Replies

This essay is being written to all those China-lovers and sympathizers; to all those who declare that China will (and maybe even should) eclipse the United States as a world power and economic powerhouse. China is loaded with many serious problems. It's "destiny" is not exactly a sure thing, and it is not necessarily headed for the dominant economic power of Asia. Its arrogance is symptomatic of Communist contempt for all democratic nations such as Israel, India, the United States, Britain, Australia, and the other NATO powers. China is not out of the woods yet, by any means.

Let's review some of the serious issues facing China today:

(1) The Communist Chinese Legal system is one of the most primitive and juvenile systems known in the world; it is a complex amalgamation of Confucian and Taoist custom, interspersed with statute, largely criminal law and rudimentary civil code that has only been in effect since January 1, 1987. New legal codes have been in effect since January 1, 1980. Constant and major efforts are constantly being made to improve the civil, administrative, criminal, and commercial law. The concept of "stare decisis," i.e., that the law should remain the same, except for an occasional re-evaluation of precedent, is totally foreign there. In other words, the judicial system in China does not make any cogent sense. If any business needed some type of legal resolution, that convoluted judicial system would choke them. Not to mention that in any arbitration situation betwen China and another country doing business with them, the PRC could intervene, at any time, and influence the business decision to the adverse consequences of the unlucky company which did business with them in the first place;

(2) The Falungong sect and the China Democratic Party are considered serious threats and potential rivals to the People's Republic of China, and could seriously harm the stability of the government there, or any of the foreign businesses which find themselves unlucky enough to invest money there;

(3) Although in late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more "market-oriented system." The authorities switched to a system of household responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, but instead of democratizing the government, Communist China instead increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing, even while declaring that they had "opened the economy" to increased foreign trade and investment. On the darker side, the leadership has often experienced, in its hybrid system, the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (windfall gains and stepped-up inflation). Thus only a handful of the political and moneyed "elite" control the entire infrastructure of the PRC, over one billion people. And they literally have the power of life and death over everybody there. Beijing thus has periodically backtracked, having to retighten central controls at numerous and unstable intervals. The government has had a hellish time (a) collecting revenues due from provinces, businesses, and individuals; (b) reducing corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) even keeping afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which have been shielded from competition by subsidies, and have been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time and low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to continued rapid economic growth is the rapid and massive levels of deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Weakness in the global economy in 2001 could cripple growth in exports;

(4) Communist China has as many as 16% of its population below the poverty line (2000 esimate) - I thought Communism was supposed to take care of that completely? I mean, you ARE giving up all of your basic and fundamental human rights in exchange for economic security, aren't you?

(5) The Communist Chinese labor force is by far one of the least skilled forces in the entire world, and will be unable to compete with the modern technologically savvy Western world. - by occupation, the PRC divides its people into agriculture 50%, industry 24%, and services 26%. Where are your techies? Your geeks? Your innovators? Your artists? Answer: they are suppressed, jailed, murdered, or "re-educated;"

(6) The unemployment rate in the PRC is staggering for a Communist nation that supposedly can cure all of society's ills: urban unemployment is roughly 18%, and there is substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas;

(7) Although China's exports are $232 billion a year, it's imports clock in at about $197 billion. You may think that's just fabulous, but wait until you get a load of the fact that Communist China's external debt is a whopping $162 billion. Guess that eats into their profits a little bit, huh;

(8) The PRC's roadways are still primitive - highway total is 1.4 million km, but the paved ones are only 271,300 km, while unpaved dirt roads dominate the landscape at 1,128,700 km;

(9) The PRC seems to have a military beef with nearly everyone. They have more enemies than any country I have ever heard of, and each one of them wants a piece of China's hide. Some examples of these China-hating countries include (a) India - most of the boundary with India is in dispute, (b) Russia - there is a dispute over at least two small sections of the boundary with Russia that remains to be settled, despite a 1997 boundary agreement, (c) Tajikstan, where large portions of the boundary with Tajikistan are indefinite, (d) North Korea, where a 33-km section of boundary with North Korea in the Paektu-san (mountain) area is indefinite, (e) Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei involved in a complex dispute over the Spratly Islands, (f) Vietnam (man you are going to love those guys) with disputes in maritime boundary agreements in the Gulf of Tonkin, awaiting ratification, (g) the Paracel Islands occupied by China, but claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan, (h) claims by Japanese-administered Senkaku-shoto (Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Tai), and finally, (i) Taiwan, which detests China;

(10) Another wonderful problem the PRC faces is the illicit drug market. The PRC is a major trans-shipment point for heroin produced in the Golden Triangle, producing massive criminal activity and murder, and Communist China has an unprecedented and growing domestic drug abuse problem. The PRC is also the world's leader in the supply of such illegal substances as chemical precursors and methamphetamine.

Conclusion: I do not think China will emerge as the major power of Asia by 2015, as is being predicted by many liberals, communists, socialists, opportunists, and other academic "schlup-schwanzes.". But it is important that we, as Americans, remain vigilant, and understand that it depends upon us, the consumer, to boycott Chinese products and services, and to force our democratically elected politicians, as well as our overfed and overpaid corporate CEOs, to do the same. If we need a consumer market, and if the powers that be respond with, "labor is cheaper in China," then counter with, "Why not India?" India is democratic, free, religiously, racially, and culturally diverse and tolerant, also has roughly 1 bilion people as in China, is closely allied to the United States, is a military powerhouse, shares borders with our greatest threats, Islamic Fundamentalism and Chinese Communism, has a clear common law based legal system, is predominantly English speaking, is technologically advanced, secular, and was once a British colony like Australia and the United States. It has a deep and strong friendship with the State of Israel, and is struggling right now to make democracy work. It is the duty of every red-blooded and patriotic American to support them in their struggle, because their struggle is almost exactly the same as ours.

Freedom is not free, it requires constant upkeep and maintenance. If we no longer fight to maintain those freedoms, both physically and economically, we run the risk of no longer remaining free.

God bless the U.S.A.

Yes, American_Patriot_For_Democracy has once again pointed out all the deficiencies existed in China for half a century. I must compliment him for his thoroughness (he can talk any PRC net spy under the table). The inclusion of juval’s view in my essay is simply to call your attention to the disastrous trend, ie: China’s economy is going upward while USA’s is going downward. It doesn’t reflect my view but it definitely intensifies my worries. The trend’s direction is much more important than the timeframe here. Whether it is 2015 is irrelevant. What we have to do now is to narrow and, much better, to reverse the existing trend. American_Patriot_For_Democracy’s historical facts and figures are all correct but what he has left out is to focus on the most recent trend, especially after the Sept 11 attack. Can you see China is already busy capitalizing on the after-effect of the Sept 11 attack right now? Now, China can safely claim that she is the safest and most secured place for foreign investment in the world. Foreign investments in China has increased by 20% this year and is still growing.

There are two factions in the PLA. The hawks and the moderates. The hawks are trigger-happy and are screaming “fight the American” everyday on the media. And, pressuring the government to take a firmer stance against USA. The moderates are silent. You never know where they are and how many of them. But when the Communist make a military move against Taiwan, chances are they might take the plane off the runway but bomb Beijing instead. So, how aggressive and militant will China be depends on the delicate balance of power (and their influence on the CCP) between these two factions. Unfortunately, after the Sept 11 attack, the hawks are gaining a much bigger influence in the government.

The recent turn of event is not optimistic at all. The most adverse after-effect of the Sept 11 attack is that Bin Laden had proven that a direct attack on U.S. soil is NOT that UNTHINKABLE as they had previously perceived. The moderates in the PLA is proven wrong and speechless.

Emboldened by the attack, the hardliners in the PLA would certainly pressure the CCP to take a much harder and hostile stance towards America, in the name of “national pride”. I foresee that they will continue to escalate conflicts and test America’s bottomline and tolerance by making limited military movements in Asia. The timeframe depends on America’s reaction, determination and resolve to maintain a formidable force in the Pacific Rim. Any sign of hesitation and indecision will be seen as a sign of weakness by the PLA, thus leading to more hostile actions. A quick and decisive response is the key to any stand-off with China. Taiwan is not the only hot spot there. What if China threatens military actions if the US does not remove her military bases in Japan and South Korea?

Would that lead to an all out exchange of WMD? Again, US’s resolve is the sole deterrent here. China’s nuclear arsenal is still lacking in volume, if not in technology. Everybody knows that America’s nuclear power is many folds larger than that of China. But the hawkish PLA’s brinkmanship and adventurism are leading them itching to test America’s WILL to use WMD as an option (what if China calls your bluff in an eye-to-eye confrontation?). Due to the imbalance of nuclear power, I expect that any Chinese attack on America will be a combination of a Bin Laden style terrorist attack PLUS nuclear attack on major cities. China knows that her lack of a blue water navy is making them difficult to engage in a lengthy military conflict with America. So, their attack would be a quick preemptive strike with devastating force. If America survives the first strike and retaliate in full and unlimited force (with WMD, of course), my money is still on America to win the war eventually. I would even double my stake if Bush is still the president. However, that very much depends on how chaotic America’s home front is and how crippled America’s military is after the first strike. I remember reading somewhere that Clinton had signed an Executive Order saying: “In the interest of world peace, the USA would absorb a first strike by a nuclear aggressor.....”. Could anyone of you verify this? If true, which US cities did he plan to sacrifice? New York, Chicago or San Francisco? I just can’t imagine that a President can sell out his country like this. This is out right treason. Is his real intention to drill Americans to survive a nuclear first strike? Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

To answer Slngshot’s question, China’s major concern in whether to confront the US militarily is her economic strength. If China thinks that her economic power is so strong and sufficient to sustain a world wide economic sanction for a reasonable period, there is a greater chance that she will venture into such brinkmanship action. Yes, it is a gamble. And, like all gamblers, his confidence is directly proportional to the amount of money he has. If that happens, all the foreign investments in China will become “economic hostages”. It’s your money anyway. Along this line of thinking, is the slowing of China’s economic growth (voluntarily or involuntarily) one way to avert war?

Yes, “zog”, you are right. History has taught us that nations with excessive processing power (labor, work force, etc.) but insufficient natural resources have a much higher tendency to “take” (or loot) from other nations. That is the case with the Japanese-Sino war in WWII. With 1.3 billion rice bowl to fill, China’s unemployment and underemployment might encourage her government’s willingness to resort to invasion of other nations.

I disagree that China will look to North Korea and Russia as a food supplier. North Korea is literally living on UN aid right now and is regarded by the Chinese as a poor distant relative. If China ever develops a problem in food production, Russia will be the first one to walk away. They simply don’t have that kind of surplus to feed that many. Furthermore, my game plan is not to starve China. It is just one way to narrow the currently widening trade deficit as a mean to slow down China’s pace to overtake America’s economy power in the long run.

I enjoy the very illuminating and educating discussion with you. I have learned a lot from you. God bless you all. My prayers will always be with you and President Bush.