• 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

Would it be safe to say that it's doubtful the Chinese care what Clinton says? As said, they need Iran as part of supplying their oil needs.

Associated Press link

PARIS – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday it risks diplomatic isolation and disruption to its energy supplies unless it helps keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.s

Speaking in Paris, Clinton said she and others who support additional sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program are lobbying China to back new U.N. penalties on the Iranian government.

She said she understood China's reluctance to impose new penalties on Iran, its third-largest supplier of oil. But she stressed that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Persian Gulf and imperil oil shipments China gets from other Arab states in the region.

There is a new push for sanctions at the U.N. because of Iran's continued refusal to engage on the matter with the five permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and Germany
.


(...)

China has traditionally resisted U.N. Security Council sanctions, saying they are counterproductive and harm efforts to persuade Iran to prove its claim that the nuclear program is peaceful.

Clinton met Thursday in London with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi to make the case to move ahead with sanctions at the United Nations. U.S. officials said Yang's response was noncommittal.

(...)

The United States risked tension with China on a different matter, with formal word Friday that an arms sale to Taiwan will go ahead. The deal would provide more than $6 billion in weapons sales to the self-governing island the Chinese claim as their own.
 
CougarDaddy said:
Would it be safe to say that it's doubtful the Chinese care what Clinton says? As said, they need Iran as part of supplying their oil needs.

Associated Press link

No, they 'care' about what she says.

But, Clinton has blundered. The Chinese expect demand to be treated for what they are: a great power with global interests and reach. One does not lecture or hector great powers, nor does one warn them of 'consequences' that one cannot impose. Clinton is, de facto, highlighting America's relative decline in importance vis a vis China.

Further: China wants more than needs Iran's oil. China also wants to discomfit the USA whenever and wherever it can and failing to go along with US/Western sanctions against Iran does that: it lowers the value of US leadership and gives the Iranians a 'friend' they never had before - helping to offset the sting of US disapproval.

China is much more favoured (and feared) in the Second and Third Worlds than is the USA; China is growing in stature and 'affection' in the First World, too. All this serves to lower America's relative power.

Foreign leaders should say nice, polite, diplomatic nothings to and about China in public; hectoring should be reserved for private, off the record, discussions. Face* matters.

-----
* The concept of 'face' roughly translates as 'honour', 'good reputation' or 'respect'.

There are several types of 'face,' including:

1. Diu mianzi - is when one's actions or deeds have been exposed to people;
2. Shi mianzi 失面子 - is when one loses face;
3. Gei mianzii 給面子 - involves the giving of face to others through showing respect;
4.  Liu mianzi 留面子 - is developed by avoiding mistakes and showing wisdom in action; and
5. Jiang mianzi  - is when face is increased through others, i.e. someone complementing you to an associate.

It is critical one avoids losing face or causing the loss of face at all times.
 
And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is China’s counterpoint:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-raps-us-over-planned-arms-sales-to-taiwan/article1450430/
China raps U.S. over planned arms sales to Taiwan
Beijing threatens sanctions against American defence companies and suspends military exchanges after Washington announces $6.4-billion weapons deal with Taiwan

Cara Anna

Beijing — The Associated Press

Published on Saturday, Jan. 30, 2010
China suspended military exchanges with the United States and threatened sanctions against American defence companies Saturday, just hours after Washington announced $6.4-billion in planned arms sales to Taiwan.

The development has further strained the complex relations between the two powers, which are increasingly linked by security and economic issues.

China's Defence Ministry said the sales to self-governing Taiwan, which the mainland claims as its own, cause “severe harm” to overall U.S.-China co-operation, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. The Foreign Ministry threatened sanctions against U.S. companies involved in the arms sales.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy, Susan Stevenson, had no comment on China's actions Saturday.

Taiwan is the most sensitive topic in U.S.-China relations, and the sales announced Friday could complicate co-operation between the two sides on issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program to the loosening of Internet controls, including a Google-China standoff over censorship.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei warned U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman that the sales of Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and other weapons to Taiwan would “cause consequences that both sides are unwilling to see,” a ministry statement said Saturday.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier, and it's bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

China responds angrily to any proposed arms sale, however, and it also cut off military ties with the U.S. in 2008 after the former Bush administration announced a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.

Washington has tried to use military visits to build trust with Beijing and learn more about the aims of its massive military buildup.

Overall ties have been tense as President Barack Obama plans to meet with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, this year. It's not known whether the Taiwan arms sale will affect President Hu Jintao's expected visit to the U.S. this year.

Experts on China warned Beijing could take further steps to punish the United States to show its newfound power and confidence in world affairs.

Jin Canrong, a professor of international studies at China's Renmin University, said the sale would give Beijing a “fair and proper reason” to accelerate weapons testing. China test-fired rockets in recent weeks for an anti-missile defence system in what security experts said was a display of anger at the pending arms sale.

“The U.S. will pay a price for this. Starting now, China will make some substantial retaliation, such as reducing co-operation on the North Korea and Iran nuclear issues and anti-terrorism work,” Prof. Jin added.

The latest suspension of military ties should affect planned visits to China by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. A visit to the U.S. by the Chinese military's chief of the general staff, General Chen Bingde, could also be called off.

The U.S. Congress has 30 days to comment on the newest arms sales before the plan goes forward. Lawmakers traditionally have supported such sales.

Though Taiwan's ties with China have warmed considerably since Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took office 20 months ago, Beijing has threatened to invade if the island ever formalizes its de facto independence. China has more than 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

Mr. Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said in a speech Friday that both Washington and Beijing do things “periodically that may not make everybody completely happy” but that the United States is “bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world.”

The arms package dodges a thorny issue: more advanced F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The Pentagon's decision not to include the fighters and a design plan for diesel submarines – two items Taiwan wants most – “shows that the Obama administration is deeply concerned about China's response,” said Wang Kao-cheng, a defence expert at Taipei's Tamkang University.

Taiwan's Mr. Ma told reporters Saturday that the deal should not anger the mainland because the weapons are defensive, not offensive.

“The weapons sale decision will ... allow us to have more confidence and sense of security in developing cross-Strait relations,” he said.

Although China does not really want the USA to stop arms transfers to Taiwan, everything there falls into Chinese hands sooner or later, this is, in some respects, China saying, “I see your shirty comment and raise you a threat and a diplomatic action. Your bet.”

My bet: If Obama does not cancel his meeting with the Dalai Lama then Hu Jintao will pay an extended visit to Canada and will snub Obama by not visiting the USA. Obama will be required to come to Beijing to meet Hu one-on-one.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
-----
* The concept of 'face' roughly translates as 'honour', 'good reputation' or 'respect'.

There are several types of 'face,' including:

1. Diu mianzi - is when one's actions or deeds have been exposed to people;

You forgot the characters for "Diu Mian Zi"  : 丟面子

From what I observed, more people say "Diu Mian Zi" for "lose face" instead of "Shi Mian Zi". "Diu" on its own also means something was lost or had fallen down- thus the common expression: "Diu le!" ( 丟了!) But then again this seems to be when one simultaneously loses face and is also exposed to one's superiors and peers.

Plus, another result of continued US arms sales to Taiwan:

*Take note that this is not the first time these military exchanges have been suspended. It happened after the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown and also after the 1999 Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade, but they were later resumed after a few years after each incident, IIRC.

  China suspends military exchanges with US

BEIJING – China suspended military exchanges with the United States and threatened sanctions against American defense companies Saturday, just hours after Washington announced $6.4 billion in planned arms sales to Taiwan.

The development has further strained the complex relations between the two powers, which are increasingly linked by security and economic issues.

China's Defense Ministry said the sales to self-governing Taiwan, which the mainland claims as its own, cause "severe harm" to overall U.S.-China cooperation, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. The Foreign Ministry threatened sanctions against U.S. companies involved in the arms sales.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy, Susan Stevenson, had no comment on China's actions Saturday.

Taiwan is the most sensitive topic in U.S.-China relations, and the sales announced Friday could complicate cooperation between the two sides on issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program to the loosening of Internet controls, including a Google-China standoff over censorship.

China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei warned U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman that the sales of Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and other weapons to Taiwan would "cause consequences that both sides are unwilling to see," a ministry statement said Saturday.

The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier, and it's bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats.

China responds angrily to any proposed arms sale, however, and it also cut off military ties with the U.S. in 2008 after the former Bush administration announced a multibillion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.

Washington has tried to use military visits to build trust with Beijing and learn more about the aims of its massive military buildup.


Overall ties have been tense as President Barack Obama plans to meet with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, this year. It's not known whether the Taiwan arms sale will affect President Hu Jintao's expected visit to the U.S. this year.

Experts on China warned Beijing could take further steps to punish the United States to show its newfound power and confidence in world affairs.

Jin Canrong, a professor of international studies at China's Renmin University, said the sale would give Beijing a "fair and proper reason" to accelerate weapons testing. China test-fired rockets in recent weeks for an anti-missile defense system in what security experts said was a display of anger at the pending arms sale.

"The U.S. will pay a price for this. Starting now, China will make some substantial retaliation, such as reducing cooperation on the North Korea and Iran nuclear issues and anti-terrorism work," Jin added.

The latest suspension of military ties should affect planned visits to China by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. A visit to the U.S. by the Chinese military's chief of the general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde, could also be called off.

The U.S. Congress has 30 days to comment on the newest arms sales before the plan goes forward. Lawmakers traditionally have supported such sales.

Though Taiwan's ties with China have warmed considerably since Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took office 20 months ago, Beijing has threatened to invade if the island ever formalizes its de facto independence. China has more than 1,000 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, said in a speech Friday that both Washington and Beijing do things "periodically that may not make everybody completely happy" but that the United States is "bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world."

The arms package dodges a thorny issue: more advanced F-16 fighter jets that Taiwan covets are not included.

The Pentagon's decision not to include the fighters and a design plan for diesel submarines — two items Taiwan wants most — "shows that the Obama administration is deeply concerned about China's response," said Wang Kao-cheng, a defense expert at Taipei's Tamkang University.

Taiwan's Ma told reporters Saturday that the deal should not anger the mainland because the weapons are defensive, not offensive.

"The weapons sale decision will ... allow us to have more confidence and sense of security in developing cross-Strait relations," he said.


Associated Press link
 
A trial baloon of sorts. Obviously this is an upsetting idea for India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-mulls-setting-up-military-base-in-Pakistan/articleshow/5510235.cms

China mulls setting up military base in Pakistan
Saibal Dasgupta, TNN, 28 January 2010, 07:58pm ISTT
 
BEIJING: China has signaled it wants to go the US way and set up military bases in overseas locations that would possibly include Pakistan. The obvious purpose would be to exert pressure on India as well as counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. ( Watch Video )

"(So) it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad," an article published on Thursday at a Chinese government website said. "It is our right," the article said and went on to suggest that it would be done in the neighborhood, possibly Pakistan.

"As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies' overseas interests," it said.

A military base in Pakistan will also help China keep a check on Muslim Uighur separatists fighting for an independent nation in its western region of Xingjian, which borders the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Beijing recently signed an agreement with the local government of NWFP in order to keep a close watch on the movement of Uighur ultras.

"I have personally felt for sometime that China might one day build a military base in India's neighborhood. China built the Gadwar port in Pakistan and is now broadening the Karokoram highway. These facilities can always be put to military use when the need arises," Ramesh V Phadke, former Air Commodore and advisor to the Institute of Defense Studies told TNN.

Phadke said the article in very significant. "The purpose may be to see how the international community reacts to it," he said.

China, which has no military bases outside its territory, has often criticized the United States for operating such overseas bases. It has not just changed its standpoint but also wants to enter the lucrative protection business.

"With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection," the article said. Pakistan, which buys 70% of its military hardware from China, is likely to be an eager buyer for such protection. Beijing may also be able to pressurize Islamabad to accept its diktat using the threat of withholding military supplies.

A Pakistani expert on China-Pakistan relationship has a different view on the subject. "The Americans had a base in the past and it caused a political stink. I don’t think it would be politically possible for the Pakistani government to openly allow China to set up a military base," he said while requesting anonymity. Pakistan might allow use of its military facilities without publicly announcing it, he said.

A Chinese military base can tackle several international relations issues, it said. One of them is "the relationship between the base troops and the countries neighboring to the host country." This is another indication that Beijing is considering Pakistan as a possible base. China’s argument is that a foreign base would actually help regional stability.

"If the base troops can maintain the regional stability, it will be probably welcomed by all the countries in the region," the article said. Beijing is conscious that the move might result in opposition from the US, UK and France which has overseas military bases.

“Thirdly, the relationship between the big countries in the world. The establishment of the troop bases is sensitive to those big countries which have already set up the bases abroad," the article said.
 
CougarDaddy said:
You forgot the characters for "Diu Mian Zi"  : 丟面子

From what I observed, more people say "Diu Mian Zi" for "lose face" instead of "Shi Mian Zi". "Diu" on its own also means something was lost or had fallen down- thus the common expression: "Diu le!" ( 丟了!) But then again this seems to be when one simultaneously loses face and is also exposed to one's superiors and peers.

Plus, another result of continued US arms sales to Taiwan:

*Take note that this is not the first time these military exchanges have been suspended. It happened after the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown and also after the 1999 Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade, but they were later resumed after a few years after each incident, IIRC.

Thanks for those explanations. I didn't 'forget' the characters: I didn't know how to write them. I also didn't understand the distinction between diu mian zi a she mian zi.
 
Take note that in spite of this, China is still also a major polluter (all those coal plants) and has been so even before its rush to develop right after Deng Xiaoping opened up China from the 80s onward:

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

New York Times link

articleLarge.jpg
 

China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

... These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

... Multinational corporations are responding to the rapid growth of China’s market by building big, state-of-the-art factories in China. Vestas of Denmark has just erected the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex here in northeastern China, and transferred the technology to build the latest electronic controls and generators.

... China’s top leaders are intensely focused on energy policy: on Wednesday, the government announced the creation of a National Energy Commission composed of cabinet ministers as a “superministry” led by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.

... President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.

(...)

 
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is another report on China’s current feud with the USA:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-warns-obama-not-to-meet-dalai-lama/article1452742/
China warns Obama not to meet Dalai Lama
Beijing says a possible meeting with president during Dalai Lama's U.S. visit would further hurt relations

Chris Buckley and Ben Blanchard

Beijing — Reuters

Published on Tuesday, Feb. 02, 2010

China said a possible meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama would further hurt Sino-U.S. relations, and vowed to go ahead with sanctions against U.S. companies selling arms to Taiwan.
China has become increasingly assertive in opposing meetings between the Dalai Lama and foreign leaders, and a meeting between the exiled Tibetan leader and Mr. Obama would add to the litany of troubles between the world's biggest and third biggest economies.

Relations between the United States and China have soured over a range of issues from trade and currency policies to control of the Internet.

There has been widespread speculation that Mr. Obama will meet the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan Buddhist monk visits the United States in coming months. The White House has not publicly confirmed any such meeting.

Zhu Weiqun, a Vice-Minister of the United Front Work Department of China's ruling Communist Party, said his government would vehemently oppose any meeting between Mr. Obama and the Dalai Lama, who Beijing deems a dangerous separatist.

“If that comes to pass, then China will be strongly opposed as always,” Mr. Zhu, who's department steers Party policy over religious and ethnic issues, said of the possible meeting.

A meeting “would be totally at odds with international accepted practices and would seriously undermine the political basis of Sino-U.S. relations”, added Mr. Zhu.

“If the U.S. leader chooses this time to meet the Dalai Lama, that would damage trust and co-operation between our two countries, and how would that help the United States surmount the current economic crisis?” said Mr. Zhu.

China routinely opposes meetings between the Dalai Lama and foreign leaders, especially after violent unrest spread across Tibetan areas in March 2008. Previous U.S. presidents have met him.

The Dalai Lama has said he wants a high level of genuine autonomy for his homeland, which he fled in 1959. China says that his demands amount to pressing for outright independence.

China recently hosted talks with envoys of the Dalai Lama, but those talks achieved little.

Even a brief symbolic encounter between the U.S. leader and the Dalai Lama would stoke ire in Beijing, already angered by U.S. proposals last week to sell $6.4-billion of weapons to Taiwan, the disputed island that China treats as an illegitimate breakaway province.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu, on Tuesday repeated Beijing's threat to impose sanctions against U.S. companies which sell arms to Taiwan.

“The concerned U.S. companies have ignored China's opposition and insisted on selling weapons to Taiwan. China will impose corresponding sanctions on companies that sell weapons to Taiwan,” Mr. Ma said told a news conference.

“The United States actions will seriously hurt China's core interests and seriously hurt China-U.S. interests,” he said. “This will unavoidably affect China-U.S. co-operation on important international and regional issues.”

On Friday, the Obama administration said it would sell a package of $6.4-billion of missiles, helicopters and other military hardware to Taiwan.

China then said U.S. companies involved in selling the arms to Taiwan would face “corresponding sanctions”.

Companies that could be affected include Sikorsky Aircraft Corp, a unit of United Technologies Corp; Lockheed Martin Corp; Raytheon Co; and McDonnell Douglas, a unit of Boeing Co.

China says the dispute will damage co-operation with the United States over international issues. Washington has sought stronger Chinese support over several hot spots, chiefly the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognizing “one China”. But it remains Taiwan's biggest backer and is obliged by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to help in the island's defence.

I said ”China’s current feud with the USA,” because it’s not the first and it will not be the last.

Mr. Zhu and his colleagues in the Government of China are being just a wee tad hypocritical, however; what ever happened to the doctrine of “non interference in the affairs of sovereign nations?” If China can criticize the US administration for something it might do then why can it not criticize, say, North Korea, Iran or Sudan for things they are doing?

But, the point, correctly noted by the authors, is that China is being increasingly assertive on a range of issues that it sees as touching on its own interests. The question is how will or, perhaps how can retaliate if Obama meets the Dalai Lama?

 
China's foreign policy at work in an unexpected place.

Reuters link

By Olesya Dmitracova

BARONCEA, Moldova (Reuters) - Small, poor nations without significant mineral deposits are unlikely candidates for investment by the world's third-largest economy.


Yet China is taking a growing interest in Moldova, a former Soviet state that is poorer than many countries in Africa.


Here, horse-drawn carts loaded with hay trundle on battered roads alongside top-end Mercedes and Lexus cars, and villagers get water from daily trips to wells.


China last July signed a memorandum of understanding to lend Moldova $1 billion -- equal to a tenth of the east European country's gross domestic product, and easily the biggest loan it will have received from anywhere.



Asked why, experts have to stop and think.


"It is true that Chinese exporters are looking to diversify their export base," said Duncan Innes-Ker, Beijing-based China analyst for the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).


"I would imagine that they would go to the much more traditional places because Moldova really doesn't have the infrastructure.


"It doesn't have, well, very much of anything," he added with a laugh.


Economic crisis has pummeled Moldova, which depends on money earned abroad for about one-third of its gross domestic product -- the third-highest ratio globally. Moldovan workers sent home about a third less cash last year than in 2008, according to the National Bank.



People like Mariana Liulceac are feeling the impact: in better days, she got enough money from her husband's work as a builder in Russia to send her son to a $1,200-a-year boarding school for children with learning difficulties. For the past six months, her husband hasn't been paid. Her son quit school.


Living in a two-room house with three children, no kitchen, bathroom or running water, Liulceac now depends on a British charity.


So Moldova needs the money.


How dim its prospects are is summarized in the CIA Handbook: "Likely to have a modest recovery in 2010, but remains vulnerable to political uncertainty, weak administrative capacity, vested bureaucratic interests, higher fuel prices, poor agricultural weather, and the skepticism of foreign investors as well as the presence of an illegal separatist regime in Moldova's Transdniestria region."


SKILLS


What, besides diversifying some of its $2.4 trillion foreign exchange reserves, is China after?


Travel around Moldova and you see and hear some possible targets. Although the only official language is Moldovan, most people can speak Russian and thousands travel to the country's former Soviet master to work.


Agriculture makes up a fifth of Moldova's economy, yet with the legacy of a Soviet-era education system, Moldova's literacy level is a fraction higher than in the United States.

The capital Chisinau is full of Internet cafes, and Moldova sits comfortably in the top half of 134 countries ranked for information technology potential by the World Economic Forum.

Funds from the promised loan, still being negotiated after it was agreed with a previous government, will go toward construction and infrastructure projects. Part is intended to create high-tech industries, Moldova's current government says.


INFLUENCE

More significant, though, is the influence the loan can buy.

"China is exercising its new-found foreign policy," said IHS Global Insight analyst Lilit Gevorgyan. She added that it is eyeing "advantages of being a rising superpower."

While China is becoming increasingly assertive with the United States, in eastern Europe it is moving gently into poor spots, gradually building financial ties with Russia's neighbors.

Last June, it agreed to invest more than $1 billion to build power plants and roads in Tajikistan, an impoverished ex-Soviet state with limited natural resources. In March, China's central bank agreed a three-year currency swap worth 20 billion yuan ($2.93 billion) with another former Soviet republic, Belarus.

"By strengthening its hand in Russia's backyard, as it were, China gives itself more leverage in overall negotiations with Moscow," EIU's Innes-Ker said.

Gevorgyan agreed China wants to earn a "political dividend."
Moldova is in Russia's backyard in more than one sense: Russia has kept troops in the breakaway region of Transdniestria since 1992, and negotiations to withdraw them have so far failed. Transdniestria wants independence or integration with Russia, but Moldova is willing to give it only autonomy.

China will increasingly need leverage with Russia as its dealings with its oil- and gas-rich neighbor expand. Russia provides nearly 8 percent of China's total crude oil imports, and Gazprom is in advanced talks on a deal to supply gas.

"For decades Russia has had rocky relations with its powerful eastern neighbor, but now Russian strongman (Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin has decided to set these aside and embrace closer economic co-operation," IHS Global Insight analysts wrote in a note in October.

But, they added, there remains mistrust between the two.


EUROPE'S BACKYARD

For China, the loan is also not devoid of commercial potential, and it could be a way to establish a clientele in the European Union's backyard as well as Russia's.

"There are synergies between China's export interests and concerns and Moldova's specific manufacturing base," said Franklin Steves, political counselor at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

China would likely focus on Moldova's agriculture, wine and textiles sectors, he said. Exporting goods to the European Union via Moldova could cut Chinese transport costs significantly.

"The textiles sector ... is an area in which Moldova remains competitive on European and regional markets and is, of course, a sector in which Chinese investors are major players on the global stage," said Steves.

Moldova's comparatively low wages have already attracted a number of European textile manufacturers, he noted. Some have relocated from places like Romania, where wages have increased.

Moldova's poverty, weak governance and the Transdniestria dispute -- which means the government doesn't control part of its territory -- make its chances of joining the European Union remote. It is a member of the EU's Eastern Partnership and was entitled to 210 million euros in EU assistance for 2007-2010, tied to projects to promote democracy and reform.
The Chinese loan would dwarf any money coming from Brussels, or from anywhere.

To put it into context: before he became prime minister in Moldova's current pro-Western coalition, Vlad Filat said it expected to receive $2 billion from the West -- $1.5 billion in loans from international financial institutions and $500 million in U.S. grants.

It has received about $93 million out of a promised $574 million from the IMF in a program agreed last month. Russia promised the former communist government a $500 million loan. Nothing has been disbursed so far.

Of course, no money has yet been received from China, either. But the promise is pretty powerful.


"In some ways, in a small country like Moldova you can get more bang for your buck," said Steves.

(Additional reporting by Paul Taylor; Editing by Sara Ledwith)
 
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Foreign Affairs web site, is an interesting report on China’s most pressing problem:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65947/the-end-of-the-beijing-consensus?page=2
The End of the Beijing Consensus
Can China's Model of Authoritarian Growth Survive?
 
Yang Yao

February 2, 2010

Summary:

Beijing's ongoing efforts to promote growth are infringing on people's economic and political rights. In order to survive, the Chinese government will have to start allowing ordinary citizens to take part in the political process.

YANG YAO is Deputy Dean of the National School of Development and the Director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University.

Since China began undertaking economic reforms in 1978, its economy has grown at a rate of nearly ten percent a year, and its per-capita GDP is now twelve times greater than it was three decades ago. Many analysts attribute the country's economic success to its unconventional approach to economic policy -- a combination of mixed ownership, basic property rights, and heavy government intervention. Time magazine's former foreign editor, Joshua Cooper Ramo, has even given it a name: the Beijing consensus.

But, in fact, over the last 30 years, the Chinese economy has moved unmistakably toward the market doctrines of neoclassical economics, with an emphasis on prudent fiscal policy, economic openness, privatization, market liberalization, and the protection of private property. Beijing has been extremely cautious in maintaining a balanced budget and keeping inflation down. Purely redistributive programs have been kept to a minimum, and central government transfers have been primarily limited to infrastructure spending. The overall tax burden (measured by the ratio of tax revenue to GDP) is in the range of 20 to 25 percent. The country is the world's second-largest recipient of foreign direct investment, and domestically, more than 80 percent of its state-owned enterprises have been released to private hands or transformed into publicly listed companies. Since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lacks legitimacy in the classic democratic sense, it has been forced to seek performance-based legitimacy instead, by continuously improving the living standards of Chinese citizens. So far, this strategy has succeeded, but there are signs that it will not last because of the growing income inequality and the internal and external imbalances it has created.

The CCP's free-market policies have, predictably, led to major income disparities in China. The overall Gini coefficient -- a measure of economic inequality in which zero equals perfect equality and one absolute inequality -- reached 0.47 in 2008, the same level as in the United States. More disturbing, Chinese city dwellers are now earning three and a half times as much as their fellow citizens in the countryside, the highest urban-rural income gap in the world.

How, then, has the Chinese government been able to adopt the principles of neoclassical economics while still claiming Marxism as its ideological anchor? The answer is that China has for three decades been ruled by a disinterested government -- a detached, unbiased regime that takes a neutral stance when conflicts of interest arise among different social and political groups. This does not mean that Beijing has been devoid of self-interest. On the contrary, the state is often predatory toward citizens, but its predation is "identity-blind" in the sense that Beijing does not generally care about the social and political status of its chosen prey -- unlike many governments elsewhere that act to protect and enrich specific social or political groups. As a consequence, the Chinese government has been more likely than other authoritarian regimes to adopt growth-enhancing policies.

For the last 30 years, the CCP has intentionally adopted policies favoring specific groups or regions to promote reform and economic growth. It has helped that the disinterested CCP government was not permanently beholden to certain groups or regions. China's integration into the world economy is a case in point. At the end of the 1970s, the United States was eager to bring China into its camp as a buffer against Soviet hegemony, and China quickly grasped the opportunity. Yet that early adoption of an "open-door" policy gave rise to domestic resistance: special economic zones, such as Shenzhen, enjoyed an abundance of preferential treatments that other parts of the country envied. Moreover, the CCP's export-led growth model required that Beijing embrace an unbalanced development strategy that encouraged rapid growth on the country's east coast while neglecting the interior; today, nearly 90 percent of China's exports still come from the nine coastal provinces.

China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 was also a calculated move. Before accession, it was widely believed that China would have to endure painful structural adjustment policies in many sectors in order to join the WTO. Even so, the central government actually accelerated negotiations with the organization's members. Despite the burdens it placed on the agriculture and retailing sectors, accession boosted China's exports, proving wrong those who worried about its effects. Between 2002 and 2007, Chinese exports grew by an annual rate of 29 percent, double the average rate during the 1990s.

China's astronomic growth has left it in a precarious situation, however. Other developing countries have suffered from the so-called middle-income trap -- a situation that often arises when a country's per-capita GDP reaches the range of $3,000 to $8,000, the economy stops growing, income inequality increases, and social conflicts erupt. China has entered this range, and the warning signs of a trap loom large.

In the last several years, government involvement in the economy has increased -- most notably with the current four-trillion-yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan. Government investment helped China reach a GDP growth rate of nearly nine percent in 2009, which many applaud; but in the long run, it could suffocate the Chinese economy by reducing efficiency and crowding out more vibrant private investment.

The economy currently depends heavily on external demand, creating friction among major trading partners. Savings account for 52 percent of GDP, and consumption has dropped to a historic low. Whereas governments in most advanced democracies spend less than eight percent of government revenue on capital investment, this figure is close to 50 percent in China. And residential income as a share of national income is declining, making the average citizen feel poorer while the economy expands.

As the Chinese people demand more than economic gains as their income increases, it will become increasingly difficult for the CCP to contain or discourage social discontent by administering the medicine of economic growth alone.

Despite its absolute power and recent track record of delivering economic growth, the CCP has still periodically faced resistance from citizens. The Tiananmen incident of April 5, 1976, the first spontaneous democratic movement in PRC history, the June 4 movement of 1989, and numerous subsequent protests proved that the Chinese people are quite willing to stage organized resistance when their needs are not met by the state. International monitoring of China's domestic affairs has also played an important role; now that it has emerged as a major global power, China is suddenly concerned about its legitimacy on the international stage.

The Chinese government generally tries to manage such popular discontent by providing various "pain relievers," including programs that quickly address early signs of unrest in the population, such as reemployment centers for unemployed workers, migration programs aimed at lowering regional disparities, and the recent "new countryside movement" to improve infrastructure, health care, and education in rural areas.

Those measures, however, may be too weak to discourage the emergence of powerful interest groups seeking to influence the government. Although private businesses have long recognized the importance of cultivating the government for larger profits, they are not alone. The government itself, its cronies, and state-controlled enterprises are quickly forming strong and exclusive interest groups. In a sense, local governments in China behave like corporations: unlike in advanced democracies, where one of the key mandates of the government is to redistribute income to improve the average citizen's welfare, local governments in China simply pursue economic gain.

More important, Beijing's ongoing efforts to promote GDP growth will inevitably result in infringements on people's economic and political rights. For example, arbitrary land acquisitions are still prevalent in some cities, the government closely monitors the Internet, labor unions are suppressed, and workers have to endure long hours and unsafe conditions. Chinese citizens will not remain silent in the face of these infringements, and their discontent will inevitably lead to periodic resistance. Before long, some form of explicit political transition that allows ordinary citizens to take part in the political process will be necessary.

The reforms carried out over the last 30 years have mostly been responses to imminent crises. Popular resistance and economic imbalances are now moving China toward another major crisis. Strong and privileged interest groups and commercialized local governments are blocking equal distribution of the benefits of economic growth throughout society, thereby rendering futile the CCP's strategy of trading economic growth for people's consent to its absolute rule.

An open and inclusive political process has generally checked the power of interest groups in advanced democracies such as the United States. Indeed, this is precisely the mandate of a disinterested government -- to balance the demands of different social groups. A more open Chinese government could still remain disinterested if the right democratic institutions were put in place to keep the most powerful groups at bay. But ultimately, there is no alternative to greater democratization if the CCP wishes to encourage economic growth and maintain social stability.

The author’s conclusion, ”there is no alternative to greater democratization if the CCP wishes to encourage economic growth and maintain social stability” is quite correct. The problem is that as the middle class grows it gets past the first tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and it begins to become concerned with longer term socio-economic issues and it wants a voice in the decision making process. Social stability, what I usually refer to as social harmony, is much more important in a deeply conservative* society like China than is the case in the liberal (individualistic) West and those conservative values can be used, for a while, to delay democratization but , eventually, self interest and family interest will win out.


----------
Conservative in the correct sense of the word, not the way the word is commonly used, especially in the United States, to describe social, political and ethical values that are anathema to real conservatives.
 
Keyword regarding these polls: State-run newspaper.  ::)

Remember that when there were public demonstrations against the US bombing of the PRC embassy of Belgrade in 1999, the "protestors" were bused to the protest venues outside the US embassy. Xinhua probably footed the bill for those buses.

MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”.

The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing.

According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.

In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.


“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.

He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”
Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further.

“This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.” A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”.

An internal publication at the elite Qinghua University last week predicted the strains would get worse because “core interests” were at risk. It said battles over exports, technology transfer, copyright piracy and the value of China’s currency, the yuan, would be fierce.

.......

In Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.

But there are a few voices urging caution on Chinese public opinion. “China will look unreal if it behaves aggressively and competes for global leadership,” wrote Wang Yusheng, a retired diplomat, in the China Daily.

He warned that China was not as rich or as powerful as America or Japan and therefore such a move could be “hazardous”.

Times online

 
 
The long view. China, Obama...this too, shall pass:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001408-americas-dubious-decline

America on the Rise
by Joel Kotkin 02/09/2010
AmericaDecline.jpg

For much of the past decade, "declinism" – the notion that America is heading toward a deadly denouement – has largely been a philosophy of the left. But more recently, particularly in the wake of Barack Obama's election, conservatives have begun joining the chorus, albeit singing a somewhat different variation on the same tune.

In a recent column in The Washington Post George Will illustrates this conservative change of heart. Looking over the next few decades Will sees an aging, obsolescent America in retreat to a young and aggressive China. "America's destiny is demographic, and therefore is inexorable and predictable," he suggests, pointing to predictions by Nobel Prize economist Robert Fogel that China's economy will be three times larger than that of the U.S. by 2040.

Will may be one of America's great columnists, but he – like his equally distinguished liberal counterpart Thomas Friedman – may be falling prey to a current fashion for sinophilia. It is a sign of the times that conservatives as well as liberals often underestimate the Middle Kingdom's problems – in addition to America's relative strengths.

Rarely mentioned in such analyses is China's own aging problem. The population of the People's Republic will be considerably older than the U.S.' by 2050. It also has far more boys than girls – a rather insidious problem. Among the younger generation there are already an estimated 24 million more men of marrying age than women. This is not going to end well – except perhaps for investors in prostitution and pornography.

In the longer term demographic trends actually place the U.S. in a relatively strong position. By the end of the first half of the 21st century, the American population aged 15 to 64 – essentially your economically active cohort – are projected to grow by 42%; China's will shrink by 10%. Comparisons with other competitors are even larger, with the E.U. shrinking by 25%, Korea by 30% and Japan by a remarkable 44%.

The Japanese experience best illustrates how wrong punditry can be. Back in the 1970s and 1980s it was commonplace for pundits – particularly on the left – to predict Japan's ascendance into world leadership. At the time distinguished commentators like George Lodge, Lester Thurow and Robert Reich all pointed to Europe and Japan as the nations slated to beat the U.S. on the economic battlefield. "Japan is replacing America as the world's strongest economic power," one prominent scholar told a Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 1986. "It is in everyone's interest that the transition goes smoothly."

This was not unusual or even shocking at the time. It followed a grand tradition of declinism that over the past 70 years has declared America ill-suited to compete with everyone from fascist Germany and Italy to the Soviet Union. By the mid-1950s a majority were convinced that we were losing the Cold War. In the 1980s Harvard's John Kenneth Galbraith thought the Soviet model successful enough that the two systems would eventually "converge."

We all know how that convergence worked out. Even the Chinese abandoned the Stalinist economic model so admired by many American intellectuals once Mao was safely a-moldering in his grave. Outside of the European and American academe, the only strong advocates of state socialism can be found in such economic basket cases as Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

So given this history, why the current rise in declinism? Certainly it's a view many in the wider public share. Most Americans fear their children will not be able to live as well as they have. A plurality think China will be the world's most powerful country in 20 years.

To be sure there are some good reasons for pessimism. The huge deficits, high unemployment, our leakage of industry not only to China but other developing countries are all worrisome trends. Yet if the negative case is easier to make, it does not stand historical scrutiny.

Let's just go back to what we learned during the "Japan is taking over the world" phase during the 1970s and 1980s. At the time Dai Nippon's rapid economic expansion was considered inexorable. Yet history is not a straight-line project. Most countries go through phases of expansion and decline. The factors driving success often include a well-conceived economic strategy, an expanding workforce and a sense of national élan.

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s Japan – like China today – possessed all those things. Its bureaucratic state had targeted key industries like automobiles and electronics, and its large, well-educated baby boom population was hitting the workforce. There was an unmistakable sense of pride in the country's rapid achievements after the devastation of the Second World War.

Yet even then, as the Economist's Bill Emmot noted in his 1989 book The Sun Also Sets, things were not so pretty once you looked a little closer. In the mid-1980s I traveled extensively in Japan and, with the help of a young Japanese-American scholar, Yoriko Kishimoto, interviewed demographers and economists who predicted Japan's eventual decline.

By then, the rapid drop in Japan's birthrate and its rapid aging was already clearly predictable. But even more persuasive were hours spent with the new generation of Japanese – the equivalent of America's Xers – who seemed alienated from the self-abnegating, work-obsessed culture of their parents. By the late 1980s it was clear that the shinjinrui ("the new race") seemed more interested in design, culture and just having fun than their forebears. They seemed destined not to become another generation of economic samurai.

At the time though, the very strategies so critical to Japan's growth – particularly a focus on high-end manufacturing – proved highly susceptible to competitors from lower-cost countries: first Taiwan, Korea and Singapore, and later China, Vietnam and more recently India. Like America and Britain before it, Japan exported its unique genius abroad. Now many companies, including American ones, have narrowed the technological gap with Japan.

Today Japan, like the E.U., lacks the youthful population needed to recover its mojo. It likely will emerge as a kind of mega-Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark – renowned for its safety and precision. Its workforce will have to be ultra-productive to finance the robots it will need to care for its vast elderly population.

Will China follow a similar trajectory in the next few decades? Countries infrequently follow precisely the same script as another. Japan was always hemmed in by its position as a small island country with very minimal resources. Its demographic crisis will make things worse. In contrast, China, for the next few decades, certainly won't suffer a shortage of economically productive workers

But it could face greater problems. The kind of low-wage manufacturing strategy that has generated China's success – as occurred with Japan – is already leading to a backlash across much of the world. China's very girth projects a more terrifying prospect than little Japan. At some point China will either have to locate much of its industrial base closer to its customers, as Japan has done, or lose its markets.

More important still are massive internal problems. Japan, for all its many imperfections, was and remains a stable, functioning democracy, open to the free flow of information. China is a fundamentally unstable autocracy, led from above, and one that seeks to control information – as evidenced in its conflict with Google – in an age where the free flow of information constitutes an essential part of economic progress.

China's social problems will be further exacerbated by a huge, largely ill-educated restive peasant class still living in poverty. Of course America too has many problems – with stunted upward mobility, the skill levels of its workforce, its fiscal situation. But the U.S., as the Japanese scholar Fuji Kamiya once noted, possesses sokojikara, a self-renewing capacity unmatched by any country.

As we enter the next few decades of the new millennium, I would bet on a more youthful, still resource-rich and democratic America to maintain its preeminence even in a world where economic power continues to shift from its historic home in Europe to Asia.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.
 
More on China's continued crackdown on political dissidents:

Time link

When a string of Chinese dissidents were arrested or detained last year, the cause was often attributed to the large number of sensitive anniversaries that fell on the 2009 calendar. The first anniversary of the riots in Tibet, the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown and the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic all contributed to a defensive official outlook and a cold climate for civil rights in China. But that bleak trend also offered the hope that in the coming year, with a calendar relatively free of delicate periods, China's grip on free speech and dissent might relax.


So far that hasn't happened. The Chinese government has cracked down on activists just as aggressively during the first few weeks of 2010 as it did last year. In the past week, a court in Sichuan sentenced an activist investigating the deaths of children in schools that collapsed in the 2008 earthquake, a court in Beijing confirmed a lengthy jail term for the author of a 2008 pro-democracy manifesto, and the family of a trailblazing defense lawyer marked the one-year anniversary of his disappearance, which was presumably at the hands of state security officers. "This series of repression against dissent and activism ... I don't know if it's coincidence or reflective of a deeper meaning," says Joshua Rosenzweig, a Hong Kong–based researcher for the Dui Hua Foundation, a human-rights group. "Certainly looking at it from the outside, at case after case of heavy sentences being handed down for things that should be constitutionally protected rights, it's hard to come away from this and not see a hardening line."


On Tuesday a Sichuan court sentenced Tan Zuoren, a 55-year-old environmentalist and literary editor, to a five-year jail term for subversion in connection with his writings on the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators. Tan was also active in documenting the lives of the schoolchildren who died in the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which many parents blamed on school buildings that were built shoddily because of official corruption. While the subversion charges against Tan included his earthquake activism, he was convicted only for his commentary on the Tiananmen crackdown. Pu Zhiqiang, a lawyer for Tan, says the issue of substandard schools was too sensitive for the Chengdu court. "A lot of government officials won't be safe if people start to ask questions about this, so the court only mentioned the least harmful reason in the ruling," says Pu. "They want to divert attention." Tan has appealed his conviction, writing simply, "I'm innocent; I object; I refuse to accept the verdict; I appeal."


Tan's conviction preceded the ruling on Thursday by a Beijing court confirming the Christmas Day 2009 sentencing of Liu Xiaobo, a literary critic who was a chief author of Charter 08, a document that called for the Chinese government to uphold many of the values enshrined in the country's constitution. Like Tan, Liu was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power." Human-rights activists say Liu's 11-year sentence is exceptionally long, and the verdict has prompted an international outcry. U.S. Ambassador to China Jon M. Huntsman Jr. called on the government to release the 54-year-old scholar. "Mr. Liu has peacefully worked for the establishment of political openness and accountability in China," Huntsman said in a written statement. "Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights." The European Union's delegation in China said Liu's conviction was "entirely incompatible with his right to freedom of expression" - one of the rights officially promised in the framework of the People's Republic.


Perhaps the most disturbing recent case has been that of Gao Zhisheng, who hasn't been seen or heard from since he was detained by police in Beijing on Feb. 4, 2009. An uncompromising, self-taught lawyer, Gao once handled cases few others would touch - involving dispossessed villagers, members of underground Christian house churches and exploited factory workers. In 2001 the Ministry of Justice named him one of the country's top 10 lawyers. But his work on sensitive cases, most notably representing members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, led to his being seen as an enemy of the Chinese state. He was convicted of subversion in 2006 and given a three-year suspended sentence. In 2007 state security officers detained Gao after he wrote letters to the European Parliament and U.S. Congress complaining about human rights in China. During his 10-day detention he was subjected to grotesque and brutal torture, according to his written account. Gao said he was warned he would be killed if he ever spoke about the savagery he endured.


In January 2009, after years of monitoring and harassment led Gao's teenage daughter to attempt suicide, his family decided to flee. Gao's wife Geng He took their daughter and infant son and slipped away from their official minders in Beijing. They traveled south, aided by a network of Falun Gong practitioners, and eventually crossed into Burma and then Thailand. Two months later they reached the U.S., where they were given political asylum. On the first anniversary of Gao's disappearance, Geng demanded that the Chinese government produce her husband. So far her cries have been met with disdain. A police officer told Gao's brother in January that he had gone missing while out on a walk, an improbable claim given the level of monitoring he had been subject to in recent years. On Jan. 21 a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Gao was "where he should be."


Gao's supporters suspect he is being held by state security officers and fear that he might be so badly abused that the authorities are afraid to have him be seen in public. "We are determined not to rest until we know where Gao is and whether he's dead or alive," says Bob Fu, a U.S.-based Chinese Christian activist who helped Gao's family escape. "He's a symbol of China's conscience, of the weak and vulnerable. The whole world should hold the Chinese government accountable for his disappearance."
 
Does this mean our, Canadian, warship will report to a Chinese commodore?


_____________________________

First posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 05 February 2010
China enhances role in anti-piracy effort off Somali coast

China is to become the next overall co-ordinator of the international anti-piracy effort in the Gulf of Aden, sending warships to permanently patrol a sector of the transit corridor off the Somali coast. The decision was taken in late January following a meeting of the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) grouping in Bahrain and represents an expansion of the global effort to prevent Somalia-based pirates from interrupting the annual passage of some 25,000 ships through its territorial waters.
_____________________________


Is that (SHADE) the group in which we participate?

 
Discussed in the following piece is the view of how Taiwan should conduct itself toward the mainland as well as the US: Finlandization (fen lan hua: 芬蘭話). This view calls for Taiwan taking a "neutral stance" in the growing US-China rivalry, but also drifts closer to Beijing's orbit, but not enough to make it a "satellite" nation as what happened when Finland took a "neutral stance" in the rivalry between the East Bloc and the West during the Cold War.

Professor Bruce Gilley, the writer of this piece, has inferred that this view has apparently been adopted by both sides of the Taiwan Strait with the current "Second cross-strait detente" he mentions in the full article.

Foreign Affairs article link

Not So Dire Straits

How the Finlandization of Taiwan Benefits U.S. Security

January/February 2010
Bruce Gilley
BRUCE GILLEY is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Portland State University's Mark O. Hatfield School of Government and the author of The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy.

Since 2005, Taiwan and China have been moving into a closer economic and political embrace -- a process that accelerated with the election of the pro-détente politician Ma Ying-jeou as Taiwan's president in 2008. This strengthening of relations presents the United States with its greatest challenge in the Taiwan Strait since 1979, when Washington severed ties with Taipei and established diplomatic relations with Beijing.

In many ways, the current thaw serves Taipei's interests, but it also allows Beijing to assert increasing influence over Taiwan.
As a consensus emerges in Taiwan on establishing closer relations with China, the thaw is calling into question the United States' deeply ambiguous policy, which is supposed to serve both Taiwan's interests (by allowing it to retain its autonomy) and the United States' own (by guarding against an expansionist China). Washington now faces a stark choice: continue pursuing a militarized realist approach -- using Taiwan to balance the power of a rising China -- or follow an alternative liberal logic that seeks to promote long-term peace through closer economic, social, and political ties between Taiwan and China.

A TALE OF TWO DÉTENTES

After the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, Taiwan and mainland China became separate political entities, led, respectively, by Chiang Kai-shek's defeated nationalist party, the Kuomintang (KMT), and Mao Zedong's victorious Chinese Communist Party (CCP). For nearly three decades, Chiang and Mao harbored rival claims to the whole territory of China. Gradually, most of the international community came to accept Beijing's claims to territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and a special role in its foreign relations. By 1972, when U.S. President Richard Nixon visited China, 69 percent of the United Nations' member states had already severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favor of relations with China.
(...)



 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a short essay by Prof. Daniel Bell on yet another rise of Confucianism in China:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-chinese-confucian-party/article1475141/
The Chinese Confucian Party?
Communism has lost its capacity to inspire the Chinese people and the old master is an obvious replacement. But take heed, outsiders – Confucianism may also offer an alternative to Western political ways

Daniel Bell

Beijing

Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010

Four decades ago, it would have been suicidal to say a good word about Confucius in Beijing. Confucius was the reactionary enemy, and all Chinese were encouraged to struggle against him. Chairman Mao himself was photographed on the cover of a revolutionary newspaper that announced the desecration of Confucius's grave in Qufu. My own university was a hotbed of extreme leftism.

How times have changed. Today, the Chinese Communist Party approves a film about Confucius starring the handsome leading man Chow Yun-Fat. The master is depicted as an astute military commander and teacher of humane and progressive values, with a soft spot for female beauty. What does this say about China's political future?Confucius bombed at the box office, leading many to think that the revival of Confucianism will go the same way as the anti-Confucius campaigns in the Cultural Revolution.

But perhaps it's just a bad movie. Confucius received the kiss of death when it went head-to-head against the blockbuster Avatar. A vote forConfucius was seen as a vote against the heroic blue creatures from outer space. In the long term, however, Confucian revivalists may be on the right side of history. In the Cultural Revolution, “Confucius” was often just a label used to attack political enemies. Today, Confucianism serves a more legitimate political function; it can help to provide a new moral foundation for political rule in China. Communism has lost the capacity to inspire the Chinese, and there is growing recognition that its replacement needs to be grounded at least partly in China's own traditions. As the dominant political tradition in China, Confucianism is the obvious alternative.

The party has yet to relabel itself the Chinese Confucian Party, but it has moved closer to an official embrace of Confucianism. The 2008 Olympics highlighted Confucian themes, quoting The Analects of Confucius at the opening ceremonies, and playing down any references to China's experiment with communism. Cadres at the newly built Communist Party school in Shanghai proudly tell visitors that the main building is modelled on a Confucian scholar's desk. Abroad, the government has been symbolically promoting Confucianism via branches of the Confucius Institute, a Chinese-language and cultural centre similar to the Alliance Française.

Of course, there is resistance as well. Elderly cadres, still influenced by Maoist antipathy to tradition, condemn efforts to promote ideologies outside a rigid Marxist framework. But the younger cadres in their 40s and 50s tend to support such efforts, and time is on their side. It's easy to forget that the 76-million-strong Chinese Communist Party is a large and diverse organization. The party itself is becoming more meritocratic – it now encourages high-performing students to join – and the increased emphasis on educated cadres is likely to generate more sympathy for Confucian values.

But the revival of Confucianism is not just government-sponsored. On the contrary, the government is also reacting to developments outside its control. There has been a resurgence of interest in Confucianism among academics and in the Chinese equivalent of civil society. The renewed interest is driven partly by normative concerns. Thousands of educational experiments around the country promote the teaching of Confucian classics to young children; the assumption is that better training in the humanities improves the virtue of the learner. More controversially – because it's still too sensitive to publicly discuss such questions in mainland China – Confucian thinkers put forward proposals for constitutional reform aiming to humanize China's political system.

AN UPHILL STRUGGLE

Yet, the problem is not just the Chinese government. It can be an uphill struggle to convince people in Western countries that Confucianism can offer a progressive and humane path to political reform in China. Why does the revival of Confucianism so often worry Westerners? One reason may be a form of self-love. For most of the 20th century, Chinese liberals and Marxists engaged in a totalizing critique of their own heritage and looked to the West for inspiration. It may have been flattering for Westerners – look, they want to be just like us! – but there is less sympathy now that Chinese are taking pride in their own traditions for thinking about social and political reform. But more understanding and a bit of open-mindedness can take care of that problem.

Another reason may be that the revival of Confucianism is thought to be associated with the revival of Islamic “fundamentalism” and its anti-Western tendencies. Perhaps the revival of closed-minded and intolerant Christian “fundamentalism” also comes to mind. But the revival of Confucianism in China is not so opposed to liberal social ways (other than extreme individualistic lifestyles, in which the good life is sought mainly outside social relationships). What it does propose is an alternative to Western political ways, and that may be the main worry. But this worry stems from an honest mistake: the assumption that less support for Western-style democracy means increased support for authoritarianism. In China, packaging the debate in terms of “democracy” versus “authoritarianism” crowds out possibilities that appeal to Confucian political reformers.

Confucian reformers generally favour more freedom of speech in China. What they question is democracy in the sense of Western-style competitive elections as the mechanism for choosing the country's most powerful rulers. One clear problem with “one person, one vote” is that equality ends at the boundaries of the political community; those outside are neglected. The national focus of the democratically elected political leaders is assumed; they are meant to serve only the community of voters. Even democracies that work well tend to focus on the interests of citizens and neglect the interests of foreigners. But political leaders, especially leaders of big countries such as China, make decisions that affect the rest of the world (consider global warming), and so they need to consider the interests of the rest of the world.

Hence, reformist Confucians put forward political ideals that are meant to work better than Western-style democracy in terms of securing the interests of all those affected by the policies of the government, including future generations and foreigners. Their ideal is not a world where everybody is treated as an equal but one where the interests of non-voters would be taken more seriously than in most nation-centred democracies. And the key value for realizing global political ideals is meritocracy, meaning equality of opportunity in education and government, with positions of leadership being distributed to the most virtuous and qualified members of the community. The idea is that everyone has the potential to become morally exemplary, but, in real life, the capacity to make competent and morally justifiable political judgments varies among people, and an important task of the political system is to identify those with above-average ability.

CONFUCIAN VALUES IN PRACTICE

What might such values mean in practice? In the past decade, Confucian intellectuals have put forward political proposals that aim to combine “Western” ideas of democracy with “Confucian” ideas of meritocracy. Rather than subordinating Confucian values and institutions to democracy as an a priori dictum, they contain a division of labour, with democracy having priority in some areas and meritocracy in others. If it's about land disputes in rural China, farmers should have a greater say. If it's about pay and safety disputes, workers should have a greater say. In practice, it means more freedom of speech and association and more representation for workers and farmers in some sort of democratic house.

But what about matters such as foreign policy and environmental protection? What the government does in such areas affects the interests of non-voters, and they need some form of representation as well. Hence, Confucian thinkers put forward proposals for a meritocratic house of government, with deputies selected by such mechanisms as free and fair competitive examinations, that would have the task of representing the interests of non-voters typically neglected by democratically selected decision-makers.

One obvious objection to examinations is that they cannot test for the kinds of virtues that concerned Confucius – flexibility, humility, compassion and public-spiritedness – and that, ideally, would also characterize political decision-makers in the modern world. It's true that examinations won't test perfectly for those virtues, but the question is whether deputies chosen by such examinations are more likely to be far-sighted than those chosen by elections.

There are reasons to believe so. Drawing on extensive empirical research, Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies shows that voters are often irrational, and he suggests tests of voter competence as a remedy. So examinations would test for basic economic policy (and knowledge of international relations), but they would also cover knowledge of the Confucian classics, testing for memorization as well as interpretation. The leading Confucian political thinker, Jiang Qing, argues that examinations could set a framework and moral vocabulary for subsequent political actions, and successful candidates would also need to be evaluated in terms of how they perform in practice.

Far-fetched? It's no less so than scenarios that envision a transition to Western-style liberal democracy (because both scenarios assume a more open society). And it answers the key worry about the transition to democracy: that it translates into short-term, unduly nationalistic policy-making. It's also a matter of what standards we should use to evaluate China's political progress. Politically speaking, most people think China should look more like Canada. But one day, perhaps, we will hope that Canada looks more like China.

Daniel A. Bell is professor of political philosophy at Tsinghua University in Beijing and the author of China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society.


Prof. Bell is, intentionally, oversimplifying in order to meet the Good Grey Globe’s space limitations and to make any discussion of Confucianism accessible to Westerners. One of the things he fails to discuss is that Confucian ideas and ideals are deeply rooted in Chinese culture and, indeed, in many cases, can be seen as springing from already (2.500 years ago) deeply entrenched Chinese cultural values. Another thing he ignores is that Confucianism has changed over the millennia – this, 20th century revision – follows from the Neo-Confucian movement of the Song Dynasty (about 1,000 years ago) which added, considerably, to the philosophical base by adding many new commentaries to the Analects and the Mencius.

The deeply ingrained cultural values, whether they are based on Confucius or whether Confucius based his thinking on them is unimportant for this discussion, help to explain, for example, why many Chinese reject the kind of social safety net we prize in the West. Confucius made filial responsibility one of the main foundation stones of Chinese society. Many Chinese wonder why anyone would want the state to interfere in the care of one’s family. Consider this story I told to some Chinese acquaintances a few year ago:

My mother, in her 90s, required nearly round the clock care at home. Several nurses, included in a team organized by her daughter-in-law, were hired to work 24/7. The bill was pretty high, hitting six figures in the last year of her life. At one stage of a longish (three or so year) process a nice lady from the regional care bureaucracy came to see me: “We will provide 14 hours per week of ‘home care’ she said, but you should put your mother in an institution then the government will pay most of the costs, saving you/her many tens of thousands of dollars.” I (politely) sent her packing, with my thanks, explaining that I could and would care for my mother as she and I thought best.

My Chinese acquaintances, all well educated professionals, most living in cities quite far from their aging parents, were horrified that we would allow much less expect the state to fill our ordained roles and usurp our rights to do our filial duties. ”Why,” asked one fellow, an official in one of Beijing’s central agencies, “do I work so hard and deny myself things except to be able to care for my parents when they are old?” He was shocked at the idea that the state should need to care for senior citizens to anything like the degree we take for granted in the West.

With regard to Caplan and Confucius and lessons for the West. I’m afraid I disagree with Prof. Bell. Our liberal, individualistic values are too deeply ingrained in our cultural superstructure to be much informed by Confucius and the idea of a governing meritocracy. Confucianism is very suitable as a secular belief for deeply conservative societies (or civilizations if you like Sam Huntington’s theories, as I do) like those of China and Japan but it is an uneasy fit with Anglo-Dutch-Nordic liberalism. In fairness, however, the traditionally illiberal French constantly flirt with it – and equally constantly fail to find the solutions to problems created by their illiberal cultural values. Irrationality is, I think one of the prices we pay for a liberal democratic tradition. If you want to see a Confucian democracy then go to Singapore – it works but many, many Westerners detest it.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Does this mean our, Canadian, warship will report to a Chinese commodore?

No, not in any TACON/OPCON sense - that rests with the appropriate CCTF.

E.R. Campbell said:
Is that (SHADE) the group in which we participate?

Yes we do.  It is constantly growing, to include industry representation as well as nations that either contribute military forces or have a vested interest in the IRTC - which is good.  I am the SHADE coordinator here in Bahrain so I can post some more background tomorrow when I am at work.

MARS
 
Thanks for that and, for members’ information, I found more here at the China Defense Blog:

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 2010
China to lead SHADE's anti-piracy patrols off Somalia

In November 2009, China expressed interest in playing a “lead role” in the fight against Somali pirates. (here) They requested to co-chair SHADE (Shared Awareness and Deconfliction) jointly with the EU and US-led Combined Maritime Force, headquartered in Bahrain.

After receiving support from the EU delegation, China is now approved to lead SHADE's anti-piracy patrols off Somalia. This effort will also require Chinese warships to patrol a sector of the special transit corridor through the most dangerous part of the Gulf of Aden and it also means China will need to send more than the three ships currently deployed off the Horn of Africa. Naturally, there are political complications for such a development and they can be summarized as follows.

First, there are those who view any Chinese military development, especially in the Indian Ocean, with suspicion. By operating under an international framework China’s effort can be seen as a positive step in alleviating suspicion.

Second, others see China’s military growth as “natural.” Writing in the current edition of the Atlantic monthly, Robert Kaplan argues that “as a great continental nation’s economy grows, it begins to trade more with the outside world and develops interests it did not have previously” (here) and that the Chinese build up mirrors what the United States once did. In that light, China is following a natural growth path. This group is less concerned about a PLAN “misadventure” in the region as long as its posture is not overly aggressive.

Lastly, there is also a group of critics who charge that China has enjoyed a free-ride provided by the United States Navy in protecting international waters (here). With 2.4 Trillion dollars in the Bank, China should constitute a greater share of the MOOTW burden. Unlike the previous two groups, this group would welcome greater Chinese participation in protecting the "liberal trade" system that the world enjoys.

Political considerations aside, in order for the PLAN to support an expanded naval deployment, it would require a greater fleet reserve at home. As a general rule, to maintain a task force of three ships on-station, the PLAN would need to keep a total of 9 ships on reserve: three on training, three on crew rotation and maintenance, and three on-station. That requirement could provide the justification the PLAN seeks for naval build up at home and abroad (expect to see more Type 054A frigates on order). Second, the PLAN would need to increase their C2 assets in order to communicate with other members of SHADE. The current fleet PLAN is not equipped with the extensive communication gear that can deal with a 40-nation strong Maritime Force. A PLAN overseas naval base in Djibouti seems to be an ideal location to host such a C2 asset. (here)

All in all, China’s mission to fight pirates is becoming "historical" indeed.

----------

China to lead anti-piracy patrols
PLA Navy officials agree to expanded role co-ordinating international efforts off Somalia

Greg Torode Chief Asia correspondent in Singapore

Jan 28, 2010

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=12aa9d9df9076210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News

China has won approval to lead the co-ordination of international anti-piracy patrols off Somalia - an unprecedented expansion of its historic deployment of warships to the Indian Ocean.
The effort will also see China send its warships to permanently patrol a sector of the special transit corridor through the most dangerous part of the Gulf of Aden. The pledge means that China needs to send more than the three ships it keeps deployed off the Horn of Africa to protect vital trade routes linking Asia to Europe.

PLA Navy officials reached agreement last week over its expanded role with major international navies at a meeting of the so-called Shade grouping in Bahrain, officials at the meeting said.

Shade, or Shared Awareness and Deconfliction, has been jointly headed by European Union forces and the US-led Combined Maritime Forces.

More than two years old, Shade meets monthly to maximise co-ordination and communication among the 40-odd navies now protecting shipping off the Horn of Africa.

While some nations operate as part of international flotillas under the banner of Nato, the EU or the CMF, some operate independently, including China, India, Russia, Malaysia and Iran.

Currently only Nato, EU and CMF ships patrol inside the corridor.

By committing to provide an "enduring" presence in the corridor, China will be eligible to lead as part of a new rotating chairmanship, which will switch every three to four months. It is expected to take charge by the middle of the year.

The move is expected to force India and Russia to seek a greater role, as they try to match a growing Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean.

Captain Chris Chambers, director of operations for the CMF, confirmed China's new role yesterday at a shipping conference in Singapore.

"There has been major progress in communication and co-operation with navies that once didn't really speak to each other," Chambers, a US naval officer, said. "China will get a chance to chair the Shade ... it is a very positive development.

"It will open the door for other independent nations to come in."

Other officials at last week's Bahrain meeting said the PLA was reporting back to Beijing for political approval before a formal announcement could be made.

Both Western and Asian naval officials are backing the move, knowing they are struggling to deal with a worsening piracy situation off Somalia, a failed state where pirates operate with no fear of law enforcement or other government intervention.

While the Gulf of Aden situation has eased under naval pressure, pirates are now attacking ships off Somalia's east coast, travelling more than 1,000 nautical miles into the Indian Ocean to seize ships, putting a wider range of shipping at risk. "It is getting desperate and there is no solution in sight," one foreign naval official said. "Anything China can do to offer more practical help will be taken up at this point. This deal is a straight win-win."

While helping to tackle a worsening international crisis, fighting piracy allows China to quietly develop an Indian Ocean presence - something military analysts believe could be highly strategic to its ambitions to create a navy with wide global reach.

Typically, hijacked ships are taken to pirate lairs on Somalia's east coast. The ship and crew are kept under armed guard but are generally unharmed until the owners can arrange a ransom, which now range between US$2 million and US$7 million.

China began pushing for a broader role after the hijacking in October of mainland bulk carrier the De Xin Hai. The ship, steaming to India with a load of South African coal when it was captured northeast of the Seychelles islands, was released late last month after the payment of US$3.5 million in cash.

The De Xin Hai was the first mainland ship to be captured since Beijing's historic deployment of warships to the area in December 2008.

That deployment marked the first time the Chinese navy had ventured into potential conflict beyond its home waters in centuries.

The PLA warships never attempted to attack or intercept the pirates, with PLA officials later insisting they were too far away at the time.

The warships - two destroyers and an armed supply ship - run regular escorts from convoys of ships registered in Hong Kong, Taiwan and on the mainland. Ships of other nations can join the Chinese convoys.

When not involved with convoys, the Chinese vessels have also assisted other international efforts. China's convoys sail near the transit corridor, keep in contact with it but have not been part of it. Now it has agreed to keep a single ship in the corridor for a month at a time, China will be assigned a 60 nautical mile stretch of ocean to permanently patrol.

Chinese officials have repeatedly suggested that individual countries should be given set areas of ocean to take responsibility for - a concept already in operation inside the corridor.

----------

Principled consensus on escort missions reached between China, EU, NATO, CMF

(Source: Xinhua) 2010-01-30

BEIJING, Jan. 29 (Xinhua)

Principled consensus was reached between China, European Union Naval Force, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), China's Ministry of National Defense said on Friday.

The consensus, outlining the shipping escort cooperation based on "areas of responsibility" in the Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor (IRTC), was approved Thursday at the the plenary meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia in New York, said a statement from the ministry.

Previously, China had suggested cooperation be based on "areas of responsibility" under the UN Security Council resolutions while EU, NATO and CMF proposed coordination guidelines of the IRTC.

China and the three parties conducted rounds of consultations at the contact group meeting, international coordination meeting in Beijing and the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) system meeting in Bahrain.

The final principled consensus absorbed components of "areas of responsibility" in escort missions cooperation and the coordination guidelines of IRTC, showcasing concerted effort by all parties.

China always takes a positive and open attitude towards international cooperation on shipping escorts, and would like to cooperate with countries and organizations in line with UN Security Council resolutions for peace and stability in the Gulf of Aden and Somalia waters, said the statement.

----------


Speaking broadly, this is a very good thing. As the late US President Lyndon B Johnson is reputed to have observed about potential opponents, "it's better to have them in the tent pissin' out than outside pissin' in."
 
More protests- this time by some artists in Beijing:

AFP link

BEIJING (AFP) - About 20 Chinese artists including outspoken activist Ai Weiwei protested in central Beijing over the demolition of an art zone in the east of the capital, state media and a rights group said Tuesday.

The protest on Monday came amid simmering anger in China over land seizures, which have often involved corrupt officials keen to secure real estate profits as the country's property market booms.


The artists marched on Chang'An Avenue, one of Beijing's main thoroughfares that passes by Tiananmen Square, scene of the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations that ended in a bloody crackdown, media reports and rights activists said.


They carried posters reading "Civil Rights!" and "Capital Beijing, brutal demolition!", which were confiscated by police, the state Global Times newspaper reported.


The protesters attempted to reach Tiananmen Square, the heart of political power in China, but were stopped by police about two kilometres (one mile) away, it said

(...)
 
A report on the weaknesses of the ROCAF/Guo Min Kong Jun. Whether or not the US sells Taiwan more of the needed new fighters may give an indication whether they want Taiwan to remain a US "ally" or be "Finlandized" as mentioned in another article above.

Defense News link

U.S. Intel Report on Taiwan Air Power Released
By wendell minnick
Published: 22 Feb 2010 05:31 

TAIPEI - A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that points out weaknesses in Taiwan's air power and air defense capabilities seems to support Taiwan's case for new F-16s.

Delivered to the U.S. Congress on Feb. 16, the report, DIA-02-1001-028, says that while Taiwan has nearly 400 combat aircraft in service, "far fewer of these are operationally capable."

The report is mandated by Congress under the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

Since 2006, Taiwan has had a standing request for 66 F-16C/D Block 50/52 fighters, but the United States has repeatedly rejected a letter of request for price and availability for the aircraft. The most critical problem is aging F-5E/F Tiger squadrons now used for training. The F-5s have "reached the end of their operational service life," the report says.

Taiwan claims it operates about 60 F-5s, but the report says "the number of operationally capable aircraft is likely much less, possibly in the low 30s."

The 126 Indigenous Defense Fighters (IDF) have "limited combat range and payload capacity restricts [the aircraft's] effectiveness in air-to-air combat," according to the report,
which acknowledges the Air Force is making some efforts to modernize a "portion" of its IDF fleet.

The Air Force's 56 Mirage 2000-5 fighters suffer from high maintenance costs and lack required spare parts. They are "technologically advanced, but they require frequent, expensive maintenance that adversely affects their operational readiness rate." There are also "chronic difficulties with the aircraft's turbine fan blades" that have "severely hampered the fighters' readiness rates."

The Air Force is considering mothballing the fighters and "focusing resources on a more sustainable aircraft," according to the report.

Taiwan's 146 F-16A/B Block 20 fighters are in need of upgrades that improve avionics, survivability and combat effectiveness, the DIA report says, but "the extent of the upgrades, and timing and quantity of affected aircraft is currently unknown. The F-16A/B can be armed with the AIM-120C [AMRAAM] active-radar air-to-air missile." Taiwan has 120 AIM-120C-5 and 218 AIM-120C-7 missiles in its F-16 inventory.

"Despite the operational capability of Taiwan's fighter force, these aircraft cannot be used effectively in conflict without adequate airfield protection, especially runways," the report says. "Taiwan's ability to protect its aircraft and airfields from missile attacks and rapidly repair damaged runways and taxiways are central issues to consider when examining Taiwan's air defense capability."

Though Taiwan's request for new F-16C/Ds is not mentioned in the DIA report, the conclusion of the assessment points to the need for new fighter aircraft.

One U.S. defense industry source cautioned that the option of selling F-16s to Taiwan has a de facto deadline.

"If Taiwan is to have some credible air deterrent, then they need new, replacement aircraft. There is really no alternative to the F-16C/D. At some point this year, the F-16 supply chain will begin to shut down as there are no new orders and the U.S. and its allies switch to the F-35," he said.

"Once this happens … it is cost-prohibitive to restart the line. This industrial time constraint will force the political decision either to sell the aircraft to Taiwan or not. If no, for all intents and purposes, the island will have no real means of defending its airspace."

Taiwan legislators are pushing hard for the United States to release F-16s. In December, 24 legislators signed a letter addressed to four members of the U.S. Congress asking for the release of F-16s.
The letters were addressed to two members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and ranking minority leader Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; and two members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., and ranking minority leader Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

The bipartisan letter urged the follow-on procurement of F-16s to Taiwan, describing the issue as one of "utmost importance to our country."

The Taiwan legislators wrote, "Our nation has attempted to purchase follow-on F-16s since 2006 to upgrade our national defense by replacing our aging F-5s … and thereby respond to the growing threat that the People's Republic of China (PRC)" poses to the "peace and security in the Taiwan Strait."

The letter acknowledges improved economic and diplomatic relations between China and Taiwan over the past year, but adds, "we face a significant threat from the People's Liberation Army Air Force." China has a "lethal fleet" of advanced fighters and is "developing a fifth generation fighter" that will be deployed in 2017.


"Our air force is badly in need of replacement aircraft to maintain a viable deterrent fighting force to ensure a balance of power. Our military must be able to defend our airspace as a further deterioration in the air balance across the Strait will only encourage PRC aggression," the letter states.

It warns that "if America softens its support for our country at this critical time, we believe it will have an adverse effect on cross-Strait relations as Taiwan's negotiating position is weakened and the PRC may then seek to capitalize on our situation."
 
Back
Top