Why is China Not Pushing for International Hegemony? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14530107
There is a lot of discussion about the potential for a future Sino-American rivalry in future. It is discussed both in America and in China. However at this moment we have not seen any moves by the Chinese to push for hegemony either globally or even just in the Asia-Pacific region. The Chinese have not made any concrete moves to limit American influence. There does not exist the same level of conflict and confrontation between the US and China as there does between the US and Russia. In many ways Sino-American relations appear relatively cordial and I have not seen any real evidence of any diplomatic disputes other than the US occassionally supporting Japan in island disputes or criticising China for Tibet and human rights.

Why has China not been more aggressive and not started to push for hegemony within the Asia-Pacific region and possibly even the Middle East and Africa?
#14530117
It has no Military Stregnth and its economical prosperity is currently fragile and dependant on America. It did stir things up with Japan though, but that becides the point. On the other hand, Russian economical development is in no way connected with America and Russia has an extensive ammount of gear and military bases all around the world, not to mention political and diplomatic relations to put those forces into use.
#14530119
JohnRawls wrote:It has no Military Stregnth and its economical prosperity is currently fragile and dependant on America.


The Chinese have increased their defense budgets several times over the last few years. Are they not strong enough to at least push for hegemony in Asia, if only on small scale?

Do you believe that once China no longer relies on American investment that it will start to become far more confrontational?

JohnRawls wrote:On the other hand, Russian economical development is in no way connected with America and Russia has an extensive ammount of gear and military bases all around the world, not to mention political and diplomatic relations to put those forces into use.


In what respect does Russia have more diplomatic resources than China?

I also thought that the Russian military was not at the same strength as it was during the Soviet period and that the Russians were trying to modernise and increase the size of their forces?

mikema63 wrote:The US and China relationship is something that neither country can afford to seriously threaten. We are economically dependent on one another so we are as something of an impasse with the Chinese.


Is most capital in China from the United States?
#14530135
The Chinese have increased their defense budgets several times over the last few years. Are they not strong enough to at least push for hegemony in Asia, if only on small scale?

Do you believe that once China no longer relies on American investment that it will start to become far more confrontational?


They did increase their budget, but its one thing to arm and equip 500k-1m soldiers like america and Russia does over Decades(Russia had the 1st,2nd or 3rd largest military budget for the last 60 years and america the same thing) then to equip a much larger force of 2m plus over couple of years. If we combine Russian or American spending over the decades, Chinas combination will be miniscule in perspective. You cant reequip a modern army in 2-3 years nowadays. (Well atleast not without a full blown economic mobilisation like the 2nd world war).

They might be able to bully some of their neibhours, but again what would be any kind of political, economic or cultural gain for them. They will be get a semi-developed region that will require resources from the mainland and the ones that are important to them is either owned or under protection of much stronger forces. (Resource islands are japanese, Singapore-philipeens are under american umbrella, South Korea is unreachable unless you want to march through the north etc).

Well yes, obviously if China looses its american investment one day, it will need to get either new kind of economic 'investment' in terms of land, cheap labour or cheap resources. Or just simply substitute the competition in its neibhouring countries so yes, when China will loose American investment then it will become severely assertive in the region.

In what respect does Russia have more diplomatic resources than China?

I also thought that the Russian military was not at the same strength as it was during the Soviet period and that the Russians were trying to modernise and increase the size of their forces?


Russia built alliances and America built alliances for the last 50 years. When needed they can cash in on them or provide assistance, China on the either hand was isolated both by the SU and the USA. Americas current policy is to isolate China to a degree to prevent them from gaining the said political capital. Any country needs a semi-legit reason to do its machinations abroad, best way to do this if a country that needs you asks you for help(Assad/Venezuela/Cuba to Russia, Iraq/Afganistan/Yemen to america for example)....

Obviously the Russian military is not as strong as it was durring the cold war, its size is still substantial and any country becides may be 5-8 will have any real chance if Russia wanted to invade specially those that are near by to Russian borders. The farther the country is the harder is to take action because you need military bases, logistics centers, infrastructure to support that war effort. More or less NATO is global in that regard, may be a bit lacking in Central Africa and Central Asia... Russia on the other hand has Presence in Europe, Central Asia, South America and Middle east, they are also lacking in OCEAN region, Africa and North America.

Is most capital in China from the United States?


Nobody knows the real number, but obviously a large chunk if not the majority does come from the USA and its allies.
#14530158
China is in fact in the process of becoming an economic hegemony. This is inevitable, they don't have to "push for it." Why should the Chinese compromise their inevitable rise by antagonizing everybody with military expansion? The Chinese never have been good soldiers, they would only make a mess of it. They just have to sit and wait for the natural industriousness of the Chinese people to conquer the World's markets.

China will become a hegemony without making any effort. This is the Tao of the effortless hegemony. They will ride piggy-back on the pax-Americana until the institutions of US finance capitalism are firmly in the hands of the Chinese. They have already hollowed out US and UK manufacturing to become the industrial powerhouse of the planet. While the West is sinking deeper into debts, the world's riches accumulate in Shanghai.

Leaders from Washington, London, Paris and Berlin will wait in line to kowtow to their Chinese overlords in Beijing.

Political Interest wrote:Is most capital in China from the United States?

No, most capital in China is Chinese. The Chinese also have the biggest foreign currency reserves worldwide and own a big share of US government bonds. They are in the process of buying up large chunks of Western industry because they have to reinvest the revenues from their export surplus. This will allow them to build a global network of Chinese-owned companies to facilitate Chinese commercial expansion. At the same time they buy up foreign companies to acquire technology that will allow them to improve their domestic industry. In China they only allow foreign investments in certain areas and only with a Chinese joint venture partner to make sure operations stay in Chinese hands.
#14530192
China has only emerged as an economic power in the last decade by overtaking Japan few years ago to become the second largest economy in the world and Beijing may not have a long-term plan for world domination yet. The China Dream under President Xi does not encompass the country's global territorial expansion and Chinese companies operating overseas are merely serving the country's economic interests by securing natural resources and Chinese corporations are keeping a low profile to avoid a backlash against the Chinese. But restoring the Qing dynasty's greatness is its stated goal and China will move aggressively inside Asia to recover its lost territories, while Beijing would not go beyond what the Qing dynasty controlled at its peak claiming the Mandate of Heaven.

Image
Recent satellite photos of an island off the coast of China confirm Beijing’s buildup of military forces within attack range of Japan’s Senkaku islands.

China’s Defense Ministry did not dispute the military buildup on Nanji. PLA Sr. Col. Yang Yujun told reporters in Beijing Dec. 25 that Japanese news reports of the construction were “irresponsible.” “There is no doubt that China has the right to conduct activities and construction on its own territory,” he said. “Some media in Japan make irresponsible speculations on China’s legitimate activities and construction and play up tensions in the region. It is pure media hype.” Questions were raised during the discussion with Yang as to whether the buildup is part of China’s declaration of an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea that covers the Senkakus.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -senkakus/
#14532894
Atlantis wrote:No, most capital in China is Chinese.

Capital is not really the issue, as American consumerism sustains Chinese employment, production and exports to a very high degree. As such, Chinese capital also depends on American trade. If the US suddenly imposed an embargo on China, it would seriously damage Chinese interests, and probably lead to large scale revolts as people lose their jobs. China and the US are very much interdependent.
#14532914
voxlashi wrote:If the US suddenly imposed an embargo on China, it would seriously damage Chinese interests, and probably lead to large scale revolts as people lose their jobs.

Ah, more dreams about how US imperialism brings other countries to its knees by trade sanctions, and more devious plans for regime change. Trade sanctions always have been the preferred means of Anglo imperialism, to the point where even the average PoFoer thinks that they are a legitimate tool of foreign policy to perpetrate aggression against foreign countries: sanctions against the SU, sanctions against Cuba, sanctions against NK, sanctions against Iran, sanctions against Russia, ... and now you are talking about sanctions against China, and who else?

Sanctions only work if your control is such that you can exclude a country from the world markets. And trade always is a two-way street. Already today, overtly hostile actions against China would be very punishing on the West, because we are already dependent on China for trade and for financing. China also holds the biggest stake of US debts. Moreover, already today China exports most of its goods to non-Western countries, which are beyond the control of Washington. Chinese exports to the West will continue to decrease in importance, and the fast-growing developing and emerging markets will become far more important.

No, I'm afraid, uncle Sam needs to think again. The old dirty tricks bag won't work this time around.
#14532916
China has a long history of isolationism or at least non-interventionist.
Economic warfare is the preferred modern warfare.
China is in a position to control world affairs economically, what would be the purpose of attempting to do so militarily?
China is content to be a behind the scenes manipulator for now. Acting through 3rd parties is their preferred method of action and I believe a brilliant one.
#14532927
Why would China want to wage a Cold War with the West? The Western bourgeoisie likes capital markets better than actual production: They're eagerly deindustrializing their own bloc and outsourcing real production to China!

Realistically, all the Chinese need to do is build Great Power military on the cheap, help subvert the West's military hegemony over the Third World and wait for global finance markets to collapse. They can even make global capitalism collapse at their leisure by simply renationalizing all their industry and employing their currency reserves to pop the derivatives bubble.
#14532931
You have to keep in mind that the West’s focus on profit as the sole goal for almost everything has the side effect of people being very short sighted. We no longer make long range plans. We pursue short term profit.
The Chinese got where they are by taking a long term vision. Their plans are patient.
Short term thinkers have no chance against long term planners.
I have seen evidence on this forum of people who are incapable of thinking beyond short term profit as a motive.
#14532946
Atlantis wrote:Ah, more dreams about how US imperialism brings other countries to its knees by trade sanctions, and more devious plans for regime change. Trade sanctions always have been the preferred means of Anglo imperialism, to the point where even the average PoFoer thinks that they are a legitimate tool of foreign policy to perpetrate aggression against foreign countries: sanctions against the SU, sanctions against Cuba, sanctions against NK, sanctions against Iran, sanctions against Russia, ... and now you are talking about sanctions against China, and who else?

I was stating a fact, not an opinion. The US would of course suffer equally by imposing an embargo on China, which is precisely my point. China and the US does not want to damage relations with each other, and therefore China does not want to piss off the US - and vice versa.

One Degree wrote:The Chinese got where they are by taking a long term vision. Their plans are patient.

China has absolutely not taken a long term vision - not under Mao, and not now. When China was still discussing the matter of developing the country to Western standards, the proponents for a short term development won, paving the way for social problems of which the extent is yet to be seen. There's a sea of issues that's expected to erupt in China due to the pace of its modernization, and these issues could have been dealt with more adequately if China had assumed a longer term solution to its modernization.

On the other hand though, the West is indeed undermining its own future with neoliberalism and consumerism. A domestic industry is strictly necessary for the prospect of society.
#14532961
Another thing worth mentioning is control of the trade routes.
The sea trade routes in particular are well patrolled by US vessels and if China is ever going to take the USA's place as the most dominant global power it's going to need a far bigger & better navy.

Even with China's staggering wealth & industry it would take them decades to build a fleet as large & advanced as the US currently has.

But I suppose there is no point really because they know that the US will never embargo/blockade Chinese trade given how linked these two countries are economically.
Indeed it seems like the US would be more likely to defend Chinese interests to keep trade going.

It is a strange relationship no doubt.
#14532963
My reference to China's long term vision was mainly concerning International Hegemony. It is wise to let Russia, Europe, and the US continue to destroy their infrastructure. They see no hurry to make a larger stand on the International stage now, when it will be so much easier in the near future.

Their 'short term' domestic policies still demonstrate a longer view than the US, that does nothing domestically until a problem becomes massive and then they over react to solve it.
#14532977
voxlashi wrote:China has absolutely not taken a long term vision ...

The Chinese are very much taking the long term view! Especially with regards to geopolitics; and that is what we are talking about here.

With regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan, they continue to pursue the long term strategy of "one country" without taking any short term measures to achieve this, because they know that in the end they will win. In regards to Hong Kong that is already paying off. And they have absolutely no need to invade Taiwan because it is just a matter of time before Taiwan will come under the influence of Beijing in one form or anther. You just don't ignore a 1.3 billion market at your doorstep.

Chinese leaders will increasingly take the view that the last 300 years of Western domination was only a short interlude in the long Chinese hegemony that lasted more than 3,000 years, and that China is about to take its rightful place at the center of the World.

From a business point of view too, they are taking the long term view. Just like Japanese and Korean businessmen, the Chinese aim for the long term aim of conquering market share instead of maximizing short term profit, like their Western counterparts. The emphasis on shareholder value of US finance capitalism will be the undoing of the West.

On the other hand though, the West is indeed undermining its own future with neoliberalism and consumerism. A domestic industry is strictly necessary for the prospect of society.

That is exactly my point. I don't know about the US, but Europe urgently needs an industrial policy to promote technological innovation and to rebuild domestic high-tech industries. The Chinese now file more patent applications than any other country and they are aiming for 2 millions patent applications in a few years, which will be twice the number of all other countries put together. Even if the quality of the inventions isn't yet comparable, the shear numbers are staggering.

We need to compete with China commercially not militarily.

Stingrei wrote:Another thing worth mentioning is control of the trade routes.

The Chinese "string of pearls" is a string of sea ports from Shanghai to Piraeus in Greece where the Chinese have acquired port facilities. Some can be used for Chinese naval vessels, but most are primarily commercial ports to safeguard China's commercial interest abroad.

With their "silk road" project they are extending their influence through Central Asia all the way to Eastern Europe.

I don't believe the Chinese will try to project military power on a global scale for a long while yet. They are quite happy to leave that to the Americans. I can even imagine a future in which China pays the US like a mercenary force to maintain the peace. In the past, the Chinese have always found it more convenient to pay the "barbarians in the North" rather than to fight them.

I think the biggest danger is that the US is trying to isolate China economically by substituting multilateral trade under the WTO by a series of bilateral trade agreements (TTIP, etc.) with its allies. If there is an attempt the isolate China economically, that might well lead to a trade war which could culminate in a real war.
#14532987
One Degree wrote:My reference to China's long term vision was mainly concerning International Hegemony. It is wise to let Russia, Europe, and the US continue to destroy their infrastructure. They see no hurry to make a larger stand on the International stage now, when it will be so much easier in the near future.

I suspect China deems it safer to maintain a cautious role in international relations, as instability is already a looming threat with the ethnic diversity, the male/female ratio being out of whack, the ageing population demanding increasing attention, etc. China needs to contain these domestic issues before climbing up the international ladder. Besides, there's no need to antagonize the competition, which could easily take advantage of China's domestic problems.

Atlantis wrote:With regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan, they continue to pursue the long term strategy of "one country" without taking any short term measures to achieve this, because they know that in the end they will win. In regards to Hong Kong that is already paying off. And they have absolutely no need to invade Taiwan because it is just a matter of time before Taiwan will come under the influence of Beijing in one form or anther. You just don't ignore a 1.3 billion market at your doorstep.

I suppose, although Hong Kong was under the British sphere of influence, and still holds a lot of European and American interests. Conquering or threatening Hong Kong into submission would damage Chinese relations with several great powers.

If it ever came down to it, I would pick fascism ([…]

EU-BREXIT

I note that you posted a graph that actually back[…]

PS: Just quickly; the 'RA pretty much lost their '[…]

I don’t. You see, when my father and mother divo[…]