New World Order - BRIC [Archive]

F35Owns

June 20th, 2009, 01:43 AM

It strikes me as 'absurd' to say the least how the whole issue of 'BRIC' countries is being read too much in to. BRIC is 'not' an 'alliance' as the original post says. It is simply a common platform to bring four emerging regional powers - if that can be said - together to form consensus on issues commonly effecting them.

It is naive to even ponder of some 'alliance' where India and China will sit together. Having non-hostile relations and having an alliance are two very different things. India today is completely in the Western camp of United States, Israel, etc while drifting away from the Russians.

On the other hand, Chinese and Russian relations have grown immensely over the years while Sino-US relations have continued to balance on a fragile thread.

Brazil, has no concerns outside of South America.

Quick question, since you seem to your stuff......The BRIC is for emerging nations, how does Russia qualify? I've read into Russia for awhile, their population is under 125 million, and dropping.

The only way they seem relivent is because they have natural resources and nukes.

As countries like China and the US are beginning to push green technology (cars, homes, .ect), neither of us will be dependent on Oil and Natural Gas 30 years from now. Granted, some will still need it, but how are countries in the Middle East and Russia going to handle it? Losing all of that capital, especially the Mid East. For example, France is going completely nuclear powered and won't need Russian Gas.

I see why China, India, and Brazil are in their, but it seems like the only reason Russia is doing it, is to try to counter NATO, SK, Japan, and Australia Alliance.

Am I off base? I would love to hear some intake.

Sampanviking

June 20th, 2009, 04:31 AM

No BRIC is not an alliance, it is however an alignment of interests and these interests do not coincide with the interests of the Established Powers.

Much of these interests are to do with financial and commercial infrastructure and much of the summit last week was about how to enhance that infrastructure, most of which meant bypassing the use of the dollar in bilateral trade.

Brazil incidentally is very concerned with events outside of South America and is emerging as a major strategic trade partner of China. It supplies considerable amounts of raw materials and China is investing huge sums in building the physical infrastructure to move these resources to the Pacific Coast. I am also informed that the Physical Chinese presence in Brazil is growing rapidly as a large diaspora spreads and puts down roots.

India is of course the odd man out in terms of overall alignment, being a key Western ally in Global matters. This alignment is however being severely tested as it sees the established powers in decline and the its emerging power neighbours clearly on the rise. Many in India are deeply disturbed by the likelihood of alienating its SCO neighbours and excluding itself from access to markets and resources, let alone political or security influence. That debate however, still has a long way to go.

shag

June 20th, 2009, 05:38 AM

India is of course the odd man out in terms of overall alignment, being a key Western ally in Global matters. This alignment is however being severely tested as it sees the established powers in decline and the its emerging power neighbours clearly on the rise. Many in India are deeply disturbed by the likelihood of alienating its SCO neighbours and excluding itself from access to markets and resources, let alone political or security influence. That debate however, still has a long way to go.
I understand that what you say is the popular opinion in China, but I can assure you as an Indian that it is not the case, no one in India barring perhaps those maoist rebels, see China as an ally of India now or in long term future. There are simply too many reasons for India not to align itself with China, few being democracy, clash in economical interest, clash in strategical interest, China's nuclear arming of India's neighbour, String of pearls, border conflict etc.
Latest Indian nuclear doctrine allows targeting of countries who supply nuclear arms used against india. Who do you think that is targeted against?

besides strategic alignment has nothing to do with economic status except in times of war. US and China still trade heavily don't they?

Sampanviking

June 20th, 2009, 01:44 PM

I understand that what you say is the popular opinion in China, but I can assure you as an Indian that it is not the case, no one in India barring perhaps those maoist rebels, see China as an ally of India now or in long term future. There are simply too many reasons for India not to align itself with China, few being democracy, clash in economical interest, clash in strategical interest, China's nuclear arming of India's neighbour, String of pearls, border conflict etc.
Latest Indian nuclear doctrine allows targeting of countries who supply nuclear arms used against india. Who do you think that is targeted against?

besides strategic alignment has nothing to do with economic status except in times of war. US and China still trade heavily don't they?

Whats interesting here Shag is that I talk about the SCO and you come back and talk China.

The salient points here is that a huge part of Asia is now engaged in a process of Integration via the SCO, but India seems determined to isolate itself from this development. This is far more than China, this is about access to energy resources in Central Asia and Political influence in its near abroad like Iran and Afghanistan. A pertinent example must be India excluding itself from the Iran - Pakistan originally India but now most likely to be China Gas Pipeline.

Serious Indian commentators such as M K Bhadrakumar are both askance and aghast by India's lassize faire attitude to its long term economic and physical security and given that these people are establishment insiders must reflect a powerful body of opinion within it.

If India is feeling isolated and surrounded it must look to itself as to why rather than blame the Chinese bogeyman. China has been able to settle border disputes with a host of neighbours many of which have been as acrimonious if not more so than that which it has with India and do it in a atmosphere of friendship and co-operation. In the same spirit China is now building a web of Global ties on both a National and Regional Organisational Level. So what is stopping India?

Loyalty is undoubtedly a virtue, but with the welfare of over a billion souls to care for, the time must come to recognise where its real interests lie and to unhitch itself from the Sinking ships to which it has tied itself.

shag

June 20th, 2009, 02:32 PM

SCO is seen as a military/political alliance with limited unity among members states compared to say NATO or old Warsaw pact.
In either case it has been a policy of Government of India since NAM to stay away from tight military pacts. Reasons for which I will again not discuss here. There is also the obvious fact that membership of SCO will not help it against any aggressive activities from China(No disrespect intended) compared to alignment with US.
Besides there are better economic blocks like ASEAN etc which have much more to offer India economically than SCO can .
Hence it makes better sense for India to stay aligned away from SCO.

Going into your thing about global ties, India has great ties with most countries across the world including old ties with Russia and Brasil the other two of members of BRIC. There is no country in europe and americas that India doesn't have good ties with. That can be witnessed in the number of countries eager to sell defence equipment to India. In addition there are good ties with both Israel and middle eastern nations(That is saying something), the African Union and ASEAN among many others. In fact India enjoys greater respect in middle east than Pakistan itself. With Afghanistan coming under control of Indian supported northern alliance, That potential enemy has also disappeared.As of last few years India engaged with Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and Austrailia in SE asian region in military and technical co-operation. Since recent years India has a good trade going on with China too with lots of IT related exports etc. inspite of strategic conflict. Isolated?Not by a long shot.

roberto

June 20th, 2009, 05:40 PM

SCO is seen as a military/political alliance with limited unity among members states compared to say NATO or old Warsaw pact.
SCO is much tighter alliance than NATO for its intended purpose. Look at direct Chinese/Russia billions of dollars financial help to SCO countries. Direct pipeline routes/natural resource trade. Joint military exercises under CSTO/SCO. Whole point is bringing stability and removing outside influence. and they are successufl in it.
NATO has very limited militar/economic/political unity between Eastern & Western EU & Southern EU to Northern EU.
For example. Italy/France/Germany has large joint projects with Russia at expense of Eastern EU but Russia is not carrying out projects with Taiwan/Japan and has downgraded with India for the benefit of China.
Think over this report.

Mongolia leader wants to change mining deal -report | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1733217320090617)
Mongolia leader wants to change mining deal -report

In either case it has been a policy of Government of India since NAM to stay away from tight military pacts. Reasons for which I will again not discuss here. There is also the obvious fact that membership of SCO will not help it against any aggressive activities from China(No disrespect intended) compared to alignment with US.
India was not that much neutral either. It has Soviet friendship treaty for discounted weopons. and neither will US help against China. US-China commmerical interest are too tight. Who is proposing G-2?

Besides there are better economic blocks like ASEAN etc which have much more to offer India economically than SCO can .
Hence it makes better sense for India to stay aligned away from SCO.

ASEAN economic is wholly dependent on China. There is not much use of joining useless alliance. infact South Koreas arse was saved by China in current economic crises.

Going into your thing about global ties, India has great ties with most countries across the world including old ties with Russia and Brasil the other two of members of BRIC. There is no country in europe and americas that India doesn't have good ties with. That can be witnessed in the number of countries eager to sell defence equipment to India. In addition there are good ties with both Israel and middle eastern nations(That is saying something), the African Union and ASEAN among many others. In fact India enjoys greater respect in middle east than Pakistan itself. With Afghanistan coming under control of Indian supported northern alliance, That potential enemy has also disappeared.As of last few years India engaged with Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and Austrailia in SE asian region in military and technical co-operation. Since recent years India has a good trade going on with China too with lots of IT related exports etc. inspite of strategic conflict. Isolated?Not by a long shot.
I agree with this point. India cannot enter SCO/BRIC as senior member. It is laggard. And there is no point in gaining respect from Middleast. as Middleast influential countries deal with US/Russia/China/EU depending how wind is blowing.

mysterious

June 20th, 2009, 10:05 PM

Quick question, since you seem to your stuff......The BRIC is for emerging nations, how does Russia qualify? I've read into Russia for awhile, their population is under 125 million, and dropping... The only way they seem relivent is because they have natural resources and nukes.

You answer it yourself. Russian population has little to do with anything here. It is Russia's nuclear arsenal and not just its energy reserves but the fact that Russia now enjoys a virtual monopoly over Natural Gas supplies to much of Europe via Gazprom. One who controls the flow of energy resources in today's world has power.

As countries like China and the US are beginning to push green technology (cars, homes, .ect), neither of us will be dependent on Oil and Natural Gas 30 years from now. Granted, some will still need it, but how are countries in the Middle East and Russia going to handle it? Losing all of that capital, especially the Mid East. For example, France is going completely nuclear powered and won't need Russian Gas.

When that will happen, remains to be seen. No green technology is currently commercially viable when it comes to heating your house or getting most bang for your buck from your car. What you're hypothesizing is around 30years from now. Thats a LONG time.

I see why China, India, and Brazil are in their, but it seems like the only reason Russia is doing it, is to try to counter NATO, SK, Japan, and Australia Alliance... Am I off base? I would love to hear some intake.

Of course Russia is not in it for simple economic reasons as well. Russia has almost lost India - its longest standing 'ally' and military hardware buyer to the U.S and Israelis. Russia needs friends and in today's shifting quicksands of international relations, those can mean the difference between power & weakness. Russia is getting cozier with China, Venezuela, etc to offset West's - especially NATO & EU's expansion.

mysterious

June 20th, 2009, 10:09 PM

roberto

June 20th, 2009, 11:58 PM

User 'shag' and 'roberto'; lets be very clear, SCO is NOT a 'military alliance' like NATO. It is a common platform for a group of nations to address common issues from economics to security. That does not automatically imply a 'military alliance'.
No one use Military Alliance in 21st century diplomatic jargon. Make no mistake Military force and Joint exercises are there as last resort against outside influence.
No alliance in modern day can survive unless member countries economic interests are the same. otherwise one have to create coalition of willing on its own expense.

UKraine/Georgia is not EU member but you can see the view point of sharing burden.

FT.com / Brussels - EU strives to avert energy supply crisis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1350184-5cdc-11de-9d42-00144feabdc0.html)
The basic problem is with Ukraine’s ability to pay for its gas supplies from Russia, and that is not our responsibility. We cannot spend the [EU] community budget on that, but we will see if others can make a certain contribution.”

What will happen if current economic crises continue for 5 more years or new economic crises emerge?. As boom and bust cycles are part of capitlist system along with job losses/job shifting.
What do you think member states response will be among East & West.in EU and its impact on Nato?. You cannot make military alliance of members when its economic interests are at cross purpose. Turkey/Italy are practically different than let say Poland/Baltic.
Days of ideology based alliance are over. I can understand Brazil to certain extent in BRIC but not India.

shag

June 21st, 2009, 02:49 AM

lets be very clear, SCO is NOT a 'military alliance' like NATO.
No its not in any real sense. Although it does have an essence of strategic alignment esp for China.
Look at direct Chinese/Russia billions of dollars financial help to SCO countries. Direct pipeline routes/natural resource trade. Joint military exercises under CSTO/SCO.
China is competition in gas supplies, partnering with it doesn't make sense.
Italy/France/Germany has large joint projects with Russia at expense of Eastern EU but Russia is not carrying out projects with Taiwan/Japan and has downgraded with India for the benefit of China.
Think over this report.
There was a lull in defense relations with Russia due to delays in defense projects etc. and because initially the Indian cosy-ing up to west was seen as aligning away from Russian. Russia and India are still increasing co-operation when it comes to defense projects. Take a look at why partnership in pak-fa was offered to India or why Russians still don't hesitate to field their best equipment with full TOT when they make defense offers to India in its MMRCA deal. Issues were worked out in recent talks. Compare that with the fact the refusal on TOT on a/c engines to China. For most countries there is a lot of "trust deficit" when it comes to dealing with China compared to India, this is something China really has to work hard on.
India was not that much neutral either. It has Soviet friendship treaty for discounted weapons.
Not being neutral is not the same as joining a pact. The flexibility in simultaneous bilateral relations that India enjoys with both Russia and the West wouldn't be so easy in a military pact. Which is essence of India's argument against military pacts, i.e, to maintain a relatively independent foreign policy.

ASEAN economic is wholly dependent on China. There is not much use of joining useless alliance.
Economically there is interdependence, but that is the case between any two nations trading heavily. By that parameters it is more dependent on US. Militarily ASEAN is not remotely dependent on China.

roberto

June 21st, 2009, 05:22 PM

China is competition in gas supplies, partnering with it doesn't make sense.

Cooperation with China is good for long term prosperity of India. China can finance all pipelines and trade routes from Central Asia/Russia towards India. India can purchase all the gas it wants from China at friendship prices. Only China has the financing and Construction capability to make it.
That day is not faraway when you can ship goods and travel people from India all the way to EU through China.

There was a lull in defense relations with Russia due to delays in defense projects etc. and because initially the Indian cosy-ing up to west was seen as aligning away from Russian. Russia and India are still increasing co-operation when it comes to defense projects. Take a look at why partnership in pak-fa was offered to India or why Russians still don't hesitate to field their best equipment with full TOT when they make defense offers to India in its MMRCA deal. Issues were worked out in recent talks. Compare that with the fact the refusal on TOT on a/c engines to China. For most countries there is a lot of "trust deficit" when it comes to dealing with China compared to India, this is something China really has to work hard on.
It is not about Trust but simple Business sense. There is reason Chinese sent Men into Space with Soyouz replica and is building its own GPS constellation pretty fast. You dont license certain technologies to them even with upfront cash. Even if India gets licenses it is pretty slow to produce the original one let alone improve it.

Not being neutral is not the same as joining a pact. The flexibility in simultaneous bilateral relations that India enjoys with both Russia and the West wouldn't be so easy in a military pact. Which is essence of India's argument against military pacts, i.e, to maintain a relatively independent foreign policy.
SCO/BRIC has well defined economic sense. I am sure there will be inducements for India taking sides.

Economically there is interdependence, but that is the case between any two nations trading heavily. By that parameters it is more dependent on US. Militarily ASEAN is not remotely dependent on China.
It is not interdpendence if you think over it. Asean economies neither has the natural resources nor the technology that China cannot obtain from other places on hard cash. There is interdependency between China/EU/Russia but not Asean-China.

JapanFocus (http://japanfocus.org/-B-McCartan/3153)
A Helping Chinese Hand: Trade and Aid with Southeast Asia

shag

June 22nd, 2009, 01:23 AM

You are mixing Economics with strategy too much friend. Just because strategically India is aligned away from China doesn't mean it doesn't cooperate with china in other spheres. There are evidences of that all around, check Doha for example.
Heck, I run a software development company and I often outsource my small projects to a firm in Pakistan. There is only so much strategic interest will dissuade you when its about economics.

Ananda

June 22nd, 2009, 07:08 AM

It is not interdpendence if you think over it. Asean economies neither has the natural resources nor the technology that China cannot obtain from other places on hard cash. There is interdependency between China/EU/Russia but not Asean-China.

:shudder Uugghhh...Sometimes I feel many people outside Asean citizens tend to see because there's Asean in Southeast Asia..than all the conditions for SEA countries can be group to one front...

Asean consists from pariah like Myanmar (that's really dependent to China)..and Country like Singapore which is more or less more incline on US club :), Vietnam which still have large suspiscions with it's northern Giant neighbours, and largest SEA country my own Indonesia which still do not know which way to go..:rolleyes::D

China need SEA since this is 500 mio market, we need China for her Cheaps but relatively competitive products. Both can have resources from other hand, but both SEA and China also know they need each other, which China try hard to erlarged it's influences in SEA, and SEA's try hard to balances it with other powers.

Not a simple black and white situations.:)

shag

June 22nd, 2009, 07:28 AM

couldn't have said it better.
Engaging with ASEAN nations offer significant strategic reach to India and for China it represents the region through which most of its supplies come and a natural choke point for any adversary(straits of malacca etc.). Besides combined it is a significantly big market for either country, this is the place where the ASEAN forum itself gains its importance (presenting a unified economic block).

shag

June 22nd, 2009, 07:46 AM

That day is not faraway when you can ship goods and travel people from India all the way to EU through China.

I don't understand that one! Why in the world do you imagine someone in India would send people or goods to EU through China?

Sampanviking

June 22nd, 2009, 06:53 PM

User 'shag' and 'roberto'; lets be very clear, SCO is NOT a 'military alliance' like NATO. It is a common platform for a group of nations to address common issues from economics to security. That does not automatically imply a 'military alliance'.

Absolutely right. I actually think it is best described an early form EU with Oil and Gas playing the role of Coal and Steel.

To user Shag, I must ask why you have such antipathy towards it and indeed regard the PRC as a competitor than can only be resisted? Personally I see so few areas of Strategic Competition as to make such a stance seem utterly bizarre. Such strategic friction as exists in the relationship come from this antipathy and not vice-versa.

roberto

June 23rd, 2009, 08:54 PM

:shudder Uugghhh...Sometimes I feel many people outside Asean citizens tend to see because there's Asean in Southeast Asia..than all the conditions for SEA countries can be group to one front...

Asean consists from pariah like Myanmar (that's really dependent to China)..and Country like Singapore which is more or less more incline on US club :), Vietnam which still have large suspiscions with it's northern Giant neighbours, and largest SEA country my own Indonesia which still do not know which way to go..:rolleyes::D

China need SEA since this is 500 mio market, we need China for her Cheaps but relatively competitive products. Both can have resources from other hand, but both SEA and China also know they need each other, which China try hard to erlarged it's influences in SEA, and SEA's try hard to balances it with other powers.

Not a simple black and white situations.:)
It does not matter whether your Singapore or Myanamar or Indonesia. Your replaceble. For example China can give preferential treatment to Taiwan/SKorea electronic exports and completely slapped ban on Singapore exports. U have now where else to go to coverup the decline. For country to be SuperPower. It needs to have very deep pockets and can play smaller countries against each other.
Hong Kong/China are 20% combined for Singapore. Decline will not be 20% but alot moret than that. Once losses starts it has multiplier effect on whole economy. Bankrupt nations cannot pursue R&D for too long nor can compete based on subsidies in export markets.

Singapore (05/09) (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2798.htm)
Major markets--Malaysia (12.1%), Indonesia (10.6%), Hong Kong (10.4%), EU (10.2%), China (9.2%), United States (7.0%), and Japan (4.9%).

roberto

June 23rd, 2009, 09:17 PM

I don't understand that one! Why in the world do you imagine someone in India would send people or goods to EU through China?
shortest of way of going by Air to China/Russia/Central Asia from India is through China.
Shortest way of importing and exporting by rail/road from EU to India is through China. and once trade expands. this routes can be further expanded. The importance of Sea lanes will be decreasing.

Ananda

June 24th, 2009, 12:47 AM

It does not matter whether your Singapore or Myanamar or Indonesia. Your replaceble. .

Everybody is replaceble in this globalize economy. Is just that the bigger your resources the harder you become to be replaced. I just critize your point of view as seeing all SEA countries as one bucket.

shag

June 24th, 2009, 04:38 AM

shortest of way of going by Air to China/Russia/Central Asia from India is through China.
Shortest way of importing and exporting by rail/road from EU to India is through China.
You should really look at a map some time.:D

@Sampanviking
I don't regard PRC as a competitor or ally nor do I have any antipathy towards it. My assessment is solely based on what I predict as the future course India will take. I think it will be based on what serves its interests best. We have often been know to ignore our interests for ideology in past but recently change can be seen and there is lot of realism in Indian politics compared to the ideology during the time of panchsheel etc.
My opinion is also based on the conflict of interests I stated in my earlier posts. Of course there are lot of common objectives that can be achieved through co-operation as well, there has been some visible progress on those fronts.
Predictions get proven wrong all the time. I hope India and China find some common ground based on mutual respect. But I don't base what I state here on what I wish to see happening, just the current realities.

roberto

June 24th, 2009, 08:59 PM

Everybody is replaceble in this globalize economy. Is just that the bigger your resources the harder you become to be replaced. I just critize your point of view as seeing all SEA countries as one bucket.
what does it matter if country is as large as Indonesia or as small as Singapore. Both are replaceable pretty easily. When u have such huge savings like China. It is financial Nuke on rest of world.

Ananda

June 24th, 2009, 11:02 PM

:what does it matter if country is as large as Indonesia or as small as Singapore. Both are replaceable pretty easily. When u have such huge savings like China. It is financial Nuke on rest of world.

You're begin this SEA/Asean - China debate on talking that all Asean/Sea countries all dependant with China. I said you're oversimplified things.
I already put the arguments that not all SEA countries have same dependency (If you insists on that) with China.

Country like Indonesia for instances are more dependent with Japan or US as they are our biggest export partners and not China. The amount of China investments in Indonesia are miniscule compare to what Japan, South Koreans or evan Taiwan has invested in here. Let Alone compares to British and US investments.
Not all Sea/Asean countries are overly depandent with export. Country like Indonesia which export only have 25% on GDP and more dependent on her own domestic markets to grow. As matter affact last quarter we still grow 4.4% with everybody else in the region except China, India and perhaps Vietnam show negative grows.

You should learn more on one region before saying that all countries in the regions are Chinese lackeys because they're wholly dependent with China. That's what I critize as put it gently laughable :D

To counter the arguments with saying all Asean countries are much smaller and weaker than China is completely outside the issue. Nobody can argue that China is more powerfull than whole Asean/Sea countries put together. But saying because we're weaker than we are all replacebles on China's eyes is simply Childish.

Again some countries in Asean/Sea is not dependent on any way toward China, and It can replaced China if they want to.
Some of us even see China's is competitors in trade due to many of her products competing with our products in the market.

China influences in Asean/Sea is not dominant for all of us. I can say that for Indonesia case, and perhaps other Sea members in the forum can say for their own countries perspective what China really worth for them.
China can replace us for the market but some of us also can 'easily' replaces China with others for sources of products or investments.

roberto

June 25th, 2009, 10:13 PM

:

You're begin this SEA/Asean - China debate on talking that all Asean/Sea countries all dependant with China. I said you're oversimplified things.
I already put the arguments that not all SEA countries have same dependency (If you insists on that) with China.

Country like Indonesia for instances are more dependent with Japan or US as they are our biggest export partners and not China. The amount of China investments in Indonesia are miniscule compare to what Japan, South Koreans or evan Taiwan has invested in here. Let Alone compares to British and US investments.
It does not matter what Chinese investments in Indonesia are. The fact of matter is Your biggest trading partners Japan/US exports are completely on China. Where do u think GM Buicks are the most successful. China has the choice of substituting Bucks and Toyota with VW/Hyundai for common masses but Japan/US does not have option of selling large scale Toyota/Honda/GM anywhere else. China can force Japan/US for not allowing Indonesia exports and replacing it with Chinese if it wants to play hardball with Indonesia. Developing modern automobile with fuel efficiency and safety features required billions of investments. and it can only be recovered when you have mor than 10 millions Autos of domestic market. I am not even going into Truck market. This just one example in One Industry. I am not even going into Solar panels/Turbines/Chip Foundaries.

Not all Sea/Asean countries are overly depandent with export. Country like Indonesia which export only have 25% on GDP and more dependent on her own domestic markets to grow. As matter affact last quarter we still grow 4.4% with everybody else in the region except China, India and perhaps Vietnam show negative grows.
GDP is very questionable and obsolete measure of economc strenght. U dont have any figures for amount of debt created to produce 4.4% GDP growth. For example Russia has 10 years of budget Surpluses from Past. China has atleast 4 years of budget surpluses. They can afford deficit financing for years to come and create artificial GDP growth.

You should learn more on one region before saying that all countries in the regions are Chinese lackeys because they're wholly dependent with China. That's what I critize as put it gently laughable :D
I dont need to learn more about region. G-2/BRIC idea is enough indication who is the bank of the World.

To counter the arguments with saying all Asean countries are much smaller and weaker than China is completely outside the issue. Nobody can argue that China is more powerfull than whole Asean/Sea countries put together. But saying because we're weaker than we are all replacebles on China's eyes is simply Childish.
Sure thats ur thinking that Asean are not dependent on China. Think globally u will get the answer.

Again some countries in Asean/Sea is not dependent on any way toward China, and It can replaced China if they want to.
Some of us even see China's is competitors in trade due to many of her products competing with our products in the market.

China influences in Asean/Sea is not dominant for all of us. I can say that for Indonesia case, and perhaps other Sea members in the forum can say for their own countries perspective what China really worth for them.
China can replace us for the market but some of us also can 'easily' replaces China with others for sources of products or investments.
It is not Chinese products in Asean countries but what China can do in US/Japan/SKorea/Russia/EU/Middleast market if it chose to play hard ball.
Just look at Iran. how China is playing persians against Arab can getting big projects from both of them. It can surely Ask these countries to ban Asean exports for exchange of China protection.

Ananda

June 25th, 2009, 11:59 PM

[QUOTE]China can force Japan/US for not allowing Indonesia exports and replacing it with Chinese if it wants to play hardball with Indonesia.

Oww Kid, you do have grand illusion on China strength..China can Force US and Japan ??
God..just because China now posses big chunk of US originated bonds, does not mean it's also means US now under Chinese thumbs..:haha
So now we're moving from Asean under Chinese Thumbs to Japan and US under Chinse Thumbs..:rolleyes:

GDP is very questionable and obsolete measure of economc strenght. U dont have any figures for amount of debt created to produce 4.4% GDP growth. For example Russia has 10 years of budget Surpluses from Past. China has atleast 4 years of budget surpluses. They can afford deficit financing for years to come and create artificial GDP growth.

True GDP is not the exact determining factor in caclculating one's country growth,l but there's a big differences between Budget Surpluses and GDP. Afterall you do realize Chinse strength coming from her strong GDP growth on this last decades or so..;)

I dont need to learn more about region. G-2/BRIC idea is enough indication who is the bank of the World.

You do realize you like Bush that think that world working on one assumption only right :hehe
BRIC is just an idea that comming from a bunch of consultancy firm and investments banks on grouping High Potential countries. Very far fetch in telling everybody that this four now bankrolling most of the Global economy...
Afterall the idea than scoop by those four countries leaders to gather prestise on...attracting the money from where the money STILL really lies...The OECD countries..:)

Sure thats ur thinking that Asean are not dependent on China. Think globally u will get the answer.

You put the answer from my mouth, please think globally but always try to understand the mechanics on World and regional business first before you say that China rules the world economy..:cool:

It is not Chinese products in Asean countries but what China can do in US/Japan/SKorea/Russia/EU/Middleast market if it chose to play hard ball.
Just look at Iran. how China is playing persians against Arab can getting big projects from both of them. It can surely Ask these countries to ban Asean exports for exchange of China protection.

Ooo god...well let it make it simple...If Chinese are such powerfull nation that's now replacing US as Superpower..why in the heck She just not absorb Taiwan now..???
International Business not always hand in hand with global politics kiddo...Not always..It's can run diffrent mechanics that's not related with the bravado on the political sides.
Nobody in this world have enough power to ask ANY nations it's choose to ban the export from ANY other nations that's she does not like..
You do realize on the existances on WTO right..?? Or you just simply said that WTO is meaningless and now it's also under Chinese Thumbs..??

mysterious

June 28th, 2009, 12:23 PM

Ooo god...well let it make it simple...If Chinese are such powerfull nation that's now replacing US as Superpower..why in the heck She just not absorb Taiwan now..??? International Business not always hand in hand with global politics kiddo...Not always..It's can run diffrent mechanics that's not related with the bravado on the political sides. Nobody in this world have enough power to ask ANY nations it's choose to ban the export from ANY other nations that's she does not like..You do realize on the existances on WTO right..?? Or you just simply said that WTO is meaningless and now it's also under Chinese Thumbs..??

Ignoring your lack of discussion etiquette & deliberate disrespecting other users; your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least.

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night. Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it. The reason that prevents Chinese from doing so is their belief in the rise of a 'peaceful' China which does not [for now atleast] become too confrontational and put it on some collision course with the United States. The United States own rise to superpower status was not all that different in essence.

Having said that, the writing is on the wall already. Ofcourse United States' clout won't disappear over night, but China has started to assert itself and it is not so much as Washington as Beijing that figures in pulling the strings on global affairs. Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

OPSSG

June 29th, 2009, 12:44 AM

...your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least.

mysterious, Ananda has his own world view that is different from yours. Just as my world view is different from his. Just keep in mind that English is a 2nd language for Ananda - so it not difficult to misunderstand his point of view. :D

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night.

I share your point of view that in great power terms the US is in elegant decline. IMHO, China is a rising regional power with the potential to be a superpower. However, there is no guarantee that they will succeed to become a superpower (the way the US and USSR were, within the bi-polar constructs of the Cold War).

I think that many China observers either over-estimate China's ability or underplay the genuine currents of change taking place at break neck pace in China. So there is quite a wide range of opinions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5675198/Chinas-banks-are-an-accident-waiting-to-happen-to-every-one-of-us.html) on how to read China.

Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it.

I respectfully disagree with your point of view. BTW, I've made multiple trips to the Republic of China (or Taiwan) and had a chance to be impressed by Taiwan's air force (http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/), its indigenous defence fighter (http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/idf.html) (IDF) (see 27 June 2009, Open House Pixs (http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=zh_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.klsreview.com%2fHTML%2f2009 Jan_Jun%2f20090629_01.html)) and multiple layers of coastal defences. China could always nuke Taiwan to destroy the island - but a conventional invasion is another matter. That is why China has traditionally focused on an anti-access strategy (Rand, 2007) (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG524.pdf) rather than invasion.

IMHO, it was impossible in the 1980s, 1990s and even early 2000s for China to successfully invade Taiwan. With the current pace of China's military modernization, there is some US concern about Taiwan's capability to defend itself. However, I'm of the view that currently China cannot successfully invade Taiwan. China will still need a decade or two of military modernization for that to be self evident. China's current modernisation efforts are impressive (see chart on a select list of countries (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mechanical-malfunction-on-board-chinese-submarine-kills-70-sailors-537918.html) with the largest military budgets) but still has teething problems - such as the loss of 70 PLAN submariners (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mechanical-malfunction-on-board-chinese-submarine-kills-70-sailors-537918.html) in 2003.

In your current analysis, you have neglected to take into account the Taiwan Relations Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act) and the impact of US arms sales to Taiwan to enable Taiwan to level the playing field.

The reason that prevents Chinese from doing so is their belief in the rise of a 'peaceful' China which does not [for now at least] become too confrontational and put it on some collision course with the United States. The United States own rise to superpower status was not all that different in essence.

Let me cite some statistics* to highlight the dark side of China's rise.

(i) China has a population of 1.3 billion of which 700 million people still live on less than US$2 a day.

(ii) China has a capable central government and there are 45 million officials in China. However, only 2% of these officials belong to the central authorities. China's weakness (if you can call it that) is that at the regional authority level. The central authority does not know what the regional authorities are really doing. It is at this level where the allegations of corruption most often appear.

(iii) In 2005, there were 87,000 instances of mass unrest, indicating that there are rising levels of dissatisfaction by their own population. I believe that this number would have risen after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. It should be noted that thousands of school children died due to shoddy construction in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. In Mianyang City, 7 schools collapsed, burying at least 1,700 people. At least 7,000 school buildings in Sichuan Province collapsed. Another 700 students were buried in a school in Hanwang. At least 600 students and staff died at Juyuan Elementary School. Up to 1,300 children and teachers died at Beichuan Middle School.

While the above data provided is not definitive of China's potential, does China deserve to be called a superpower? IMO, like many China watchers, you would not call China a superpower now, but this ONLY begs the question of WHEN (China will be a superpower) for the China watchers.

IMHO, at this moment I would not ask WHEN China will become a superpower - rather I would ask IF China can become one. I just feel that the data to enable us to make a judgment call is too incomplete at the moment - for us to rush to make that call.

Having said that, the writing is on the wall already. Of course United States' clout won't disappear over night, but China has started to assert itself and it is not so much as Washington as Beijing that figures in pulling the strings on global affairs. Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

Let me put it this way: When a business own a bank a million dollars and a recession comes, the business has a problem. When that business owes the bank a trillion dollars, the bank has a problem. :D

----------
*Footnote: I'm not going to bother to cite various data sources here.

shag

June 29th, 2009, 01:23 AM

@roberto
Saying allying with a country is unimportant just because it is small and has a smaller percentage of share in the world economy is very naive. Myanmar maybe irrelevant economically and China maybe able to punish it, but that will only open room for India to fill in that gap and take over, what is now a chinese sphere of influence. That's part of the reason why China is making all the friendly gestures and concessions to its neighbours, Alienating any country is very costly and will only reduce the clout of a nation, and if the country is in your backyard, it will give your rivals opportunity to come and set themselves up right at your doorstep.
So I respectfully disagree with your point 'that ASEAN is replaceable or unimportant'.

Ananda

June 29th, 2009, 03:19 AM

mysterious;177314Ignoring your lack of discussion etiquette & deliberate disrespecting other users; your naive understanding of how big-powers play the 'game' is quite appalling to say the least
Sorry Mysterious, infact I only answered and pointing out that overestimating China capabilities and power on influencing world order now is the misunderstanding on how the world power being played.

China is a rising superpower; it cannot overthrow US hegemony in one night.

Again that's what I'm pointing out, China at this moment is High POTENTIAL country that can be a rival for US 'SOMEDAY'...that someday means not now, and thus China at this moment is not in possition on dictacting any countries that she's choosing.
Remember my responds above originally responding on a claim that all SEA/ASEAN countries basically under Chinese dominations SIMPLY because China has more power than the wholle Asean.
Asean can be replaceable...so does China can also be replaceble. No Products made by China can not be sourced from somewhere else. It just the matter it's more eficient or not.
People now sourcing more to China due to efficiency and affordability issues, not because it can only build by China.

Lets not forget the massive Chinese holdings in the U.S and the rising frequency of Chinese calls to drop the U.S dollar as the international monetary medium.

I'm not forgetting and Already mentioned on my respond before. But again simply holding large amount of US Bonds..does not mean it can Forced US to do what China wishes. Replacing US $ as global currencies need culmulative efforts by multiple countries.
But again it does not mean that Chinese Ren that will come out as USD replacements...seeing now JP Yen and Euro's have more potentials than Chinese Ren as counterweight for USD.

shag

June 29th, 2009, 06:11 AM

I'm not forgetting and Already mentioned on my respond before. But again simply holding large amount of US Bonds..does not mean it can Forced US to do what China wishes.
@Ananda
China controls 1T in US Bonds.
So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and can be done again. The whole fact has been bloated out to mean more than it should.

mysterious

June 29th, 2009, 03:21 PM

I share your point of view that in great power terms the US is in elegant decline. IMHO, China is a rising regional power with the potential to be a superpower. However, there is no guarantee that they will succeed to become a superpower (the way the US and USSR were, within the bi-polar constructs of the Cold War).

Well ofcourse nothing is 'certain'. One can only make educated predictions. Hardly anyone predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse the way it did and fewer still, that the United States would one day be the sole superpower of the world.

You could say India is a rising regional power but putting China in the same catagory as India would be a folly. China is at the very least 25yrs ahead of India overall, is already an established power in the region.

I respectfully disagree with your point of view. BTW, I've made multiple trips to the Republic of China (or Taiwan) and had a chance to be impressed by Taiwan's air force (http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/), its indigenous defence fighter (http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/idf.html) (IDF) (see 27 June 2009, Open House Pixs (http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=zh_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.klsreview.com%2fHTML%2f2009 Jan_Jun%2f20090629_01.html)) and multiple layers of coastal defences. China could always nuke Taiwan to destroy the island - but a conventional invasion is another matter. That is why China has traditionally focused on an anti-access strategy (Rand, 2007) (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG524.pdf) rather than invasion.

IMHO, it was impossible in the 1980s, 1990s and even early 2000s for China to successfully invade Taiwan. With the current pace of China's military modernization, there is some US concern about Taiwan's capability to defend itself. However, I'm of the view that currently China cannot successfully invade Taiwan. China will still need a decade or two of military modernization for that to be self evident. China's current modernisation efforts are impressive (see chart on a select list of countries (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mechanical-malfunction-on-board-chinese-submarine-kills-70-sailors-537918.html) with the largest military budgets) but still has teething problems - such as the loss of 70 PLAN submariners (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mechanical-malfunction-on-board-chinese-submarine-kills-70-sailors-537918.html) in 2003.

In your current analysis, you have neglected to take into account the Taiwan Relations Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act) and the impact of US arms sales to Taiwan to enable Taiwan to level the playing field.

Yes, I was trying to keep my response brief; hence why no mention of things you point out. Lets face it, Taiwan, just like Israel is kept artifically afloat by U.S tax payers in the name of national security [not that they choose to].

Let me cite some statistics* to highlight the dark side of China's rise.
(i) China has a population of 1.3 billion of which 700 million people still live on less than US$2 a day.

(ii) China has a capable central government and there are 45 million officials in China. However, only 2% of these officials belong to the central authorities. China's weakness (if you can call it that) is that at the regional authority level. The central authority does not know what the regional authorities are really doing. It is at this level where the allegations of corruption most often appear.

(iii) In 2005, there were 87,000 instances of mass unrest, indicating that there are rising levels of dissatisfaction by their own population. I believe that this number would have risen after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. It should be noted that thousands of school children died due to shoddy construction in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. In Mianyang City, 7 schools collapsed, burying at least 1,700 people. At least 7,000 school buildings in Sichuan Province collapsed. Another 700 students were buried in a school in Hanwang. At least 600 students and staff died at Juyuan Elementary School. Up to 1,300 children and teachers died at Beichuan Middle School.
While the above data provided is not definitive of China's potential, does China deserve to be called a superpower? IMO, like many China watchers, you would not call China a superpower now, but this ONLY begs the question of WHEN (China will be a superpower) for the China watchers.

IMHO, at this moment I would not ask WHEN China will become a superpower - rather I would ask IF China can become one. I just feel that the data to enable us to make a judgment call is too incomplete at the moment - for us to rush to make that call.

I approached the topic from a foreign-relations stand point, not petty domestic politics. All countries have domestic unrest. The United States is the most privately armed country; with more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other country. So does that mean, we should start predicting a meltdown of law & order? [not to forget that much of Southern United States is a safe haven for drug cartels, transnational mafias, etc] Point is, states have a way of exercising authority & legitimizing it given their domestic situation.

OPSSG

June 29th, 2009, 11:08 PM

You could say India is a rising regional power but putting China in the same category as India would be a folly. China is at the very least 25yrs ahead of India overall, is already an established power in the region.

Let me start by saying, as usual, it is a pleasure to read and respond to your posts. And I would like to note for the record that I did not attempt to compare China with India in my prior post (and hence could not have put China in the same category as India) - I'm only discussing India now because you brought it up.

I would agree that China is ahead of India in economic development and regional influence. I believe we are broadly in agreement on this point.

Over the last 25 years, China has developed rapidly in part due to the direction set by the CCP and the relatively capable central government. OTOH, thanks to global outsourcing trends and the private sector, India's economy had developed despite of it's relatively incompetent government (as compared to China).

Yes, I was trying to keep my response brief; hence why no mention of things you point out. Lets face it, Taiwan, just like Israel is kept artificially afloat by U.S tax payers in the name of national security [not that they choose to].

Let's not bring Israel into a BRIC discussion.

I have you at a sight disadvantage in any discussion on Taiwan and China as I have traveled to multiple cities in both. Further, I can speak the local language/dialects, have local contacts and have access to their respective local language news.

You are wrong about Taiwan needing US aid (or the US taxpayers keeping Taiwan afloat) unless you are repeating China's anti-US propaganda points unintentionally. This is because China inaccurately labels any US arms sale to Taiwan as 'military aid' (which arises as an accuracy of translation issue). For China to label US arms sales as military aid is not an accurate description. According to the US State department (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm):

"Taiwan has transformed itself from a recipient of U.S. aid in the 1950s and early 1960s to an aid donor and major foreign investor, especially in Asia. Taiwan is now a creditor economy, holding the world's fourth-largest stock of foreign exchange reserves ($294 billion as of Feb. 2009). "

Clearly, the Taiwanese know that US companies make money from arms sales to Taiwan (without the need for US government subsidies). And this is a political issue in Taiwanese domestic politics (I know this because I occasionally watch Taiwanese news broadcasts) - and the Taiwanese public occasionally questions the appropriateness of the US weapons systems sold to Taiwan.

I approached the topic from a foreign-relations stand point, not petty domestic politics. All countries have domestic unrest. The United States is the most privately armed country; with more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other country. So does that mean, we should start predicting a meltdown of law & order? [not to forget that much of Southern United States is a safe haven for drug cartels, transnational mafias, etc] Point is, states have a way of exercising authority & legitimizing it given their domestic situation.

I can understand your point and I believe you have understood the earlier point I was driving at. As such, I do not wish to continue the discussion on China's domestic politics or begin a discussion on the US - as it does not add to our current BRIC discussion.

Ananda

June 30th, 2009, 02:36 AM

@Ananda
China controls 1T in US Bonds.
So, does Japan - a simliar amount. Who controls whom in that scenario is still not resolved. Getting off this drug of fiscal deficits is not out of reach for the US and it has been done less than a decade back and can be done again. The whole fact has been bloated out to mean more than it should.

That's my point Shag..This BRIC grouping originally created by bunch of investment bankers and consultancy groups to justify their investment strategies in the market and try to promote their BRIC funds.
The idea than scoop up by the leaders of those respective four nations to gather prestige again for attracting business and providing added cloud in the international arena.

How much it is really translated to real international capabilities especially in business are much debated, and definetelly overestimated by some analyst and global business watchers.

Firn

June 30th, 2009, 04:35 AM

The moniker BRIC was as Ananda pointed out invented to steer the interest of investors to this potentially high-yield financial markets. As a matter of fact they performed terribly well and terribly bad and recently terribly well, but this is another story.

Fact is that the countries share some economic interests and some loose political ideas which they find attractive - they are far far away from anything like NATO or a solid net of alliances.

OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.

Beatmaster

June 30th, 2009, 11:18 PM

Just a serious idea,
This might be offtopic but i wonder...
The US is a superpower and i believe its the only power that has the power to back it up when needed.
But with China on the rise what would the US and EU do to counter this?
Because now we are used to the fact that the US is calling the shots behind the screens for a big part and in most cases this has a positive effect on global stability...at least that is what it seems.
But with a booming China how would the world react on the fact that the US can be matched in influence some day by China?
The EU economy is largly influeced by the US economy but what happens if the Chinese get near the same influence level as the US and EU?
I mean this would have great economic impact and what would the US do to make sure that US ( And its main allies) economic and strategic intrests keep secured?
Would they step down from the superpower status and pass it on to China someday? or will this result in a sort of arms race to regain full control?
Because if BRIC group is succesful then they should be able to hurt the EU and US economy specially because Russia for example has huge recources that the EU needs (Gas for example).
Also if you look globally how mutch the Chinese export, then i think we all can agree that the export globally is huge and the numbers go only up.
So this means that on a economic level the Chinese doing very wel and their influense grows with each passing year.
Having Russia and China in the same team to counter EU and US economy is not something to look over and forget, because together they have a big voice and if they keep this up than someday the really become a serious player on the worldmarket.....in some ways they already are but i mean that the could rival the US/EU Political, Economical and Military intrests and strategic positions.
And i really wonder what the US and EU is going to do about that to maintain the stability and global intrests because this may sound weard but on a ship there can be only one captain........:coffee

Sampanviking

July 1st, 2009, 04:01 AM

shag

July 1st, 2009, 06:06 AM

Beatmaster, what makes you think that the EU will continue to blindly align with and follow the US throughout the coming decades.

The SCO is an emerging EU type integration mechanism and one which exists on the same continent as the EU and with which is shares significant borders. Why should not the EU and SCO further integrate together in order to ensure, Atlantic to Pacific wide stability, uninterrupted energy supplies and a huge common market.

What exactly does America have left to offer?
@Sampanviking
SCO cannot be compared to EU. The last letters Union and Organization spell out most of the difference. EU is a much more mature grouping with full fledged leadership and very little conflicting interests(atleast on foreign policy and basic principles).

SCO has a very different agenda and scope.
What EU 'should' do is debatable at best and not under the scope of this discussion. However what they will likely do is stay integrated with US. Engaging with SCO on economic front is a different matter and will progress in most likelyhood. Strategic alignment with it on the other hand is very unlikely.
You should remember that 21 EU members are also members of NATO. NATO action in Serbia had the support of most if not all EU nations. You can post a lot of moral questions on this fact but how many nations do you think would support a similar action by SCO, even if it manages to form into that military alliance?
Fact is there are lot of old ties binding US and Europe and SCO cannot expect to usurp it for the next half century

btw SCO and EU are NOT on the same continent.

Beatmaster

July 1st, 2009, 12:29 PM

Beatmaster, what makes you think that the EU will continue to blindly align with and follow the US throughout the coming decades.

The SCO is an emerging EU type integration mechanism and one which exists on the same continent as the EU and with which is shares significant borders. Why should not the EU and SCO further integrate together in order to ensure, Atlantic to Pacific wide stability, uninterrupted energy supplies and a huge common market.

What exactly does America have left to offer?

I believe that the relations between EU and US are way to important for both to lose.

@Shag

What i mean with EU and US against SCO is not as front A versus front B
But more in general pure economic.
There is clearly a form of power shifting between east and west and what i do mean with my post ( I hope i explain it the right way)
Is that if you lose economic influence than eventually you will lose military power as wel and i do believe that both the EU/NATO and US are heavy dependant on a military backbone to ensure its economic ties troughout the world.
For example there are lots of countries out there that have been punished by economic sactions due UN resolutions now theoretical if the West loses influence to Easters SCO/BRIC in a economic way than eventually they will lose the military backbone to ensure sanctions and resolutions as well.
Would east honor these agreements or will China for example dictate a differend view?
So basicly what would the powershift do to the relations between EU members towards US and Bric because we live in a world where the strongest rules ( In most cases)

Again i do hope i explain this correctly and i do believe that this is a bit offtopic at the same time the situation psoted by me fits in to the BRIC/SCO story.

OPSSG

July 2nd, 2009, 02:16 AM

As usual, Firn, many thanks for your response.

...OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.

In most forum discussions on the defence of Taiwan, many participants often fail to properly take into account the Taiwanese forces, the nature of their deployment patterns and Taiwan's natural terrain and shoreline features (enhanced through Taiwanese preparation). Let me just set out a video and some numbers below:

ROC(Taiwan) Military

Taiwan has roughly 2 million troops consisting of 21 active divisions (including the 5 divisions on the Taiwan controlled islands), 7 reserve divisions, 2 armored and mechanized divisions and 1 marine division deployed throughout Taiwan for internal defense. *

The large size of Taiwan's forces dictates that any invasion force will need to destroy Taiwan's SAM network, Taiwan's air force, Taiwan's army aviation and thereafter land enough forces to contend with the defenders (though this 2 million troop figure will be much reduced, in future, as Taiwan plans to go all volunteer and end conscription).

I recognise that China's PLA is embarking on a serious modernisation effort (Rand, 2005) (http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG260-1.pdf) and is striving to be a near peer military competitor to the US. According to some estimates, China's military expenditure in 2008 was about US$ 85 billion (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/peace-is-our-best-defence-20090628-d17h.html?page=-1). Therefore, PLA's military options (especially as they relate to a potential Taiwan Strait confrontation) have grown in recent years with vast improvements in its military power. China observers estimate that China has between 1300 to 1500 ballistic missiles targeting the Taiwan. And hundreds of China's most advanced strike aircraft are deployed facing Taiwan. For many China observers, the two main problems China has in an invasion (when distilled) are as follows:

(i) the sea-land gap of the Taiwan Straits (contending that the PLAN when fully modernised can breach it to enable the PLA's invasion force to conduct integrated joint operations - via the dual track approach of mechanisation and informationalisation - to take on the defenders); and

(ii) the presence of USN (which will be dealt with by China's anti-access strategy).

However, such a two factor analysis fails to provide a complete understanding of a potential China-Taiwan conflict.

And even if the PLA were victorious, whether destroying or forcing the Taiwan’s surrender, the conflict would cause large amounts of civilian dead, the destruction of Taiwan’s infrastructure and the end to Taiwan’s economic strength - what would China gain by destroying Taiwan? The value of Taiwan is in the ingenuity of it's people (and keeping in mind that the Taiwanese are a significant part of China's direct foreign investments). If China wishes to reintegrate Taiwan with the mainland, logically, it's goal should not be to acquire a bombed-out target range for its military forces. However, this is not to say the PLA is without options to make things difficult for Taiwan (via a blockade (http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=979&zoneid=7) or other means (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/cnws/cmsi/documents/CMS3_Mine%20Warfare.pdf)) - available tools includes the newer magnetic and acoustic combination mine like the EM-52 rocket boost rising mines. This type of mine can be laid in waters down to 110 meters deep and it has an electronic trigger for its 140-kilogram warhead.

-------------------
*Footnote: Figures extracted from Wood, Piers M. and Charles D. Ferguson. “How China might invade Taiwan.” Naval War College Review (Autumn 2001).

OPSSG

July 6th, 2009, 04:01 AM

...Taking over Taiwan is no big deal for China if it commits itself to it.

...OPSSG layed already out the military difficulties the PRC faces in an outright invasion of the ROC and seemingly resulting strong focus on antiaccess when dealing with a strong military ally of the ROC. I just want to add that the PRC could be in such an event also be easily subject to a wide array of highly effective options.

Taiwan has roughly 2 million troops consisting of 21 active divisions (including the 5 divisions on the Taiwan controlled islands), 7 reserve divisions, 2 armored and mechanized divisions and 1 marine division deployed throughout Taiwan for internal defense.

The large size of Taiwan's forces dictates that any invasion force will need to destroy Taiwan's SAM network, Taiwan's air force, Taiwan's army aviation and thereafter land enough forces to contend with the defenders...

I was watching an April 2009 mainland Chinese TV programme on the PLA's modernisation efforts, which includes it's anti-access strategy. From 1:28 minute of the programme onwards, there is specific commentary on the PLA's ability to invade Taiwan. The mainland Chinese military analyst featured in the programme believes that the PLA can invade the smaller Taiwan controlled outposts/islands (such as the Yijiang, Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu Islands) off the coast of mainland China BUT NOT the main Taiwan Island. I've included a link to the Chinese TV programme below.

Opinion on PLA's ability to invade Taiwan

Therefore even a military Chinese analyst believes that the PLA does not have the current capability to successfully invade the main Taiwan island.

If you are interested there is an excellent open source online analysis of Taiwan's SAM network (http://geimint.blogspot.com/2009/05/taiwans-sam-network.html) and the SAM network is a significant element of the Taiwan's defense. For an American perspective, please read "Countering a Strategic Gambit: Keeping US Airpower Employable in a China-Taiwan Conflict" by Col Lawrence M. Martin Jr. (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles//apj/apj05/fal05/martin.html), USAF. Ultimately, Taiwan's security has been enhanced by Taiwanese investments in mainland China, ensuring that the CCP's economic interest is aligned with that of Taiwanese investors in mainland China. Conversely, Taiwanese business interests would also be against loose talk by any Taiwanese Government on the topic of 'independence' as this would provoke mainland China. With the KMT in power again, they have indeed toned down any such rhetoric.

Firn

July 7th, 2009, 03:52 AM

I was watching an April 2009 mainland Chinese TV programme on the PLA's modernisation efforts, which includes it's anti-access strategy. From 1:28 minute of the programme onwards, there is specific commentary on the PLA's ability to invade Taiwan. The mainland Chinese military analyst featured in the programme believes that the PLA can invade the smaller Taiwan controlled outposts/islands (such as the Yijiang, Pescadores, Quemoy and Matsu Islands) off the coast of mainland China BUT NOT the main Taiwan Island. I've included a link to the Chinese TV programme below.

Therefore even a military Chinese analyst believes that the PLA does not have the current capability to successfully invade the main Taiwan island.

The links are truly interesting and shed more than some light from many angles on the current situation between the two de facto states.

The primary political objective of the military of Tawain is to protect the state from any possible adversary, and by far the most likely is the PRC.
As the sources show it is an effective force which relative capabilities get multiplied by the innate advantages the defense offers according to the specific geopolitical situation.

I think people should look back in time and they will see just how difficult it was to invade for example the Normandy under much more favorable conditions. Thus the need for the PRC to adopt effective combinations of strategies with varying political, economical and military elements. The anti-access strategy (both political and military) can be considered to be one of the major strategic themes in it.

The ASW thread contains some good articles on the effectivness and the politcal risk of submarine warfare. It proved to be sometimes so efficient that the far weaker sea power could almost defeat the largest empire greatly supported by all means by the largest industrial power. Even if the effort was defeated it needed ten times the ressources to do so. The modern mines could be the naval equivalent of the precision guided bombs, allowing for example a submarine to increase the effectivness of a covert mining operations by a huge margine.

To come back to the original topic. BRIC isn't anything near an alliance, it is just a way to tell the USA that many are not happy with it's power and the way it wields it. There are in fact plenty of issues between nations like India and China or Russia and China which counteract the formations of deeper political and military ties.