Pacific Island states.

At the time of Australia’s recent conflict with the Indonesia over East Timor, the potential for higher levels of engagement were present. In Oz, in reserve, heavier ground materiel and F-111s were on alert and a US carrier too, just in case.

I will be offline for a few days.

O.

I've had a fair amount of experience living and working in China and I'd say Hennessy's right. China's not about to assume the mantle of superpower any time soon.

If you want to read a really in depth analysis of power in modern China, I've never seen anything better than this piece by Rowan Callick. Utterly brilliant:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-east-was-red/story-e6frg7e6-1225779432478

There are numerous reasons why I don't think they're going to get in that position any time soon.

1) Domestically and culturally, the lack of respect for intellectual property laws renders investment in research pointless. What's the point of inventing a brilliant new product if it's copied and there's no profit?
No research = no innovation = a handy explanation for why there aren't any Chinese companies on the top 100 most recognised company brand names. This translates to a reduced influence economically and culturally and generates problems when considering foreign investment.

2) The economy is now predicated on a mantra of growth of more than 8% every quarter. In fact, news reports commonly state that if growth dips below that for more than three consecutive quarters, there will be problems with maintaining social order. Firstly, this is unsustainable and secondly, this means the party is going to be preoccupied for the foreseeable future unless there's some kind of structural change in both the economic and political systems.

3) The education system and cultural disposition of the country. Other commenters have been over this ground.

4) Lack of genuinely competitive commercial players. Most of the big ones in China are at least partly government owned and the CCP has a big influence. This doesn't provide the benefits competition does. Bigger, yes, more efficient, oh christ no. Combine this with a lack of R&D and you have a government, as well as companies, that aren't exactly cutting edge.

China will be come the new US. The rest of the world* will become neo-colonies after falling into the same debt trap Haiti fell into buying its freedom from France.
*Excluding perhaps Iran, the oil monarchies, India, but they will be under China's influence as Australia, Britain and the oil monarchies are today.

Hi Oliver

You commented: "I haven’t thought about Timor as a staging point for a strike on Australia. China, like Japan, certainly has been known to use its cheque book to buy favour and votes in international forums, from small Pacific Island states."

China developing Dili airport with a few light aircraft to train Timorese pilots will be the low level beginning of anxiety for Australia. More will develop. No strikes necessary - only for the movies. Staging base capabilities (air and naval) will cause realistic anxiety - which will mean a huge buildup of our bases in and around Darwin.

China is doing much more than chequebook vote buying. It is actually providing the power stations that will provide most of the electricity for East Timor for the next 20 years. The fuel for these stations only comes from China and the main technicians will need to be Chinese for the next 20 years.

You said : "At the time of Australia’s recent conflict with the Indonesia over East Timor, the potential for higher levels of engagement were present. In Oz, in reserve, heavier ground materiel and F-111s were on alert and a US carrier too, just in case."

Yes I know that. As well as the carrier the US also provided an AWD and a heavy LHD - all things still beyond Australia's capabilities.

Use of F-111's in defence of Dili and villages to bomb Indonesian forces would have proven an extreme escalation and seen internally as an Australian act of war. Would we bomb Jakarta? Menzies did after all envisage using the F-111s to drop nuclear bombs on that city...?

We are talking about more subtle things, in our region, short of war, but still guiding our defence posture.

Pete

plantagenet,

Yes, we went close to a full-on conflict ("Confrontation") protecting Malaya from Indondesia. In that era, we were helping the Brits with their nuclear programme. The Amercians had given them the cold shoulder, after the Suez Crisis. Mark Oliphant a significant contributor at the Manhatten Project was alive. We were talking about using nukes to create artifical bays along the WA coast line. So, I guess, using a nuclear weapon on Jakarta may have been feasible then. Definitely, we would have been disposed to bomb the city had a major broken out.

As for China building a presence in East Timor. In the medium, term, This would not go unnotived by the US. Already, the US has talked about landing fields for its bomber wings and I with our purchase of Abrams tanks, possibly "storing" a similar number of its own on our soil.