Is China planning a Military Strike beyond its borders?

Thank you Dusky and Red Moon for your contributions and I have to say that I agree with much of what you say as a fair representation of the conventional wisdom of which I have been and would be a firm advocate. The reason that I have deviated in the instance (hence the thread) is that the conventional wisdom is not being supported by the stream of evidence that has entered the public domain over the last few months.

The evidence of course are the events and statements that are on the record and the interpretation of them. For myself; while I cannot claim any special knowledge of the underlying events, I do approach from a background of UK Party Political activism on and of for about 25 years and a particular interest in gaining insight and understanding of the Chinese political process and thought for nearly the last 15 years. From this, you cannot help but learn a keen appreciation of the way language is used in both Western and Chinese Political environments and various weightings and nuances applied to them. The fact that one of my favourite commentators Ambassador Bhadrakumar also identifies these same nuances on many occasions, does little to assuage my confidence.

Back in July, the open letter from the Chinese Ambassador to the EU was such a revelation as it was saying openly, " not only are we deeply unhappy, but we intend to do something about it!". Compared to the ultra bland nature of CCP communications, this was electrifying and fitted with the far more robust tone that was emanating from Beijing post the Urumqi riots.

It is true though that a number of my earlier posts can be passed over as they were little more than musings as to the nature of this "doing something". Over two months on and this is far more clear. We now know that China is openly calling for the ending of the NATO military mission in Afghanistan and is backing the incumbent President Hamid Karzai in his re-election bid and to support his call to replace the NATO mission with something more appropriate from his Regional neighbours. So far the call has come via an "informal" channel, but there can be little doubt that this reflects the official position of the CCP, as otherwise it would never have been printed.

The publishing of the article was also timely, as by this time next week, we may indeed hear this view being repeated in a formal manner, not only by China, but also by the SCO at the Premiers Conference in Beijing on Oct 12th. Putin is arriving on the 10th for a pre meeting summit with Wen Jia Bao.

The next step appears to be to take this to the UN (itself badly divided in Afghanistan as the Eide Galbraithe disputes plainly illustrates) as the UN authorised the original NATO mission and seems likely now to discuss revoking that authorisation and replacing it with a new Regional one based around the SCO. It is of course highly unlikely that any resolution would be passed (although with such long odds a modest punt at the bookies is probably worth while), it would however give the proponents of any such resolution the opportunity to harness world opinion in its favour, especially if the matter gets to be debated by the full assembly. If the UN manoeuvres result in NATO being isolated and in defiance of world opinion, this will be result enough for the SCO countries.

Now the key point of this is that none of these arguments by China and her friends carry any weight or the actions in the region; especially the drawn out debacle of the Afghan elections, makes any sense, if behind them, their is not an implicit threat to deploy military across the border into Afghanistan and to use that deployment to summarily bring an end to the NATO mission by making its operational position untenable.

As to why would China do this, when all the logic of the conventional wisdom says leave well alone? I think the answer is simple and fully in line with the guiding philosophy of the CCP. Namely that that risk to stability as a consequence of doing nothing is now greater than that caused by taking action and that this is true; if not in the immediate term, but certainly and increasingly in the short, medium and long.

I agree that there is something new to the assertiveness shown by China on this question. But it's difficult to say whether they are just responding to the general situation, or whether Beijing feels some special urgency, for example the need to be seen by the Chinese public as "doing something", as you postulate.

One could explain this assertiveness as one more manifestation of the assertiveness China has been showing since the outbeak of the global financial crisis. Your arguments would rest on China's growing clout in world trade and finance, as well as the financial quagmire and the twin military ones the US finds itself in. Alternately, or additionally, one could point, as Bhadrakumar and the Roadmap article do, to the fact that NATO is debating the matter right now, and that the public in the US as well as Obama's political allies in Congress (and Biden!) are raising qualms about an escalation. In other words, it's the right moment for such a suggestion.

There is yet another explanation as to the timing which would have nothing to do with matters in China as such. NATO and the US have reasons to wish for a long-standing military presense in this region, but I think there is a calculation being made by the Chinese leadership that NATO, and the US in particular, also have very good reasons of their own for wanting to leave. From the various twists and reverses in US policy in the last few years, China senses that the US really wants to extricate itself from the two wars in some way. As things stand in the world today, the US must handle its affairs in such a way that it does not risk new wars. This severely cramps its style, and the longer the situation is prolonged, the more time America's 'adversaries' or 'competitors' have for improving their strategic positions.

Ever since the Iraq war, whenever things heated up accross the Taiwan Straights, Bush was forced to tell Chen Shu Bian to shut up. The American statements would be broadcast on Chinese news media. The contribution the American predicament made to turning things around for the PRC in the Taiwan Straights is huge I think. Hugo Chavez, after surviving the coup attempt against him in 2002, has managed to last another 7 years! No wonder he's so loud, and has such a following. And the Argentines and Brazilians are openly confronting the US over the new Colombian bases, while even Bachelet demands the Honduran coup be reversed. Then we have to look at Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, the situation in Somalia, etc. Even Turkey seems to want to be somebody these days.

Naturally, the US would like to end operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not necessarily for new wars, but to be able to threaten, or risk such a thing. But the US would like to keep its bases in both countries: otherwise the wars will have been waged for nothing. Today, with the debate going on in the US over Afghanistan, China is looking at an opportunity to offer a the US a way out of one of these two quagmires, but at a cost: no permanent bases or influence.

It is also possible to explain the change in tone according to the circumstances today in Xinjiang and Tibet. In this case, China may feel pressed for a reason other than immediate political pressure from the public.

To me it has always seemed that Western support for the rioting in Tibet last year and the events in Xinjiang this year (and possible Western instigation of both) was a sort of rearguard action to compensate for their "loss" of Taiwan. After all, there were terrorist incidents (of the old, standard variety) in Xinjiang last year, something which hadn't been heard of much in recent years. It is interesting that Bush's Undersecretary of State for the China region, after Robert Zoellic got pushed out of the job, was John Negroponte, the man in charge or organizing and financing the Contra's as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 on. One cannot know the actual level of American or NATO involvement in all of this, but we DO KNOW about the National Endowment for Democracy, and we also know how a military and political presense in Afghanistan COULD be used in this connection.

In this light, when China demands that "certain states" refrain from funding and harboring Rebiya Kadeer, they are sending up a test balloon. China wants to know if this represents just a "Ghost from Past US Policies", as the NYTimes characterized the coup in Honduras, or if Obama still intends to pursue this path. It would seem that China has not received the wished-for answer, as Rebiya has gone on to make the world rounds. Interestingly, she is getting support from some of the same powers that have contributed to the NATO effort in Afghanistan (Australia, Germany, as well as the US). Given this, China has to harden its stance with respect to American or NATO presense next door. This is especially so if Obama, unlikely as it may seem, manages to get the US armed forces out of Afghanistan WITHOUT giving up its bases or its bid for permanent influence there.

What strikes me about that Roadmap article, is that while its tone is gentle and 'helpful', and while I could easily see China handling a misfortune of its own in such a way, the Chinese leadership understands full well that current political conditions in the US make such a thing impossible for Obama. But China is not only THE power in the region, it is also the GROWING power. By the end of Obama's first term, if his Afghanistan policy is not successful (if he cannot "get out"), America's international position will have deteriorated considerably, not to mention its financial position. Meanwhile, China's economy doubles in 7 years, its trading power doubles in every 4 years and maybe its military power too (at least power projection capabilities, at this point). Internal matters in Xinjiang can be dealt with on a police basis for the time being. China can afford to wait this out.

I think you hit the kernel of the problem head on Red Moon. So much of this can be so easily labelled as "business as usual" and not really given that much regard. In that sense it could bubble along for the next decade, behind closed doors and nobody really have any inkling of the level of hardball being played. The fact that it a definite train of "events" have broken into the public domain in a relatively short period of time is a strong indication of something major moving and doing so very fast. In effect China was waved a red flag in front of the International community and really would lose a lot of face if it simply sat back down and did nothing.

The UNSC unanimously passed a resolution to extend the Afghan mission by another 12 months. No real surprise here and simply reinforces that whatever the outcome that China and allies wish to continue the UN mandate and simply assign any franchise. The joker in the pact however remains the election result, which we keep being told will be announced shortly:coffee:

The SCO premiers meeting next week still remains the most likely source of new information.

This is from the Foreign Ministry preamble.

On the Afghanistan situation, Wang said China, along with other SCO members, made different contributions to peace and stability in the war-hit central Asian state.

"Our methods were various but our desire for the country to resume peace at an early date were the same and our efforts were remarkable," Wang said.

On the fight against terrorism, Wang said the SCO share the same task of tackling the "three evil forces" including the global terrorism which has posed major threat to the international community.

"The SCO members will enhance their determination to jointly fight against terrorism during this meeting," Wang said.

During the meeting, there will be closed-door meetings, full-range talks, agreements signing ceremonies, business forums and press conferences.

Click to expand...

I must say I am very impressed with Red Moon's analysis of the strategic and diplomatic situation regarding what is happening around China.

Yet I still do not see the emergence of any 'red flag' that would predicate any aggressive Chinese actions abroad, that is, beyond its borders.

The situation in Afghanistan is serious - but more serious for the West and NATO than for either China and/or Russia.

It is also very serious for Pakistan - America's decision to escalate the conflict and its pressuring of Pakistan to act against its former patrons and clients is polarizing the country, wasting its resources, and tanking its economy.

Still, while it may be serious enough to bring down the Pakistani gov't, it is not in any way an existential threat to Pakistan as nation.

The real fear of the West is that somehow the Taliban and Al-qaeda may grow to be influential enough to become a part of the Pakistani gov't, that is, ultimately they may gain enough influence to co-op the Pakistani military to its agenda.

Neither the American nor does the Pakistani military have the manpower or other resources to conduct a full-scale clearing of the vast, hostile, mountainous frontier with Afghanistan.

McCrystal's 40,000 or 70,000 more troops will not be enough for such a task. Not even close, even with all the UAV's they have.

And yet even the worst-case scenario -

a Taliban victory
the collapse of the current US-puppet Pakistani gov't
the establishment of yet another unstable military junta in Pakistan
the Americans withdrawing to various military bases scattered around Afghanistan and Pakistan

- is not that serious a problem for China.

All that has happened before.

The only border China shares with Afghanistan is along the Wakhan strip - a narrow passage between several of the most formidable mountain ranges in the world.

It is very unlikely that the Taliban, Al-qaeda, or even the latest American lackeys can use this as an entry point into China.

The only other viable infiltration route is through the Stans, and then from there through to the Xinjiang border. This scenario predicates that a victorious Taliban can export their particular brand of religious fanaticism abroad.

This has never happened. The Afghans are formidable guerrilla warriors but are effective only within their own borders.

Any while Al-qaeda has had more success in spreading its influence abroad, they have yet to successfully penetrate and dominate any Central Asian state.

In summary, the strategy for China is to secure these possible infiltration routes against all hostiles - which demands the relative integrity, stability, and prosperity of the various Central Asian states, which I believe is why the SCO was established in the first place.

duskylim said:

Neither the American nor does the Pakistani military have the manpower or other resources to conduct a full-scale clearing of the vast, hostile, mountainous frontier with Afghanistan.

McCrystal's 40,000 or 70,000 more troops will not be enough for such a task. Not even close, even with all the UAV's they have.

Click to expand...

The Americans and the Pakistani don't, but the PLA does. I also think you underestimate the threat of the collapse of a stable Pakistani government to China. Pakistan is an extremely valuable ally of China to counterbalance India.

Plus, with the rise of Xinjiang Uighurs in Al-Qaeda's radar, China has an interest in making sure al-Qaeda does not achieve any position of power.

However, I doubt China would be willing to send any soldiers unless there was some tangible reward for doing so. Perhaps in the future, if the Americans are willing to offer concessions for China's help, or if al-Qaeda becomes more of a threat.

Still, it's an interesting idea. Imagine what could be accomplished if US and China worked together and combined their technological advantage with China's massive manpower.

One thing is immediately clear after the SCO Prime Ministers Summit, that Pakistan, Afghanistan and event the Taliban are all in favour of a greater SCO involvement in their local and regional security, reconstruction/development etc.


Taliban seeks SCO support in solving Afghan crisis


Afghanistan, Pakistan seek China's help


Beijing urged to do more

Add to this, we are now told to expect the Afghan election results by the end of this weekend.

My Dear Sirs:

With both the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer's organizations being sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED - an ironic and utterly hypocritical name if there ever was one) which in turn receives funding from the US Congress (not to mention other funding and 'assistance' from various other branches of the US gov't like the CIA), the US itself is by far the greatest sponsor of discord, destabilization, separatism and terror in China.

These acts, along with its prodding and encouragement of the Indian press, military and political establishment in their confrontation with China, its constant attempts to establish permanent military bases in Central Asia, its double-standard with North Korean nuclear weapons versus those of the Israelis, makes it rather absurd that China would in anyway be inclined to 'assist' the US and its NATO allies in their foolish, self-made wars of aggression.

The irony of this is that before 1989 or so, young Chinese students were inclined to believe western propaganda and acted as stooges in what might have been the West's most successful 'Color Revolution' yet.

But typically the West overplayed its hand, and during the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, succeeded in OFFENDING and ALIENATING the chinese youth, propelling them headlong into militant nationalism.

Whereas before it was conceivable that the Chinese youth might be sympathetic to the Western line, nowadays everything the West utters is considered self-serving criticism and disdain and basically as anti-Chinese propaganda.

Belatedly, the West has realized this gross blunder, (one which will take at least a generation to change), and now focuses all its efforts in promoting these 'separatist' groups in order to contain China and the Chinese 'threat'.

Al-qaeda and the Taliban do not pose any real threat to China, even amongst its' Muslim population. Why? Because the Chinese people are not particularly religious - not in the Western sense, nor in the Islamic sense, especially towards fealty to one god.

Early missionaries to China would often report that while the Chinese people were willing to adopt the new religion, it was never an exclusive practice, they never really gave up their other religions. My aunt put it best - "Jesus Christ and Buddha are all the same - we go with what works."

It is very rare to find a Chinese religious fanatic or a zealot.

There are already more Han Chinese in Tibet and Xinjiang than there are natives - swamping the natives will be no problem - look at the way the White immigrants slaughtered the Native Americans and stole their land.

I do not see any desire on the part of the US gov't to uphold ANY of the treaties it signed with the American Indians nor give them back their independence and their land.

Despite official apologies and contrition, neither white Australians nor white New Zealanders are inclined to give back the land they took from the aboriginal natives.

Indeed compared to the America and West, our treatment of our natives is much more humanitarian that theirs.

The Afghan war is one that China will sit out and watch with great interest and glee, as once again (as it was in Vietnam) America tries to 'win' her latest guerrilla war.

Careful Dusky, that is right on the wrong side of the grey zone of the line. I have already had to put the brakes on posters that are giving their personal opinion on policy being right or wrong, rather than just exploring possible policy etc and I will continue to do so irrespective of whether I agree with the opinions or not. Other posters are advised strongly not to respond to the opinions of others and only react to evidence and interpretation. Thanks

The Afghan war is one that China will sit out and watch with great interest and glee, as once again (as it was in Vietnam) America tries to 'win' her latest guerrilla war.

Click to expand...

Which is the crux.



Karzai has made it known that he intends to reject any decision which denies him an outright victory and the US is saying it will make no further commitment on troop numbers until the decision is known and accepted.

Based on this and other developments above, I am expecting the SCO to submit a "no confidence" motion to the UN in order to remove the mission mandate from NATO to itself.

Alternatively of course we could be watching a pantomime in which NATO is using dissatisfaction with the election result as a face saving route out.

Either way, it seems that the stage is being set and the actors and their parts soon to appear and be made clear.

If we're talking about a military strike beyond China's borders, how about the Somali pirates? They just captured a ship with 25 Chinese sailors and there are Chinese warships in the region. This board had pictures posted of the special forces traveling along with the ships expressly for this situation.

Cmdr. John Harbour said that coalition forces had observed at least two pirates onboard the deck of the De Xin Hai and the cargo ship also was towing two light skiffs used by the pirates behind it. All 25 crew onboard are Chinese, he said.

Click to expand...

Geographer said:

If we're talking about a military strike beyond China's borders, how about the Somali pirates? They just captured a ship with 25 Chinese sailors and there Chinese ships in the region. This board had pictures posted of the special forces traveling along with the ships expressly for this situation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

An old Chinese saying: training soldiers for a thousand days just for the right moment. THIS is the moment!