• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

E.R. Campbell said:
... Imagine that: property rights being the ‘issue du jour’ in Red China!

That would be quite the kick in the pants, wouldn't it Edward, if Maoist China entrenched "property rights" before liberal Canada.  ;D >:D

That is where Marx and his acolytes got it (and get it) wrong.  They think that just because people trade money and money is associated with capital that capitalism is about money.  As you well know, it ain't.  It is about communication and trade and barter.  Some of the most successful capitalists are those ordinary citizens that have managed survive in a command economy bartering goods, skills and services (I get you a car that fell off the back of truck - you get me a Party membership and an apartment.  Capitalism in its purest form.  Maybe that's Vlad's problem.  As a member of the Nomenklatura, with everything handed to him, he never had to learn "The Art of the Deal")

As for the Chinese, you continue to make a persuasive case for not assuming anything about China.  It has a large population, with a large portion of that population and its central authorities seemingly inclined towards a conservative, hierarchical, authoritarian and collective world view.  And yet, at the same time, as Cougar Daddy is a pains to point out there are traditional, subjugated peoples with varying degrees of animus towards the dominant society.

Add into the mix personal wealth giving individuals access to the means to carve out individual futures, craft different opinions through information and communication with others and you have the potential for 150 Quebecs in China. 

Back to a question you have asked before.  Can China and the CPC manage a transition from an Autocratic Empire to a loose Confederation of States like the EU?  Russia and Yugoslavia are not particularly encouraging harbingers.
 
Kirkhill said:
...
As for the Chinese, you continue to make a persuasive case for not assuming anything about China.   It has a large population, with a large portion of that population and its central authorities seemingly inclined towards a conservative, hierarchical, authoritarian and collective world view.   And yet, at the same time, as Cougar Daddy is a pains to point out there are traditional, subjugated peoples with varying degrees of animus towards the dominant society.
...

And that's a key point and one of the great things about this forum: we get multiple points of view.

The China/Chinese I know are almost* all Han and, broadly, speaking all quite nationalistic and, perhaps a bit less broadly, supportive of the Red Dynasty. That even includes the woman (in her late 60s) who turned down Party membership when, finally, it was offered. Cougar Daddy sees and understands part of the Chinese mosaic that is terra ingognito for me.


--------------------
* I had to go back and insert the "almost." A good friend always manages to find a way to comment, in public, that her husband (who is from the far North of China) is not Han. She says it cheerfully, even lovingly, I guess, but it's a bit of a 'dig' - she's telling everyone that he "married up" in terms of status.
 
Taiwan has come up with a new anti-ship missile to counter the threat of a Chinese invasion.

Taiwan has begun production of a new anti-ship missile (Hsiung Feng 3) for its warships. The 19 foot long Hsiung-feng 3 weighs a ton (with a 400 pound warhead) and has a top speed of 2300 kilometers an hour. Max range is 300 kilometers. It uses inertial and GPS guidance to get to the general vicinity of the target, then several other sensors to lock on to a specific ship and hit it.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Taiwan has come up with a new anti-ship missile to counter the threat of a Chinese invasion.

- With a 300 km range, they can - moored alongside the jetty - whack PLAN vessels moored alongside their jetties.  No?
 
TCBF said:
- With a 300 km range, they can - moored alongside the jetty - whack PLAN vessels moored alongside their jetties.  No?

It'll reach across the straits, yes.  From Taipei to Fuzhou with range to spare.  I wonder if the long range may have been specified in case Taiwan decides it needs to assert sovereignty over some of the disputed islands in the area that are claimed by multiple countries.  IIRC, they work from similar maps as the PRC, so just about anything where the PRC is contesting ownership with the Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan, etc, Taiwan technically lays claim to as well.

There have been a couple heated incidents between Taiwan and Japan in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands involving fishing rights and actions of their respective coast guards.  (Reminds me of the cod wars)
 
T6's article simply state that Taiwan "has begun production.....for its warships".  Any chance that it had previously "begun production.....for" coastal batteries?


I'm thinking that a coastal artillery version of such a missile would be very useful, but also very vulnerable.  There again the whole of Taiwan is very vulnerable, so much so that the Taiwanese have adopted similar tactics to the Swiss and buried facilities, including airfields, inside mountains.

To me it would make sense to generate that type of capability and first deploy it without fanfare then, once I have what I need for the primary defence, put the same capability on the even more vulnerable surface fleet to enhance my manoeuver capability.  I might even wait on deploying the missiles in the open until I have their replacement ready for deployment on shore........

Shear speculation, I know.

(By the way T6 a link or a reference would be appreciated.  Thanks  :))
 
Primary story line is strategypage.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20080905.aspx

One link.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest_of_World/Taiwan_set_to_unveil_missiles_at_National_Day_parade/rssarticleshow/2444506.cms
 
What worries me is the fact that the US still has to make good on its pledges to sell Taiwan diesel submarines, which the ROCN/Guo Min Hai Jun desperately needs to counter the growing strength of the PLAN's surface and submarine fleets. The four submarines that the ROCN has- including two newer Dutch submarines sold to them in the 1980s-might not be enough to counter the PLAN threat.

An article that I posted here earlier on page 28 of this thread- from the Heritage Foundation's website- offers one explanation as to why the US cannot do so just yet.

Recommendations for the Administration and Congress

The United States must return to building at least two, and preferably two-and-a-half, new attack submarines per year beginning in FY 2009. The U.S. must begin procurement for long lead-time components, such as nuclear reactors, in FY 2007 and 2008. These steps are necessary just to hold U.S. subsurface strength steady.

The Administration should also work with key strategic partners in Asia to bolster their fleets. Japan and India are potential submarine warfare partners. Japan must also be encouraged to upgrade its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and surveillance systems.

Congress should hold hearings into reports on the editorial pages of DefenseNews (February 13, 2006) and Jane’s Defence Weekly (February 15, 2006) that the U.S. Navy has sabotaged Taiwan’s efforts to procure modern diesel-electric boats from U.S. shipyards by hyper-inflating prices in order to keep U.S. yards from building anything but nuclear boats. A robust Taiwanese fleet would be a welcome relief as the U.S. Navy attempts to counter increasing Chinese sub-surface fleet pressures in Asian littoral waters. The United States and Japan also need an enhanced partnership with Taiwan in airborne and subsurface ASW reconnaissance and surveillance in waters under Taiwanese administration.

John J. Tkacik, Jr., is Senior Research Fellow in China Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.
 
Do US yards know how to build Conventional Subs?

They seem to be having difficulty meeting their times and budgets on nuclear subs and conventional surface craft that they supposedly know how to produce.  How likely is it that the US can't produce the vessels and doesn't want it broadcast?  Or, if they did produce and failed what impact would that have on some of the intangibles of conflict - ie a generalized fear of the US technical superiority?

Barrow-in-Furness proved that even with a recent history of producing conventional and nuclear subs that it doesn't take long for skill fade to set in.  And the US has been out of the conventional game for a lot longer than Vickers was when it tried to refit the Upholders.

It might make more sense for the Yanks to buy Swedish or German subs for the Taiwanese. - But that wouldn't hire Americans.
 
Kirkhill said:
Do US yards know how to build Conventional Subs?

They seem to be having difficulty meeting their times and budgets on nuclear subs and conventional surface craft that they supposedly know how to produce.  How likely is it that the US can't produce the vessels and doesn't want it broadcast?  Or, if they did produce and failed what impact would that have on some of the intangibles of conflict - ie a generalized fear of the US technical superiority?

Barrow-in-Furness proved that even with a recent history of producing conventional and nuclear subs that it doesn't take long for skill fade to set in.  And the US has been out of the conventional game for a lot longer than Vickers was when it tried to refit the Upholders.

It might make more sense for the Yanks to buy Swedish or German subs for the Taiwanese. - But that wouldn't hire Americans.

I don't think the US has built non-nuclear subs in close to half a century now.  They could employ Americans, I suppose by hiring a Swedish or German firm to train, equip, and license a US shipyard to do so, but as a BC resident... that screams 'Fast Ferry' to me.  It might even be cheaper to buy the subs and just give US workers handouts than it would be to create a domestic manufacturing capability for one order for one small country...
 
The biggest problem with the submarine deal is that the countries that make the good ones dont want to cross the PRC.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The biggest problem with the submarine deal is that the countries that make the good ones dont want to cross the PRC.

The French have official diplomatic ties with Beijing and just economic ties with Taipei, but that didn't stop them from selling those Lafayette class /Kang Ding class Destroyers to the ROC in the late 1990s or even those Mirage 2000 fighters, IIRC.

Nor did it stop Washington from selling the Taiwanese those batches of F16s or those ex-USN KIDD class Destroyers.

Beijing can denounce France and the US all it wants for these arms purchases to Taiwan but they know that for now they cannot jeopardize their trading relationships with two of their larger trading partners- France and the US- although US trade is much larger of course.
 
If that was the case those submarines would be completed by now.

http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/taiwan/index.html

Since the acquisition of the two Hai Lung submarines in the early 1980s, the Taiwanese Ministry of National Defense has been exploring ways to procure new diesel submarines.  In April 2001, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush proposed the acquisition of eight diesel submarines to Taiwan.  However, European shipyards have been preventing from pursuing such a sale by national export policies (after its sale of Hai Lung submarines to Taiwan, China almost severed relations with the Netherlands).[4] Germany has also rejected the possibility of a sale.  In 2003, the US Department of Defense suggested that Taiwan might consider buying refurbished submarines:  the Italian Ministry of Defense reportedly agreed to a sale of four Sauro-class boats, and four more as they are decommissioned by the Italian Navy, but Taiwan rejected the offer, preferring new submarines instead.[5] Taiwan has also been offered Indian and Russian vessels.  In late 2004, the suggestion that the United States might build the submarines for Taiwan itself, voiced three years earlier in discussions over whether the U.S. Congress would support the Bush Administration's decision to assist in the sale, was repeated.  The refurbishment of the Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, is one of the most likely options for US-based production.[6] Taiwan has also been exploring the possibility of building submarines itself.  A cross-ministry task force found that Taiwan's China Shipbuilding Corporation could build submarines without additional large-scale investment if provided with blueprints and submarine weapons systems.  However, Taiwanese Vice Minister of National Defense Huo Shou-yeh said that the United States had indicated it would not help Taiwan build the boats in Kaohsiung.[7]  (For more information on Taiwan's efforts to import submarines, please see the Taiwan: Import Behavior file.)

As of March 2005, Taiwanese officials were reporting that U.S. officials had assured them that the U.S. policy of assisting Taiwan in submarine procurement had not changed.  However, Taiwan will have to pay for the procurement, and the opposition Kuomintang Party has blocked passage of the relevant legislation in the Taiwanese legislature (balking at the $7-11 billion cost of the vessels).[8]  In 2005, the Ministry of National Defense has been lobbying hard for the legislature to pass a special budget of $18.23 billion for arms procurement.  The eight submarines top the list in the procurement package.[9]
 
- They should have taken the Italian boats.  A mixed fleet is expensive, but would broaden their skill base and experience prior to building and crewing their own boats (if it came to that).
 
What is the state of the Collins boats from Australia?  Are they sufficiently debugged yet that they are a contender?  Would the Aussies be willing to sell new vessels, or even just the plans?

The Taiwanese are not bad engineers themselves.  With the Collins plans and knowledge of what went wrong they may be able to do the Aussies a favour and reverse engineer an improved Collins.
 
People in Hong Kong are going to the polls for the territory's Legislative Council (LegCo) election as we speak. So is this continued proof that "one country, two systems" works?

Here is the website for LegCo candidate Cyd Ho/何秀蘭, a member of the political group known as "Frontier" or the Hong Kong pro-democracy camp, who are not only very vocal in calling for better human rights and better rule of law, but they are also very anti-Beijing/anti-CCP.

http://www.cydho.org.hk/main/index.php


 
CougarDaddy said:
People in Hong Kong are going to the polls for the territory's Legislative Council (LegCo) election as we speak. So is this continued proof that "one country, two systems" works?
...

One country/two systems (OCTS) has to work - no matter how much a whole lot of powerful people in Beijing may not like it.

If OCTS fails then:

1. ALL hope of peacefully enticing Taiwan into China and of reconciling Tibet to its place in China fades away; and

2. Investment slows to a near trickle. Continued, indeed increased investment is the key to continued progress (growth) which is necessary to preserve social stability and thereby sustain the Red Dynasty.

It appears that Anson Chan (陳方安生) will not run again but she remains, simultaneously, a major ally of the progressive forces in Beijing and a significant threat to those who oppose OCTS.
 
Edward, it may be necessary for "OCTS" to work for a peaceful and prosperous China to emerge.

But I don't have that much faith in humanity's collective decision making capability to be able to accept that as a safe bet.  Too many failed states in history.

Having said that, in the long-haul, and as I have said before, I am an optimist.  No matter how many wars and failed states we suffer - We're still here.
 
Time to take off the rose coloured glasses:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011853.html

Former diplomat says West has 'fantasy' view of China

Donna Jacobs
The Ottawa Citizen

Monday, September 08, 2008

Canadians have fallen for a Chinese government "charm offensive," says a former Canadian diplomat and specialist on Chinese mafia "Triad" gangs and Communist China's government-directed espionage in Canada.

"I think politicians have to take off rose-coloured glasses and realize what China is all about," says Brian McAdam. "The Canadian government thinks it has to pander to China's needs and to align its foreign policy towards China. This is foolhardy."

Mr. McAdam had a 30-year career in Canada's diplomatic service with assignments in Europe, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the Far East. His career ended soon after he discovered a lucrative visa-for-sale scam operating inside Canada's consulate in Hong Kong.

He spent several years warning the Canadian government that Canada was admitting Chinese criminals and government spies. Immigration and External Affairs (now Foreign Affairs and International Trade) ignored his consular reports.

Ostracized and in ill-health, Mr. McAdam took early retirement in 1993, at age 51. However, he later instigated a joint CSIS-RCMP investigation, Project Sidewinder, which, in its 1997 report, confirmed his findings.

"This document," said the Sidewinder Report preface, "does not present theories but indicators of a multifaceted threat to Canada's national security based on concrete facts drawn from the databanks of the two agencies involved (RCMP and CSIS), classified reports from allied agencies and various open sources." A few days after the Sidewinder team submitted its report, CSIS ordered all copies destroyed and the investigation disbanded. CSIS justified the report's destruction as "conspiracy theories -- rumour and innuendo."

Mr. McAdam has now become an international consultant, expert and author on Triads, Chinese Intelligence Services, their partnership and activities in Canada and worldwide.

He says that five myths perpetuate the West's "fantasy" view of China.

Myth 1: Trade with China benefits Canada

"How many times have you heard that China is now Canada's second largest trading partner?" asks Mr. McAdam. "This means that China is our second-largest source of imports after the U.S. -- not that our trade with China has improved."

He notes that China now exports more than four times as much to Canada ($38.3 billion) as we are selling to them ($9.3 billion). Statistics Canada says the Canadian trade deficit with China expanded from $3.9 billion in 1997 to $26.8 billion in 2006.

"China is really using Canada almost as a colony," says Mr. McAdam, "getting raw materials from us and selling them back to us in finished products ranging from furniture and clothes to plastics and high-tech equipment.

"Canada doesn't need China," he says. "China needs Canada."

Myth 2: China has 1.3 billion customers

"It's a mirage -- there are one billion peasants who cannot afford a bottle of Coke," Mr. McAdam says. The real customer base is 300,000 -- people with privileged government positions.

He says that the West's widespread trade deficits with China spring from low wages and prisoner slave labour, counterfeit products and pirated intellectual property.

While a few Canadian companies make money in China, he says, the fantasy of broad-based beneficial trade has been "created by people to justify" a close relationship with China.

Myth 3: China is becoming a democratic nation

"Trade has not brought democracy to China and never will," says Mr. McAdam. Nor will it bring China free speech, free media, free worship or free demonstrations -- graphically confirmed in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and this year in Tibet.

He quotes Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who said last year that "democracy is probably still 100 years away."

Myth 4: China has improved human rights

With Olympic visitors gone home, Mr. McAdam predicts, China "will crack down" on its citizens.

Mr. McAdam laments that "nobody is really taking China to task over its human rights violations." Even in Canada, Chinese émigrés and students are "intimidated by the Chinese government, which leads them to think that they, or their families back home, will be harmed -- unless they spy." This includes some targeted students, scientists, businessmen, foreign delegations and public servants, he says.

Most of the Chinese media in Canada are controlled by the Communist government or its proxies, says Mr. McAdam. "The information that the Chinese population is getting here in Canada -- they might as well live in Communist China."

Myth 5: China is benign

"China is engaged in a stunning espionage effort, buying ... its way towards high-tech superpower status as fast as it can," says Mr. McAdam. "It wants to have the world's best military."

Ten months ago, the U.S. government concluded, in a 350-page analysis titled 2007 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: "China is supplementing the technologies that its defense industry obtains through commercial transfers and direct production partnerships with an aggressive and large-scale industrial campaign. Chinese espionage activities in the United States are so extensive that they comprise the single greatest risk to the security of American technologies."

(The Sidewinder Report, incidentally, had reached a similar conclusion in Canada: "China remains one of the greatest ongoing threats to Canada's national security and Canadian industry. There is no longer any doubt that the ChIS [Chinese Intelligence Services] have been able to gain influence in important sectors of the Canadian economy, including education, real estate, high technology, security and many others. In turn, it [influence] gave them access to economic, political and some military intelligence of Canada.")

In 2005, during question period, Stephen Harper, then-Conservative leader of the Opposition, criticized the Liberal government for not taking the Chinese espionage threat seriously.

"Today the former head of the CSIS Asia desk (Michel Juneau-Katsuya) confirmed reports from defectors that close to 1,000 Chinese government agent spies have infiltrated Canada,' said Mr. Harper. He quoted Mr. Juneau-Katsuya's estimate that Chinese spies cost Canada $1 billion each month through industrial espionage. Mr. McAdam's conclusion today: "China has dangled billions of dollars of trade, seducing many countries into ignoring human rights issues in China and allowing China to acquire their industrial and military secrets.

"Canada's foreign policy in a nutshell, is 'Shhh, don't upset China because it might affect trade.'

"We need politicians, the media, and others to tell the truth to Canadians and not continue the fantasies. And Canadians must let the government know that a comprehensive China policy based upon facts is long overdue."

Donna Jacobs is an Ottawa writer; her e-mail address is

donnabjacobs@hotmail.com
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
 
Back
Top