|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
COMING SHIFTS IN PACIFIC POWER BALANCE
f the outcome of the Cold War has shown one thing, it's that economic power begets military power -- and not vice versa.
Today American power is unrivaled, the product of three centuries of unbroken industrial and territorial expansion. A half century ago its sole Pacific rival was Japan, a nation that had begun building an industrial base a mere seven decades earlier. Today Japan is wealthy but stagnant and adrift, its spiritual and political back never having mended after having been shattered by World War II and subsequent occupation.
While not entirely writing off Japan's potential to pose new challenges, the U.S. has begun eyeing China as the next strategic rival.
Barely three decades after China began ditching its centralized command economy for the glories of capitalist wealth, most of its 1.25 billion citizens remain mired in an agrarian subsistence economy. But the 125 million Chinese participating in the industrial economy of the coastal regions have fueled China's drive for superpower status. By 2015 it will match the U.S. in GDP -- then double it by 2025. Militarily China has been a formidable land power since the Corean War. Now the Red Army is acquiring state-of-the-art warplanes, missiles and submarines. It has announced plans to send a man into space by 2005. China's overriding aim is to keep the Pacific from becoming an American pond.
Any shift in the Pacific power balance must also take into account the two Coreas, Taiwan and Russia. At any given time each of these nations are triangulating a course of maximum advantage with reference to the U.S., China and Japan. The precise posture these nations ultimately adopt may well tip the balance.
How will the Pacific power balance shift in the coming decades? What developments will pose the greatest threats to American power?
This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 06:10:15 PM)
I believe that China, like any other country in a similar position, will seek to become the dominant power in it's own back yard, much as the United States is in relation to Latin America. The question is whether America should be concerned.
It has always been a fundamental tenet of US national security thinking to ensure that no power becomes the hegemon in the littoral regions that face the US homeland. That was the American policy toward Europe all the way through the Cold War and for the last 100 years we have applied the same thinking to East Asia.
I don't think that a powerful China by itself is a threat to American interests, so long as its power is balanced by Japan, Russia, and, yes, the United States. I don't think China would seem quite so threatening if it hadn't thrown the first punch by labeling the US as its primary national security threat all the way back in the early 1990s.
China must accept the fact that, even as a powerful country, it is not the "middle kingdom" of a 1000 years ago. It needs to recognize that it shares the world with other powerful countries. Threatening to invade Taiwan and to launch missiles at Los Angeles (threats made by China in 1994 during a showdown with the US over Taiwan) is not the way to gain America's, or anyone else's, trust. Embracing democracy and capitalism, and tightly restraining its military leaders who engage in belligerent words and actions, are China's best hopes for being accepted by the world as a legitimate great power.
As for "the new alliances," the LAST thing that would be good for China is to be on the wrong side of history by embracing anti-Western extremism. China has, rightfully, resisted doing so for now.
JJP
Sunday, December 09, 2001 at 13:04:46 (PST)
Real China
China only power is there population.
China economic and military power
has along way to go. I would say
probably in 22nd century China will
be industrialized power. Until then
China will be big market.
Mao tse tung
Saturday, December 08, 2001 at 21:58:10 (PST)
PPP is not as good for this type of comparison, maybe it should carry some weight but certainly than exchange rate GDP. PPP ignores much much more than an exchange rate GDP, I can make a long list, but not going to bother to bore myself doing so.
Aside from GDP, there are two other critical metrics in which China stacks up even more unfavorably.
One is GNP. China's GNP is only half of its GDP, meaning foreigners produce half of that GDP stat. A big red flag.
Second, China lags far behind in accumulated wealth. The US has many dozens of trillions of dollars of accumulated wealth, China is many dozens of trillions behind. If you make 125K a year and have 5 million in assets, and I start from naught and catch up in salary, there's still that 5 million...
I don't think it is safe to assume China & US will be fine for next 50yrs, no wars, certainly, but uh relationships can get very nasty even without fighting...
What annoys me is that the US will go back to vilifying the nincompoops that make the Chinese gov't after Osama is disposed of, and unfortunately China's image reflects upon every Asian American, just like Osama's doings unfortunately affects Arab Americans.
Realistic ABC
Friday, December 07, 2001 at 11:57:38 (PST)
Realistic ABC,
That is a very pessimistic view of China.
A similar negative view of the USA is that the War on Terror will be our next Vietnam with white supremist terrorist poisoning the USA mail with bio-weapons. Hence, the beginning of the splitting of the Union.
The Dot Com economy was not fundemental sound and has started the recession in the USA. The recession we have now is the beginning of the next Great Depression. Nostrodamus was right.
I think China and USA will be fine for the next 50 years.
AC dropout
Thursday, December 06, 2001 at 09:59:33 (PST)
Un-"Realistic ABC",
PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is the only realistic way to view the size of an economy. If you try to value everything based on dollar exchange rates, you are essentially ignoring everything that has no export value. A bomb that can kill 1,000 people is the same whether you say it cost $1 million or $100,000. You don't fight a war by shooting U.S. dollars at each other. China doesn't have to house or feed its citizens by spending dollars. It also makes most of its own industrial production domestically.
Brain Trust
Thursday, December 06, 2001 at 07:49:40 (PST)
1. China will not match the US's GDP by 2015. Anyone who can do math knows China will be lucky to have a GDP 1/3 the size of the US's by 2015. If China maitains current growth rates, it's GDP might reach half of the US's by 2025. I'm not talking PPP, which everyone knows means jack for these types of comparisons.
Anyway China's economic growth is not fundamentally sound or internally driven, way too dependent on foreign investment, exports, also poor business/political environment, too many ignorant leaders, etc, etc.
2. Handing two million people a rifle doesn't make an army. China's military is not formidable. I think it's clear the US could wreck every Chinese plane without a casualty, and take out China's nukes in a first strike. China cannot build one working modern weapon on its own, forget its military posing a challenge to the US for the next 50 years.
The US gov't is imagining things, China has always been 95% hype. I'm just glad Afghanistan is distracting the US from its constant bitching at China, much of it justified.
Realistic ABC
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 at 17:44:26 (PST)
China and the Middle East (esp. w/Iran) are establishing closer and closer relations. They are also doing so with the Southeast Asian nations. Chinese and Muslims are very independent peoples and cultures. They will drift closer to each other vis-a-vis Western neo-imperialism.
the new alliances
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 at 15:55:54 (PST)
Actually,
China has moved 230 million people from poverty to the new middle class. That is the entire population of the USA.
I personally think China because of its history in the early 20th century has a very anti-western factors in it mordern culture. It admires the west, but does not want to be told by the west what to do. Just as USA would not be happy if China told to USA what it should do to become enlightened.
My more immediate concern is whether or not AA will get the brunt of negative press, if and when China reaches "superpower" status. Just as Japanese culture was vilified during the 1980's when it was competing with the USA. AA should take steps to ensure when China is villified that it doesn't not negatively effect AA lifestyle in the America's.
It is only natural for China to increase its sphere of influence in the Pacific as it becomes a stronger nation. It is the natural order of things.
On another hypothetical, when China reaches "superpower" status will it still demand retrition from Japan for WWII?
AC dropout
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 at 15:29:59 (PST)
Immigration of bright Asians would make this country stronger. California would become like Asia, and Washington and Oregon would trend in that direction. Although old habits are hard to break, the US would not be synonymous with white, which is probably a very good think.
Asian American Male
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 at 15:24:07 (PST)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|