Chinese General news resource thread

[PanAsian]

Of cause, the whole article can be read as "everybody is shit, EU is shit, Russian is shit, Brazil is shit, Japan is shit". This of cause lead to the inevitable question of, "well then who isn't shit?" Pax Americana forever? The American Thousand Year Reich?

Maybe all China has to do is to be a little bit less shit than other...

Actually that is superbly true. It is one of the main reasons why the colonial powers managed to rule the world, same as why the US came to dominate the post-WW2 order, and how the USSR actively lost themselves the Cold War as much as the US won it. The other prong of that strategy is active undermining of others through everything ranging from bad press to outright war.

 

[no_name]

Several Sinologists now argue that the CCP itself is the principal impediment to future growth and development in China. The party is an increasingly insecure, sclerotic and fragile institution that has become paralyzed since 2008.

I had a little bit of private fun when I swapped CCP with congress and China with US in my mind. Truth is people in power does not want new adaptations that will limit their interests, same everywhere but it really depends whether the centre have the power to push their reforms through and whether they themselves can remain uncorrupted.

 

[Blackstone]

Quoted from the article. I think the analysis failed to realise this particularly salient point, even through it mentioned it specifically. You will be amazed how little shit the CCP really gives for anything outside of Chinese borders. If you frame their actions with the lense of "for domestic consumption only", it will make a lot more sense.



Although I tend to agree in principle. You would be surprised how responsive and adaptive the CCP can be when their existence is at stake.

Of cause, the whole article can be read as "everybody is shit, EU is shit, Russian is shit, Brazil is shit, Japan is shit". This of cause lead to the inevitable question of, "well then who isn't shit?" Pax Americana forever? The American Thousand Year Reich?

Maybe all China has to do is to be a little bit less shit than other...

I was actually enjoying your post until the BS rant at the end. The Nazi reference to America should be out of bounds.

 

[texx1]

David Shambaugh is one of my favorite authors and lecture speakers on contemporary China. He recently wrote a thought-provoking article on Chinese power, and in it, he made some good points on China being a “partial great power,” overrated by many foreign and domestic pundits. It’s a contrarian view of China, and I don't agree with many of his views, but the article's well-reasoned, and as always, a good read.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Nice article overall. But it doesn't really offer anything new as to why China's path to great power status would fail. It is just a rehash of similar arguments made by many other China-watchers. And some of shortcomings David Shambaugh pointed out are debatable.

China's Refusal to Lead diplomatically

China can't really lead or shape international diplomacy when there is already a leader in the world, the United States. Since there is not much leadership sharing going on especially when it comes to interests that both US and China are competing such as SCS, Cyber-Warfare, Scramble for Africa, Trade protectionism, Bills for Climate Change, it is difficult for China to lead without embroiling itself in a conflict with the current leader.

One could ask the rhetorical question, why is United States so unwilling to share leadership? It strikes me that David's vision of Chinese responsible leadership means following western centric ideals such as interventionism (drive other nations' polices), hard power diplomacy (use pressure to get what it wants). Policies that could potentially compromise China's own national interest or create unintended blowbacks in the future.

China's Narrow-minded and Self-serving Interest

I am not sure about others like David. Personally I am a firm believer that any diplomacy conducted should serve its host nation's interest as the only consideration. Any public goods generated for the rest of world are a nice bonus to have, but they should never override the primary purpose because there are financial and opportunity costs associated with international diplomacy.

Wasting limited resources to solve other people's problem across the world without any foreseeable gains is a folly as those resources could be better invested into projects that actually benefit the nation and its people. Therefore I strongly disagree with David's notion that diplomacy shouldn't be transactional.

Besides providing too much public goods would inevitably result in a free-rider problem as US is currently experiencing in the middle East and Europe where NATO allies, Sandia Arabia and Egypt are essentially relying on US for their national defense.

China's innovation deficits due to lack of democracy

This is probably the biggest problem in David Shambaugh's article. Innovation has more to do with investments in research and education, providing the necessary incentives for innovators and offer low cost development funding than with a political system.

For past twenty years, Chinese economy has grown tremendously which means there will be more investments into R&D and Chinese government can offer more financial incentives to spur innovations. If democracy is sole secret ingredient for innovation, Sputnik and Vostok should never have happened in USSR. So it's still too early to condemn China as a nation full of unimaginative people.

Exodus of Rich Chinese

The rich would go anywhere in the world where they feel their assets are safe from any governmental tax authorities. They would also move their assets to anywhere they believe there is profit to be made.

Like many other wealthy people, large portion of wealthy Chinese made their fortunate through questionable means or outright corruption so moving assets to offshore tax heaven is prudent. Investing in real estates in Detroit might not be a good idea but some Chinese believe otherwise.

Having a second passport offers added flexibility not only in time of crisis but also in investments as China offers foreign capital more incentives and protection. In other words, it is often more profitable for a Chinese to get a foreign citizenship and then invest his money back into China.

So rich Chinese moving assets away is not really a bump in the path of China's rise, it is just rich people being rich people.

TL;DR

1)China can't lead when there is already a leader.
2)Diplomacy should always serve national interest.
3)Democracy =/= Innovation
4)Rich people are just being rich people.

 

[Doombreed]

I was actually enjoying your post until the BS rant at the end. The Nazi reference to America should be out of bounds.

Funny what people find offensive. I'm using the term purely in the "infallible empire" sense and nothing else. Would you be offended if I used the word "blitzkrieg" to describe Desert Storm?

 

[Blackstone]

Funny what people find offensive. I'm using the term purely in the "infallible empire" sense and nothing else. Would you be offended if I used the word "blitzkrieg" to describe Desert Storm?

I wouldn't be offended if you used "blitzkrieg" to describe Desert Storm, because it doesn't carry the same negative connotations as other German words. However, the phrase "Thousand Reich" is widely associated with the German Nazis, and I think you know that. Or maybe you didn't, and now you do.

By the way, Doombreed, what country do you live in?

 

[Doombreed]

I wouldn't be offended if you used "blitzkrieg" to describe Desert Storm, because it doesn't carry the same negative connotations as other German words. However, the phrase "Thousand Reich" is widely associated with the German Nazis, and I think you know that. Or maybe you didn't, and now you do.

Well, ain't you a precious little snowflake. Harden the fcuk up and deal with it.

 

[solarz]

I sense a ban coming up...

 

[Blackstone]

Is China signaling she wants an invitation to join TPP? PBoC Chief Economist, Ma Jun, said China would gain about 2% economic output in Trans-Pacific Partnership, and said China should negotiate with TPP authorities on membership. I think it's a great opportunity for the US to roll out the welcome wagon and ease China's entry into TPP, in exchange for Chinese support with US entry into the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China would increase the size of its economy by about 2 percent by joining a Pacific trade pact in the view of the central bank’s chief research economist, according to presentation slides seen by Bloomberg News.

The country should join negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as soon as possible to reap the benefits, Ma Jun of the People’s Bank of China said in an internal presentation in mid-June. South Korea and Vietnam would also add more than 2 percent to their gross domestic product as part of the TPP, the presentation showed.

While joining the talks may help China counter an economic slowdown without resorting to large-scale stimulus, the 12 nations currently negotiating the TPP are expected to wrap up an initial agreement before new members are admitted. The U.S. and Japan said in April that there’s “still much work to be done” on outstanding issues.

The pact would link an area with about $28 trillion in annual economic output, or 39 percent of the world total, and would be the biggest trade deal in U.S. history. In addition to the U.S. and Japan, nations seeking the deal are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Ma, who came to the PBOC earlier this year from Deutsche Bank AG, sees the benefits from joining the TPP talks to China’s GDP accruing over several years to eventually reach 2 percent, the presentation showed. It didn’t give forecasts for China’s actual pace of growth.
Magazine Article

Ma declined to comment on the content of the presentation when asked about it after speaking at a forum in Beijing today. He said he would comment at a later time after the planned publication of a magazine article based on his presentation. The PBOC didn’t respond to a faxed request for comment today.

China’s Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said in March that the nation is paying close attention to the TPP talks and hopes that others can be open and inclusive on the accord.

Ma’s projection is based on the assumption of having 16 countries in the TPP including the additions of China, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia, according to the presentation.

China, the world’s second-largest economy, is projected to grow 7.3 percent this year, based on the median estimate of analysts in a Bloomberg News survey last month. That would be the slowest pace since 1990, as expansion in fixed-asset investment slows and the property market slumps.
Establish Rules

The TPP goes beyond usual deals that focus on tariffs and traditional goods such as agriculture. It would establish rules for digital commerce and include environmental standards and protection for companies that compete against government-backed businesses.

If China joins the TPP, Ma sees industries including textiles, apparel and electronic equipment benefiting the most, while those including petrochemicals, mining and autos would be hurt the most, the presentation showed.

The “best window” to finish the trade pact will be in the first half of 2015, given that the U.S. is unlikely to approve it this year, Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb told reporters today in Beijing. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in November, after South Korea expressed interest in joining the TPP, that the “possible entry of any new country would be expected to occur after the negotiations among the current members are concluded.”

 

[Blackstone]

I sense a ban coming up...

Nah, no need. Let the person have his/her say, as long as the uncivil tone doesn't become a habit.