China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

I am not sure if this one fits here since it has something to do with BRI but I think it involves a lot of geo-politics and foreign affairs doctrine. An interesting read, not sure how legit but thought I will share.

free_6ix9ine said:

If we lose access to those things, it is unlikely we can maintain a 6% growth rate or even a growth at all.

Click to expand...

Stop saying "we". You are obviously no Chinese. Only a hanjian would advocate China to cede territory.

Syrian officials have sought to drive home China’s competitive advantages and perceived interest in taking a lead in the reconstruction of their country. “The Silk Road is not a silk road if it does not pass through Syria, Iraq and Iran,” said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, referring to the BRI.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I chuckled at this. Syria's a ruin and it's too much of a bit player to matter much even if it wasn't. Like the article noted, China has a foothold in Piraeus and will soon have another in Trieste. The role China will have in Syria depends on whether Russia is willing to take a smaller piece of a bigger pie or if it insists on taking a larger piece of a smaller pie.

solarz said:

Stop saying "we". You are obviously no Chinese. Only a hanjian would advocate China to cede territory.

Click to expand...

I'm once again frustrated by this forum's limited emoji support. I want to give this post both the laugh and the hearts.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Yeah, I chuckled at this. Syria's a ruin and it's too much of a bit player to matter much even if it wasn't. Like the article noted, China has a foothold in Piraeus and will soon have another in Trieste. The role China will have in Syria depends on whether Russia is willing to take a smaller piece of a bigger pie or if it insists on taking a larger piece of a smaller pie.

I'm once again frustrated by this forum's limited emoji support. I want to give this post both the laugh and the hearts.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think China should give Syria a pass.

There's not enough to justify being trapped in the endless, pointless disputes between the different parties.

manqiangrexue said:

I don't think it's a matter of decisiveness. He himself studied in the US and having his daughter study there is the same thing. Know your enemy better than he knows you, and education is the best thing you can buy with your money.

Of course in international politics, it's not war. You're supposed to be as diplomatic as possible while gaining as much as possible and giving as little as possible on your interests. Basically, you should look as nice and reasonable as possible while actually putting your own country as number one. That's what China's doing. The US, on the other hand, is just decisively outwardly nasty to everyone that doesn't sing to their tune and this is turning a lot of countries off to its leadership. The global competition is a game of chess, not hack and slash; there is strategy to developing China with as little friction as possible, but never shying away from the fights that you must fight.

Click to expand...

I think this point cannot be stressed enough.

Know yourself and know your opponent.

Then you will always be able to outmanoeuvre him.

free_6ix9ine said:

I agree that if the US puts sanctions on all Chinese banks, companies, which is a nuclear option, would probably accelerate the decline of the US dollar as global currency.

However the key word is ALL. If the US only puts sanctions on Huawei, that will have close to zero impact on the dominance of the USD, Lets be real here, China's historical growth has always depended on a certain extent to access to foreign markets, financial institutions, foreign technology, etc.

If we lose access to those things, it is unlikely we can maintain a 6% growth rate or even a growth at all. Technology development will probably slow down as well. If companies realize that it may not be worth investing in R&D, if it puts them in the target of US sanctions, vis-a-vis Huawei.

So to say that we will be 4x the us market in the future or whatever projections, is pretty dumb thing to say, because we won't be able to get to 4x the US market size, if China is being constantly hobbled by US sanctions.

Click to expand...

That is analytically incorrect.

Rationale below.

a) For example, China consumers buy more smartphones and electronics than the rest of the Western World combined.
b) So China technology companies WILL invest in whatever R&D spending is required, in order to serve the China market alone, never mind anywhere else.
c) The size of the Chinese market TODAY and the resulting R&D spending means China likely will catchup and develop world-class technology in every field that matters.

The only reason why we were able to have this economic miracle in the first place, was because Deng Xiao Ping, put aside politics, ideology, pride, etc. to focus on economic development. We had rapproachment with the US, because we stopped our aggressive world communism revolution rhetoric, we had rapproachment with Japan because we put aside the differences about WW2. In return we got technology, investment, and access to markets, via normalization of relations and membership in WTO.


The two choices we have:

1) We sacrifice some of our pride: Put away the territorial disputes with ASEAN, Japan, India for now. Doesn't mean we have to concede anything, just tone down the aggressive rhetoric. Solve tensions with the EU over Xinjiang reeducation camps, "Unfair" trade practices and find commonalities that both sides can support: Paris Agreement, Multilateralism, Globalization, etc.

2) We continue our disputes with all these nations and the EU, and end up making a bunch of enemies, that we have to fight, while the US laughs at us while we exhaust our energy feuding with ASEAN, India, Japan, EU etc.

Click to expand...

I would say the choices for China are a lot more complicated.

1. If we look at the situation, Chinese rhetoric on ASEAN, Japan and India is actually very tame.
On the other hand, Chinese actions can be very harsh.
Chinese rhetoric and public statements on the Paris Agreement, Multilateralism, Globalisation, COVID are actually reasonable and supported by the vast majority of the world.

And I don't see China actually expending much energy on feuding with ASEAN, India, Japan, EU etc.
External relations always seems to be an afterthought, with domestic Chinese considerations first.

2. With respect to the USA, nothing China does will ever be enough.
China's sheer size and influence - makes it a military, economic, technological and political rival.

3. Domestic chinese economic development is no longer dependent on access to foreign markets.
China now needs to escape the middle-income trap when countries fail to move with the technology value chain.
On that front, the USA will try to hobble China, no matter what China does.
So the response has to be even more technology R&D spending inside China.

manqiangrexue said:

It's not much good today but they can all be developed. Even before that, sometimes, they serve as buffers. If they are truly useless, then you should try to convince the other claimants to forsake them to China and see if anybody wants to give away "useless" territory. If not, then maybe your thinking is the only thing here that does "you very little good." Like I said, you get into the habit of giving, you better keep that habit up and keep giving.

America's alliance with these countries is due to American strength; if they don't follow, they will be ruined. That's exactly what I said; Chinese leadership and its future political alliances can only be founded through strength, no other way. As others said, America gave these countries nothing for their alliance except to follow its power; certainly not any land. And that alliance has lasted and will last for as long as American strength is worthy of their following. When that is no longer true, the alliance is broken. There are no friends or eternal alliances, only interests.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking about what would happen if China actively conceded the territorial disputes with its neighbours.

I have to agree with @manqiangrexue

It wouldn't actually buy China better relations.

The anti-China (and pro-US) factions in these countries would point out that US-led pressure has successfully forced China to give up its claims.
They would also point out that an even stronger anti-China alliance with the USA is in their future interests.

---

So I think the proper strategy is to shelve disputes with its neighbours as much as possible.

But if a dispute flares up, the outcome ALWAYS has to be a loss for the party that actively opposed China.

That has to be part of the socialisation process so that China's neighbours recognise that they will end up as the loser if they count on the US to help them.

Realistically, China will have better relations with its neighbours only when they decide it is better to follow China first, and not the USA.

And that will only come from China being stronger and more influential than the USA.

AndrewS said:

I have to agree with @manqiangrexue

It wouldn't actually buy China better relations.

The anti-China (and pro-US) factions in these countries would point out that US-led pressure has successfully forced China to give up its claims.
They would also point out that an even stronger anti-China alliance with the USA is in their future interests.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Anyone with a lick of sense should have realized this a dozen pages ago. So anyone who persists in arguing this approach is either illiterate, intellectually insufficient, or an outright traitor or impostor.

EU won’t ally with US against China, foreign policy chief says before Pompeo meeting

Click to expand...

• The bloc will not pick a side in the escalating US-China conflict, Josep Borrell says
• Instead, the EU would go its own way, working with both Beijing and Washington on areas of mutual interest

Click to expand...

supercat said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Many, including myself, were doubtful about the effectiveness of China's diplomatic campaign in Europe. Well, here's the result, and China did not need to cede any territory to achieve this.