China as a Super Power

solarz said:

It's interesting that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are attending.

Click to expand...

I noticeTaiwan has a rep office there so they must have got a invite as well. For the given numbers to stack up, maybe they accepted the invite?
or it could have been made up by the Vatican and Secretary general as seperate identities?

While I disagree with many of your unfortunate remarks about the Nobel Peace prize I shall not comment. This thread has gone way



...so get back



bd popeye super moderator

siegecrossbow said:

I presume that the Asian news that you mentioned weren't Chinese. Today China's official media considers the United States to be the sole super power (sometimes Russia as a military super power) and you will get ridiculed by both the Fengqing and the Jingying on Chinese BBS if you suggest that China is a super power.

Click to expand...

well, become a super power is not easy~
any how, we should make sure world peace

Personally, I still don't see China as a superpower, not yet, probably in about 7-10 years they'll be one with us, but at this moment, they're still trailing a ways behind.

Here's a definition of Superpower I like to follow; "A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests."

Three points highlighted.

1. China is in a Dominant position. By the loose wording of "International system:, that includes mostly the Economic system and the UN, China is a permanent member of the Security Council and China is the manufacturer for most commercial items, so thus, they are quite dominant there.

2. This means of China's political power, which is derived from their Military power. I'll cover why China does not meet this requirement below.

3. Projecting power on a global scale, is conventionally done with a Navy. Sure, an ICBM can go anywhere, but it's very hard to show people your brand new Dong Feng. However, something along the lines of a "Great White Fleet" will project power anywhere in the world, as long as that fleet can get there. China does not have a Great White Fleet. The PLAN is focused mainly on it's traditional task (and historical one) of protecting the Chinese shores from Foreign attack. The PLAN however, does not have the Ships or the Logistics to actually sail a fleet and project power to nations abroad. It fails here.

Influencing events comes with a Fleet. But, you can also influence events by "mentioning your disdain" for something. For example, Barrack Obama can say, "I love Tofu", and he'll give out something called the Opera effect, where Tofu will literally experience a 500% increase in both notice and sales. If Hu Jing Tao said, "I like Hamburgers", sure, that may get some attention, but the local Chinese won't exactly feel more inclined to purchase a hamburger after hearing that. Same goes for larger political situations. If America condemns a country for something, a lot of people will take this as dogma and disagree with that country along with America. China can't do that. So thus, it fails.

One more thing, having a Cultural empire by the means of World Media and Cinema isn't a biproduct of Superpowerism, it's more or less what would be done to draw the world's attention for that Country. For example, the BBC is a World leader in News, yet the U.K. is not a Superpower, a great power, however. Russia Today is a world leader, yet Russia is a great power. Al Jazeera is a world leader, yet Qatar is not a Superpower. List goes on.

Once again let us not make exaggerated claims about China's capabilities. Yes the country came a long way since the 1980s but there is still a very long road ahead.

I'm missing something in the discussion. When Germany became a Great Power after 1870 it had proved it's military strength by defeating France, but its importance derived at least as much from its industrial strength and its railway system, which means economic strength.
China is developing its railway system as no country in the world and extending it over its borders into South East Asia,
also to connect to the Indian railways, into Central Asia, towards Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and Europe. To the North and North West, Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan. This will stimulate economic development in these areas. which will stimulate the Chinese economy. Already at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation with the members, aspirant members and associates, more than half of the population of the world is represented. That includes India, but not yet Turkey.
On the other hand the US has a well developed economy along its coasts and along the Great Lakes, but large parts of its interior are at the level of a third world country. Its connection with its neighbors: Canada is a huge country with a small population, Mexico is mostly used as a source of cheap labor and illegal drugs and has been held back from healthy economic development. The welfare system is underdeveloped and deteriorating. The railway system is largely lamentable.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated a few years ago, that the delayed maintenance of civil infrastructure amounted to $1600 b. That must be growing fast under the current circumstances.
Conclusion: The US is more of a hollow man than China, but the military power, due to spending half of the worlds military bills is still huge.

delft said:

On the other hand the US has a well developed economy along its coasts and along the Great Lakes, but large parts of its interior are at the level of a third world country.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Although the interior of the US is not as advanced as its coast lines, it can hardly be considered as "third-world". Yes, the rural area in the central US does not have the flashy look of LA and NY, but the quality of life in these areas is not much less. People living in these area enjoy the same luxuries enjoyed by those living in coastal cities. In fact, many super-wealthy people buy their estate in the country-side.

No matter what kind of criteria you use to judge, this part of the US canNOT be considered even as second-world. In terms of communication, they got airports (many farmers got their own planes. You can hardly call that third world), advanced highway systems, fiber-optic internet, cell phone, etc. Farming/ranching is a major way of living in these parts of the country. The farmers/ranchers got some of the most advanced farming equipments in the world. It's often that you see a single farmer tends hundreds of acres of lands by himself. that kind of efficiency can only be achieved by advanced technology. In terms of luxuries, this part of the country has some of the best resorts and hotels in the nation. People living in these places don't miss a thing in terms of things enjoyed by coast cities, like cable TV, nice houses, gulf courses, etc.

Of course the draw-back of living in a place like this is that it lacks entertainment. I'm from one of these small towns and my parents still live there. The city they live in has only one movie theater, one bowling alley and one major street. The grocery stores include 2 Wal-Marts, an HEB and a Randalls. And they got a mall that you can circle at a walking pace in about 40 minutes (I know this because my parent do this almost everyday as their daily exercise). And I've just listed about everything going on in this town. The only thing that it has in abundance is bars. The only passion people there have is football (from high school level all the way up to professional... GO AGGIES!). People act like Christmas on Superbowl Sunday, which is perfectly fine with me.

I've lived in both small towns in central US (where my family is and where I went to college) and big city (where I am now). I honestly can't see any difference in terms of quality of life. So to say central US is third-world is some of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard...

Hmmm this subject has all the ingredients to go well !

There is though a valid area of discussion to start comparing Wealth and Poverty Distribution throughout the three main powers. The USA, the PRC and the EU.

Its interesting because the US and EU both have well established and entrenched systems which are very different from each other, while the PRC is in the process of developing its model as we speak and decisions made now will probably have a profound effect on many future Chinese Generations.

There is a difference between Wealth Inequality and actual Poverty and that which constitutes Poverty. Some Poverty is simply local pockets of urban deprivation which can be distributed fairly evenly throughout a nations main Urban centres. Other Poverty is more Regional and I would hazard that all three have areas which are established and unbreakable blackspots. By area I mean an area of Nation, State or Provincial Size.

There is also another aspect of "development" which is often overlooked and which can be a factor in Poverty. Infrastructure does not have to be dilapidated to produce this effect, it simply needs to be outdated. I do believe that the US has a problem with outdated infrastructure, even though it is well maintained. Much though probably dates back to the 30's to 60's and simply lacks the capacity and utility of genuine modern infrastructure. The EU is even worse with large parts of its Infrastructure now at least 100 years old and with a cultural reluctance in many countries to see it updated. In this field the PRC does have the advantage as it is laying down its modern infrastructure now. In fact I will admit, I did not realise just how far the UK had stagnated in its infrastructure until I visited the PRC and saw what the modern standard really was If however the Chinese if discover sentimentality about what they have now, then they could start facing similar problems by mid century.

Any nation that understands that constant national Infrastructure renewal is a essential part of living in a modern technological society, will have significant advantages over those that do not.

I am interested in the US definition of Poverty though especially after reading many harrowing accounts of formerly prosperous middle class citizens that have found themselves dumped back to the bottom in the financial crisis.

vesicles said:

So to say central US is third-world is some of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard...

Click to expand...

I'd say you're more likely to find third-world neighborhoods in Detroit than in a small rural town.

Perhaps I was misled by articles in NYT about life in Mississippi and Alabama. But I heard this description first from a friend after her first visit to the US nearly forty years ago. In the mean time she studied in Madison, Wis., Steubenville, Pa. and Washington D.C. and, I understand, especially Steubenville is no place to live.