China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Canton_pop

Junior Member
Registered Member
China made many right decision from having its own cyber ecosystem without relying on the west, encourage its own industry to learn from west and make their own, but too much protectionism without balance as we can see in this trade war with US, leverage against US is clearly lacking- there are too few US companies allowed to flourish and do business and publicly listed In China as clearly Sun Tzu's strategy need to be applied here keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Albania said:
Wow so many replies, I'll address some older ones.

An example of being bogged down in spats are the Diaoyu Islands and Arunachal Pradesh claims. If we're being real here, these disputes are not going to be resolved any time soon as long as the US is number 1. Can China beat India/Japan in a 1 on 1? Yes. But if you bring the US into the mix? Then no. China stands far more to gain through economic cooperation with both than to press claims that are just not going to happen. China as it stands is currently still only the 2nd strongest power. Wouldn't it be smarter to focus all your energy on taking down the number 1 and keeping as many countries neutral as possible. For this new Cold War, China cannot face another NATO as the USSR did. The West and US allies in the East are disunited and squabbling between each other (see South Korea/Japan spat). They are mostly economically dominated by China but don't think for a second they won't sacrifice that to join the US. Overall, China has won nothing in diplomatic disputes except to confirm to the other side why China poses a threat. China has to keep US allies neutral so it has to lay low and maintain the status quo until it can topple the US.

China is growing at a rapid rate both militarily and economically. However, it is still weaker than the US in pretty much every regard right now. Why pick a fight now? Why play a game with a weak hand when a couple rounds later, you will have a much stronger hand? Mao's approach to border disputes was to simply push it off until China got stronger and could force the issue. China's greatest advantage is the fact that is has long term thinking and strategies. Kissinger once said that US strategy is like Chess where they aim to get a quick checkmate through a power move to instantly end the game where as the Chinese strategy is like Weiqi. It slowly builds up assets through a long game until the lead is insurmountable. Currently picking fights seems like trying to get a quick checkmate and resolving the issues rather than quietly building strength until the enemies see the writing on the wall and back off. Win without fighting. It's a classic Chinese strategy that has been played without fail.
Click to expand...

Well the choice is not for China to make but for the west . It is not China that is suddenly become aggressive but It is the realization by the west that China is not going to toady up to the west and accept subservient role like Japan.

You see the west entice China with WTO membership and access to the west market. Hoping the the improving standard of living and access to the western nirwana of democracy will induced the population to demand democracy and regime change But to their disappointment it didn't happened

For along time they tolerated the CCP but deep in their heart they never believe that CCP will succeed and hope they bungle up the reform and resulting in economic downturn which will result social unrest and the demise of CCP.

But to their surprise it didn't happened and instead China grew stronger and stronger That is why the initiated the more hostile attitude toward China .
Anyway it is to hard to hide anymore China has grown bigger and no place to hide. Deng dictum was working because at that Time Chinese economy is still small and does not posed danger for the western interest.
Now that China economy is the 2nd place in the world and successfully compete against the west in all spectrum. It is different story. "Hiding your strength and bidding your time" is outdated and just not practical anymore.

Yes I agree China need more peace and time But as far as I see they bend their back backward in response to western more aggressive tactic. Only retaliate when there is no other choice.
China relation with south east asia has never been a problem for SEA. SEA is China's biggest trading partner eclipsing Europe and US and only getting bigger in the future . They lived with strong China for hundred of year with no problem
Mahathir said he is not afraid of China because China never colonized SEA
It is only the western meddling in China backyard that cause the problem
Building islet in SCS is defensible undertaking to secure China soft under bellies from invasion and secure her fledgling nuclear submarine America has MOnroe doctrine so why should not China has the same doctrine?
 
Last edited:
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
manqiangrexue said:
So you wrote something like this before and I responded below and got no response from you:
Click to expand...

How China is managing all these Huawei Stuff is one of those incoherent policy I'm talking about.

manqiangrexue said:
I don't know how it gets less trivial than territory. Whatever the matter is, it takes 2 to tango, so maybe you should ask why so many other countries are "angry" instead, but guarding your interests and your territory is not called being angry in my book or being happy would be defined as giving away your territory.
Click to expand...

Territory stuff is certainly not trivial but how to manage it with good skills is another thing
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
gadgetcool5 said:
Do you think the United States has never given up land? It gave up the Philippines and Cuba. It gave up the Panama Canal. It gave up Okinawa. It withdrew troops from Iraq. If it wanted, the United States could occupy many other countries, but it chooses not to. That is because it knows its real strength is not in land but in technology and alliances.
Click to expand...

You are making a very bad comparison. Irak ? Really?

gadgetcool5 said:
For instance, look at the UK debate over Huawei. Until 2020, the UK defied the US and agreed to let Huawei into 35% of its network. According to your theory, this is impossible, since the US with its strength would have "ruined" the UK. Further, the Covid crisis has not increased the US's strength. But the UK defied the US because the two countries' alliance was not strong on this point. It has nothing to do with strength. Why did the UK change? It was not because the US became stronger suddenly in 2020. It was because the UK backbencher MPs became hostile to China due to a combination of blaming China for Covid and China's crackdown on Hong Kong. This weakened the relations between China and the UK, and forced Boris Johnson's hand. In other words, the decision was made by relative friendliness, not relative strength.
Click to expand...

UK MP is becoming hostile just to cover his bad handling of the virus.

gadgetcool5 said:
Having friends is critical.
Click to expand...
What China truly need is leadership. When China lead, "friendship" will come. See AIIB...
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
manqiangrexue said:
Far too vague. If you were the CCP, what would be the coherent policy that you put forth?
Click to expand...

US ban Huawei from providing 5G equipment
PRC response : We urge the US side to immediately stop its unreasonable suppression of Huawei.

Australia banned Huawei from providing 5G equipment
PRC response : China warns, threaterns Australia that Huawei ban will undermine trade

Britain consider banning Huawei
China response : PRC has warned Britain will meet retaliatory responses if Boris Johnson’s government bans huawei

You see the incoherence, emotional official policy?
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
escobar said:
US ban Huawei from providing 5G equipment
PRC response : We urge the US side to immediately stop its unreasonable suppression of Huawei.

Australia banned Huawei from providing 5G equipment
PRC response : China warns, threaterns Australia that Huawei ban will undermine trade

Britain consider banning Huawei
China response : PRC has warned Britain will meet retaliatory responses if Boris Johnson’s government bans huawei

You see the incoherence, emotional official policy?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. That's making your complaint known as the first step against an offense. Whether or not more steps are taken depend on your leverage and the seriousness of the offense. Once again, if you consider that incoherent, then what would you do instead that is more "coherent"?
 
Last edited:
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
Albania said:
I feel that the Chinese leadership have lost touch with a lot of the "hide your strength and bide your time" philosophy from the Deng era...
Click to expand...

Oh Please not this "hide your strength and bide your time" thing again. How you can hide something you don't really have? China was weak a this time....
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
manqiangrexue said:
No, I don't. That's making your complaint known as the first step against an offense. Whether or not more steps are taken depend on your leverage and the seriousness of the offense. Once again, if you consider that incoherent, then what would you do instead that is more "coherent"?
Click to expand...

Isn't China own policy to never meddle in other countries internal affairs ? US, Australia buying hu
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
escobar said:
Isn't China own policy to never meddle in other countries internal affairs ? US, Australia buying hu
Click to expand...
It's not meddling; it's that if they want to unfairly lock out Huawei, we can unfairly lock out their companies too. It's not meddling; meddling would be threatening to attack someone or stop business between third parties because someone doesn't want to do business with you.

Why can't you answer the question that was asked of you now three times? You wanna criticize that China was incoherent, so what's coherent? What would you do that's better? People who say that they want better but have no idea what better means aren't in any position to complain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top