The Rising Threat from China: Seeing is Believing

The scariest ride I have ever had was not at any amusement park. It was the ride I took recently through Shanghai, China from Hongqiao international airport to the Bund area along the Huangpu river front. It was just after dark, and this mammoth city was lit up in an awe-inspiring display the likes of which I had not seen even in Beijing. Shanghai has a skyline that puts New York or Chicago to shame, but then Shanghai has a larger population than New York and Chicago combined. Mile after mile of new high rise office buildings, many boosting the names of the world's major corporations, stun the viewer with their proclamation of wealth and power. Unlike the boxy concrete and steel designs I had seen in Tokyo, the Shanghai skyline is marked by some of the most beautiful urban architecture I had ever seen.

And that was before I saw Pudong, the new economic area on the other side of the river. I took a boat tour down the river to get a better look at this new economic zone for Shanghai development. It is already crammed with office towers and factories along the route to the new Pudong international airport. One impressive complex is the new Krupp steel plant. Another is the Jinmao Tower, the third tallest building in the world. It is an impressive 88-story office complex, but even more noteworthy was the forest of other towers around it. Over half of the high-rise buildings in the Shanghai-Pudong area have been completed in the last five years, and the new structures are much more massive than those that existed before. With the grandiose designs inherent in the development of this area, China is clearly sending a message to the world that it playing for keeps.

American security concerns have been focused on terrorism and the Middle East. This is understandable. Muslim terrorists are plotting more American deaths and must be combated. Yet, terrorism is the weapon of the weak. It cannot change the global balance of power. And Islamic fundamentalism is a backward looking doctrine of social and economic stagnation.

It is the rise of China that poses the greatest challenge to America's position in the world. Endowing an empire of 1.3 billion people with modern industry, technology, and capital gives the authoritarian central government in Beijing immense resources with which to support its ambitions. And what is driving China is the impassioned spirit of nationalism and the limitless energy of capitalism. This combination will rock the world.

Military threats always loom largest in the public mind, and China is creating such a danger. My visits to Beijing and Shanghai were preludes to the real reason for my trip, which was to attend the 5th Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai. This event is held every two years. It has two purposes: to showcase China's advancements and to attract American and other Western companies who want to sell technology and systems to Beijing.

China's space program was highlighted, from the capsule astronaut Yang Liwei used to orbit the Earth in 2003 to animated projections of how China plans to land on the Moon and exploit its resources. Most of the displays, however, were devoted to Chinese fighters, remotely piloted (unmanned) military aircraft, helicopter gunships, and missiles of all types.

It was clear from the displays that there is no segregation of civilian from military aviation activities. The Chinese aerospace industry is run by the state. Its largest agency is Aviation Industries of China I (AVIC I), whose displays featured, side by side, a variety of civilian airliners and numerous military projects for fighters, bombers, military transports, trainers, and reconnaissance aircraft. Its sister organization, AVIC II, which was split off in 1999 to create competition and improve management, concentrates more on business jets, helicopters, and missiles. One display featured a row of cruise and air-to-air missiles under a large poster of a corporate jet, again showing the guiding Chinese principle of "Jun-min jiehe," which translates as "combine the military and the civil."

This principle was very evident as I strolled through the two halls devoted to American and Western firms trying to sell high-tech products to China. These firms are only supposed to be engaged on the civilian side of Chinese development. But that line cannot be drawn, and it is doubtful those marketing their wares in this booming market care.

Italian Deputy Minister of Defense Salvator Cicu was on hand for the signing of a co-production agreement between Agusta Westland and AVIC II for a new helicopter project. Italy, along with France and Germany, have been pressing the European Union to lift is arms embargo on China. But this embargo has long been undermined by the sale of dual use equipment and technology to Beijing. Helicopters are a prime example. Why else would a defense official be celebrating an allegedly civilian project?

One display showed two identical remotely piloted helicopters. One was configured for crop dusting, the other for military reconnaissance. It didn't take much imagination to consider what the crop duster might also be used for if armed with chemical or biological weapons.

American companies have been just as guilty as European in helping China improve its capabilities. Boeing had a large mural at its booth touting not only how many airliners it had sold to China, but also how much production work it had outsourced to Chinese industry, how many Chinese engineers and technical workers it had trained, and how much it was investing in Chinese research facilities.

It may not come to a military showdown. The economic changes may be so large, that America will simply back down if there is a major confrontation. It is really the economic changes that determine what resources governments can mobilize to advance or protect national interests. Wars, when they occur, test whether the changes have been sufficient to reorder how the world is run and whose decisions matter.

In Shanghai, I stayed at the Broadway Mansions hotel in the Bund. The Bund is the area where the European powers had their offices when they ran China's affairs. The British were the most powerful of the imperialist powers and the Broadway Mansions was built by a British businessman in the 1930s when England was still considered the leading global superpower.

Today, Britain no longer holds that position in the world hierarchy or in Chinese affairs. In 1999, there was no serious thought given in London to holding on to Hong Kong. This beautiful city of free and prosperous people was handed over to the Beijing dictatorship without a whimper. The balance of power had obviously changed from what it had been in 1842 when England first laid claim to Hong Kong, or 1945 when London reclaimed the city after it had been captured by Japan at the outbreak of World War II..

The British were on the winning side of both world wars. Indeed, England has not lost a major war since the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815. But they still declined as their economy fell out from under their empire. And the danger to us, as the British example should make clear, is that we have embraced the same classical liberal economic notions about "free trade" and the neglect of international economic strategy that had their origins in 19th century British thought.

Economic strategy is at the top of Beijing's agenda: the core of its pursuit of "comprehensive national power." Zhuhai, like Pudong, is a designated economic development zone. It has a new international airport, about 25 miles from the port city. There is an 8-lane superhighway running from the city to the airport, mainly through farm land with very little traffic. But there are massive housing projects built (and being built) for the expected future workforce. Near the city, new factories line the highway. A friend of mine who had been to the 4th Aviation Expo noted that where there had been a single line of factories two years ago, the plants are now 2-4 deep along the road.

The first challenge China poses is economic. It goes beyond the lop-sided trade imbalance which is menacing American domestic industry and the value of the dollar as the international medium of exchange. The longer term threat is from the vast new wealth and array of modern capabilities that will be available to a regime whose strategic ambitions clash with those of the United States.

Washington must concentrate its attention on enlarging and sustaining its own economic capabilities – industrial, technological, financial, to ensure that its stays generations ahead of China. This will take more effort than was needed to defeat the Soviet Union, as Chinese capitalism is a much more vigorous contender than was Russian communism. But safeguarding America's preeminence is just as imperative, regardless of the nature o f the threat.

Got a great book for you, Willie: "The Coming War with Japan," which had all sorts of harum-scarum about how the Japanese economic "miracle" was "overtaking" us and how we were losing all our industry to Japan. Know when it was written? Early 1990s. Know how stupid that book looks now?

China, Russia, and the US will be in a war in this half of the century. The only question is who squares off angainst who.

Good post.

No matter what you think or believe about China, their
increasing energy needs alone are skyrocketing and you
have to wonder what they are going to do about it.

This was another good article to read. Especially from
someone who was there to see it with his own eyes.

The only question is who squares off angainst who.

It'll be Russia vs. China.
We'll be waving white flags imported from China.
The French will gloat.

But, does China have the same (or similar) economic red flags lurking in the background that Japan did? Some, maybe, but I doubt they are anything like the banking problems that continue to plague Japan today.

What do we have to fear from a capitalist inspired economy? Capitalism promotes democracy, and China will become more demecratic. Their economy is growing, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Is China going to invade the US? If China has land ambitions it is probably towards Russia or Japan or Taiwan. And they have co-existed with both Japan and Russia peacefully for the past 50 years. As China becomes more prosperous its citizenry have more money, allowing US companies to sell to them.

That would certainly be a conflict in which you sit on the sidelines and cheer both sides on. However, in no sense should we want or let China prevail.

What the article said is irrefutable but it doesn't tell everything. Millions upon millions of Chinese are unable to sustain themselves in their villages if they stay there.

The migration to the cities is not only choking the cities but those millions upon millions of peasants will be unemployed.

You will see Russia - where you have billionaire oligarchs side by side with extreme poverty - amplified 100 times. The political reality for China is chaos within ten years.

Ohhh no does this mean that Americans will have to work as hard as there fore fathers did in order to stay competative. . . *gasp*

I'm not quite sure what's scary about competition, free trade, and this article? Although from the long list of companies setting up shop there I see that I not only have to avoid shopping at Wal-mart but I need to stop buying stuff from, Kmart, Sears, Target, GE, Krupps, etc, etc.

Yep had we let Patton take out Russia and McArthur China we would not be in such dire straits

On the other hand...there were those in America that would not stand for such assaults on their commie brothers...

That is why they had to take out Senator Joe...

And why the MSM was able to defeat us in Vietnam as they are trying so hard to do in Iraq

Yet meanwhile...we gave them the Panama Canal build by us for us...and now they have the worlds largest container port and cargo airport in the world just off our coast...

They are making deals with their commie allies Cuba and Venezuela and emerging socialist Brazil

Admiral Thomas Moorer,USN (Ret.) For whom the F-14 'Tom Cat' was named has warned us of China' intentions...in Panama

We did not listen then... we are not listening now

imo

Yet, terrorism is the weapon of the weak. It cannot change the global balance of power. And Islamic fundamentalism is a backward looking doctrine of social and economic stagnation.

I think this was one of the best points in the article. Islamic terrorism seeks to pull the US economy and civilization down - not so that the mullahs can build a shining city on a hill, but so that they can rule over an impoverished Islamic populace. Screw 'em.

A_R

>> Is China going to invade the US? If China has land ambitions
>> it is probably towards Russia or Japan or Taiwan. And they
>> have co-existed with both Japan and Russia peacefully for
>> the past 50 years.

Eh. China does have territorial disputes with Japan, Russia, Vietnam, Thailand and India. Basically almost all her neighboors. Your "Peaceful Harmless" China mantra won't find any (intelligent) listeners.

Fact is, in essence China is communist. No matter in which colors they paint it, it will remain communist. If China is indeed capitalist I dare you tell me one global brand that has emerged out of China? None. They steal, reverse engineer, mass produce, and flood overseas markets with sub standard good. This is not capitalism.

I don't think so. There is a large middle class in China that wasn't present in Russia. Also, the infrastructure is more vibrant. I think it will be an uncomfortable transition, and unemployment will be a problem until they finalize capitalism, but I don't think they'll collapse like Russia did.

The authors of that work proceeded to make the most amazing U-turn less than six years later, in The Future of War, which proclaimed that where the 20th Century was the American Century, the 21st Century would open the American Millenium.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.