Can China Avoid the Soviet Union's Fate? | Asian American Issues

CAN CHINA AVOID THE SOVIET UNION'S FATE?

he People's Republic of China likes to compare itself with the United States. Both governments were forged to throw off the imperial yoke. Both are amalgams of many races and nationalities. Both are great continental powers capable of harnessing immense resources to promote national agendas around the world.
     Beijing's bosses cite these parallels to justify China's ambition of returning Taiwan to the fold -- forcibly if necessary -- and violently suppressing movements for Tibetan independence, Moslem separatism and religious tolerance. The party line: "In a few decades we will be as prosperous, unified and democratic as you Americans."
     Unfortunately, some observers see closer parallels to the former Soviet Union.
     Founded in 1910 to free Russian peasants from oppressive landowners and a weak imperial government, the Soviet government quickly and ruthlessly expanded into a superpower that rivaled the United States in military might and reach. On top of nearly 300 million citizens of several dozen captive nationalities, the Soviet Union became the puppetmasters of virtually every Eastern European government. By 1989 it was buckling under the burden of superpower competition. In 1991 the communists lost power to the reformist Yeltsin. The Soviet Union broke apart into Russia and a dozen independent republics. Today Russia is a nation of 150 million struggling to build a capitalist economy from the rubble of the communist meltdown.
     Among the Soviets' earliest converts were Mao Tsetung, Zhou Enlai and other young Chinese intellectuals who saw in communism salvation for the Chinese people from western imperialism and internal corruption. Mao's long struggle against Chiang Kaishek and the Kuomingtang would have ended disasterously without the support of dozens of ethnic minorities in northwestern China who believed his promise of ultimate political autonomy. Their help proved more valuable to Mao than the billions in American aid and direct military assistance to Chiang. By 1949 the Kuomingtang had fled to Taiwan and the PRC ruled the mainland.
     Beijing's bosses have been as ruthless as the Soviets in consolidating territory and suppressing separatist movements. But they have been far more successful in creating a functioning economy. They began capitalist reforms in 1979. By 2001 China's economy had become free enough to enter the World Trade Organization. For the past two decades it has grown at an average annual rate of 9%. Few of China's 1.25 billion go hungry and about 125 million enjoy living standards comparable to Malaysia and the Philippines. By some measure China has just surpassed Japan in GDP and will surpass the U.S. by 2025.
     But China's future as a united nation is far from assured.
     Even assuming peaceful reunification with Taiwan and victory over Tibetan separatists, Beijing's leaders face some big hurdles. They must integrate a billion subsistence-level farmers and workers into the consumer economy of the east coast or face ethnic discontent on a scale that would dwarf America's racial strife of the 1960s. Yet burdening the developed regions could breed separatist sentiment in Guangdong, Fujien, Manchuria and other regions. Over 100 languages and dialects are spoken in China. Long-suppressed religious minorities are becoming better organized thanks to the internet and other communications technology.
     Are China's prospects for staying united more like those of the U.S. or of the former Soviet Union?

(Updated )

Folks, we need to establish what we think the PRC's goals are concerning the ROC.

If they want annihilate it, that's easy enough, they have enough missiles for that. But to what gain?

If they want to capture and assimilate the ROC, that would force an invasion. Annihilation would do no good. But again, to what gain?

And about MiGs vs F-16s. Both aircraft have strengths and weaknesses compared to each other. However a lot depends on their doctrine, tactics, and the pilots themselves. You cannot compare solely on the blueprints of the machines.

Slider, Chinese American male, 24
Saturday, May 25, 2002 at 06:10:09 (PDT)

Tibetan "separatists" aren't separatists at all; they're freedom fighters, liberators. And more power to them.
X
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 22:52:55 (PDT)

gzus in NYC:

AC Dropout is correct on his statement that the Migs (if he means the Mig-29) is superior to the F-16. The U.S. has purchased Mig-29s to improve the capabilities of F-16s by copying certain superior features (Note that the word copying never appears in the media when it's trumpeting how great U.S. military technology is). In dogfight tests conducted by the U.S. airforce using Mig-29s vs. F-16s, the Mig-29s were always able to outmaneuver the F-16s and fire first against the F-16. And the Mig-29s used by the Air Force were not even the newest versions of these planes. However, though the Mig-29 itself is a better plane, the electronics suite installed in the F-16 is actually superior to that of the Mig-29. So, in light of that, AC Dropout was not entirely correct.

But both Mig-29s and F-16s are small potatoes compared to the Su-27s and the F-15s, both of which belong in the heavy class of fighter jets. The comparsion between these latter two types is somewhat similar to the former. For starters, the F-15 continues the U.S. advantage in overall electronics/avionics system. However, the Su-27 has better maneuverability and long-range firing capabilities. This is partially due to the fact that the R-77 (?) medium-range air-to-air missile has almost twice the range of its U.S. counterpart AMRAAM-120. Given that both missiles have similar performance in other areas, this discrepancy in range can make a significant difference. But the most important advantage of later versions of the Su-27 is that they have thrust-vectoring technology, something you won't see in U.S. aircrafts until the debut of the F-22. In fact, thrust-vectoring technology was introduced in those planes a decade ago, and the U.S. is now catching up. Other members of the Su-27 family---the Su-30, Su-35, and the Su-37---all have this technology while they also present improvements on supersonic cruising and ground-attack capabilities of the original Su-27. A further note on the Su-27: the U.S. bought about 11 of those planes several years ago to adopt some of its features into the design of the F-22. One of the things that they wanted the most was the well-known look-and-shoot capability of the Su-27, which allows its pilots to launch a weapon at a target just by looking at it w/out having to maneuver the plane to point in its direction. And if you read recent reports on the development of the F-22, it appears that this feature has been successfully adopted.

Enough about aircrafts. Did you know that recently the U.S. has bought some 16,000 or so R-77 missiles to equip its fighter jets? It was a news article on Spacedaily.com. But of course, the mainstream U.S. media has no interest in reporting these things. There was another episode in the early 90's involving the U.S. spending some $300 million dollars in an attempt to purchase a battery of Russian S-300MPU surface-to-air missiles, after the post-Gulf war investigation into the performance of the Patriot system revealed that it hardly shot down any Iraqi missiles at all. What the Pentagon was looking for, reportedly, was a certain type of algorithm used in the targeting software of the S-300MPU, which gives it superior accuracy. But it also had a greater range than the Patriot (PAC-1) as well. But the buying episode ended after the U.S. failed to procure the S-300MPU but instead bought an older version of a S-300V from a former Soviet Republic (forgot which one). Needless to say, it didn't have what the Pentagon looked for despite all the wasted money. The news was reported by Russian sources, but of course it was drowned out by the ongoing self-congratulatory reports about the Patriot system in U.S. media. I'm not sure what happened afterward to the development of the improved Patriot systems (PAC-2 and PAC-3). But I guess the U.S. was able to eventually obtain and adopt what it was looking for.

positron
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 20:37:45 (PDT)

To: gzus in NYC

There's no doubt that the emerging generation of Asian Americans is a physically attractive people. What you can't seem to get through your head is that there are plenty of good-looking people outside the US as well. My extended family is mostly in Taiwan.

There is no shortage of beauty in the people of Taiwan, perhaps because of the increasing affluence. On the streets of Taipei, every time you turn around there's another hottie strolling down the street wearing boots, leather mini-skirts and holding shopping bags.

It's the same in Japan. Same amazing level of attractiveness. Walking around in Ginza is all the proof anyone needs.

There seems to be a lower percentage of such good looks in Hong Kong, for whatever reason.

Another observation and perhaps a blow to your ego is that most New York Jews are rather unattractive. For some reason they look particularly ugly standing next to the Asians from my own social circle. Hey, just calling it as I see it.

SoCal Asiam
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 17:16:44 (PDT)

AC
You have no idea what PRC strategy is because you have not studied Chinese military actions. Or military strategy in general.

I see what China gots, and dey gots nutin'. Strategy is useless unless it can be implemented, despite all this strategizing by "inscrutable" Chinese, with their mysterious Dhalsim powers and access to esoteric "secret" oriental "wisdom of the ages" crap.

Btw, 500 conventional missiles does jackdoody.

Do you know how many of those so-called "superior" MIGs China has? A handful. Regardless, it's not just a discrete hardware versus hardware matchup these days; it's whole freakin' systems versus whole freakin' systems, my AEGIS, over-the-horizon radar, all seeing system, 100% coordinated response versus these brave but lone rangers who can't get any intelligence cause their signals are all jammed flying "superior" MIGs, being hunted by packs of highly trained pilots in cutting edge jets who know exactly where and what the freakin' "superior" MIGs are doing.

I do agree with you about Bush; there is no doubt now that not only is he not bright he is generally clueless in most matters as well, but that is another topic.
gzus in NYC
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 16:59:33 (PDT)

gzus in NYC

> Judaism is a quantum leap ahead of Christianity

Can you explain this?
NYhomeboy
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 14:08:14 (PDT)

Hey Gzus,

What exactly are these finer points from the Talmud that are not found in any other religion?

If there's such incredible wisdom in the Talmud and you know what they are, then how can one explain the fact that you are an arrogant and ignorant assh*le? Are you an example of what we can expect of someone studying the Talmud? If you are, then Judaism is doomed.

While you're at it, can you explain the statement from the Jewish Encyclopedia that Balaam is in fact a veiled reference to Jesus? Can you explain the hatred expressed in the Talmud against Balaam?

Can you explain why you are a selective Jew who believes only a few things out of the Talmud that you want to believe, when the clear teaching of Judaism is that the Talmud is a holy book and the common law for Jews and must be accepted in its entirety?

Does your rabbi know that you think 90% of the Talmud is gibberish? Does he think so too?

Why does your precious Talmud condone pedophilia? How does your rabbi explain that little gem?

By the way, you haven't answered my earlier question:

Why is your deity so closely associated with genocide, the crusades, the inquisitions, the witch hunts, and (in this day and age) rapes of children and international terrorism? Buddha, Lao-tse and Confucius have no association with with these repulsive evils.
Why is it that what your religion's heinous ACTION is so far apart from its pious TALK?

Face it - Judaism sucks. A truly objective intellect can't help but come to that conclusion. Face up to the truth like a man.

Phil
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 11:37:17 (PDT)

Little twit gzus sez:

"Wrong. 100% wrong. The Talmud is the core of the Judaism. 95% of Jews I know laugh at the Old Testament cause they all know it's bunk. Rock, ur outta yer league here."

Really? Do Karaites laugh at the Old Testament or know that it's bunk? Are they Jewish? I rest my case.

You started your comparison with East vs. West, not Asian vs. Jewish. Whatever one's opinion of the Bible may be, none can dispute that it is an important feature of Western civilization. Thus the point stands: Your particular attack on Eastern philosophy applies equally to the Bible, and thus on Western thinking.

Furthermore, your attack on Eastern philosophy applies even better to... the Talmud...!

Oooh! In your face!

Man, the Asian Rock had no idea your logic was so weak. He is disappointed.

You guys are supposed to be smart, according to The Bell Curve. Surely you can do better than that!

The Asian Rock
Friday, May 24, 2002 at 11:09:25 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS