R E G I O N S

F E A T US RE EC SU RE IA TS YT C A H S I I NA A

CENTRAL ASIA

EAST ASIA

OCEANIA

SOUTH ASIA

SOUTHEAST ASIA
T O P I C S
BLOGS

DIPLOMACY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

FEATURES

INTERVIEWS

MAGAZINE

PHOTO ESSAYS

PODCASTS

POLITICS

SECURITY

SOCIETY

THE DIPLOMAT'S QUIZ

VIDEOS

B L O G S
CHINA POWER

FLASHPOINTS

ASIA DEFENSE

ASEAN BEAT

THE PULSE

THE KOREAS

TOKYO REPORT

THE DEBATE

CROSSROADS ASIA

THE REBALANCE

PACIFIC MONEY
ASIA LIFE
Image Credit: REUTERS/China Daily
OCEANIA

Chinas Elegant, Flawed, Grand Strategy

Elegant in theory, Beijings grand strategy is triggering an Asian security dilemma.
By Leon Whyte
July 25, 2015
1.1k Shares
81 Comments
China is a country with more than a billion people, but as Ross Terrill observed, when we ask what China wants, we are really
attempting to discern the goals of the nine male engineers who make up the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese
Communist Party. This clarification makes the answer straightforward: Like any bureaucracy or interest group the CCP wants to
ensure its survival, which depends on maintaining legitimacy with the Chinese people. To meet this goal, the CCP under President Xi
Jinping has articulated a strategy of peaceful development; however, increasing Chinese military capabilities and strategic coercion
will cause other states to balance against China, making it harder for the CCP to protect its core interests and continue its economic
and strategic rise.
Chinas Long-Term Goals
The CCP considers foreign policy directly related to maintaining domestic stability and regime survival. Chinese Scholar Ye Zicheng
expressed the nationalist sentiment: If China does not become a world power, the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will be
incomplete. Only when it becomes a world power can we say that the total rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has been achieved. This
has become widely accepted among both common and elite Chinese citizens. To maintain control of Chinese nationalism, and to
channel it as a source of legitimacy for the regime, the CCP has established the two concepts of core interests and a new type of
great power relationship.
The 2011 Chinese White Paper Chinas Peaceful Development, lists the six core Chinese interests as 1) state sovereignty; 2) national
security; 3) territorial integrity; 4) national reunification; 5) Chinas political system established by the Constitution and overall social
stability; 6) basic safeguards for ensuring sustainable economic and social development. The concept of core interests is how the CCP
signals the issues it is willing to go to war over. In the past, Chinese spokespeople have referred to both contested South and East
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

signals the issues it is willing to go to war over. In the past, Chinese spokespeople have referred to both contested South and East
China Sea territorial claims as core interests, but officially at least, the CCP has maintained ambiguity about their status. Still, the CCP
has been clear that it considers its territorial claims to be sovereign Chinese territory, so maintaining these claims would fall under the
core interests listed in the 2011 White Paper. In addition, in contrast to the ambiguity of its maritime claims, the CCP has been clear
that Taiwan is a core interest, and it is unwilling to rule out the use of force to reunify China.
Chinas pursuit of its core interests has the potential to trigger great power rivalry or conflict with the United States and other regional
powers. This is why in 2010 then Chinese President Hu Jintao told U.S. President Barack Obama that China and the United States
should respect each others core interests and major concerns. This is key to the healthy and stable development of bilateral ties.
Current Chinese President Xi Jinping has articulated a similar concept in his vision for a new type of great-power relationship
between China and the United States. This slogan has now become commonplace in Chinese official speeches and media when
describing the U.S.-China relationship. Together, the concepts of core interests and a new type of great power relationship,
demonstrate the CCPs vision of Chinas future. In this vision, China and the United States will enjoy an equal relationship with clearly
defined core interests that the other will not interfere with. This will result in China assuming a preeminent place in Asia, with a large
sphere of influence encompassing much of the South and East China Seas, and a reunification with Taiwan.
Chinese Grand Strategy
Currently the United States and other Western powers control the international order and benefit by creating the rules. China is
currently a rule-taker in this international system, but it has developed a new ideal for international relations based on noninterference in other states affairs. Xi has articulated this as part of Chinas peaceful development strategy, saying China should
abide by the principle of non-interference in other countries internal affairs, respect the independent choice of development path and
social system by people of other countries, promote peaceful resolution of differences and disputes between countries through dialogue
and consultation, and oppose the willful use or threat of force.
This strategy of non-interference has the benefit of attracting developing countries that are wary of Western interference in their
domestic affairs. For example, China, unlike the United States, is often willing to give aid to countries without attaching political
conditions such as human rights or anti-corruption requirements. A recent example is Xis trip to Pakistan and pledge of $46 billion
dollars in investment. Xi articulated the strategic intent behind the investment and the visit, saying China appreciates Pakistans
consistent support on issues related to Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and South China Sea, and China will continue to staunchly support
Pakistan for its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
The CCP also relies on increasing military deterrence to prevent other states from interfering in Chinese core interests. Xi has made it
clear that some issues are non-negotiable, saying While we pursue peaceful development, we will never relinquish our legitimate
rights and interests, or allow Chinas core interests to be undermined. In line with this strategy Chinas defense spending has been
steadily increasing, its 2015 budget of $145 billion is a 10 percent increase of its 2014 budget, which was a 12.2 percent increase over
its 2013 budget, and is a larger defense budget than Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnams combined.
Military Component
Much of Chinese strategic thinking is based on the writings of Sun Tzu, who wrote Art of War during the Spring and Autumn period of
Chinese history. Sun Tzu believed that all warfare is based on deception, and that supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemys resistance without fighting. This latter concept is not a pacifistic notion, but demonstrates the primacy of psychological
factors over purely military ones. The PLA put this belief into practice during the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis. The 1996 Taiwan Straits
crisis occurred due to the CCPs perception that the United States was changing its relationship with Taiwan, and that Taiwan was
moving towards independence from China, which threatened Chinas core interest of national reunification. To coerce the United
States and Taiwan into changing their behavior, China conducted naval exercises and fired off shore missiles in the waters near
Taiwan. When these displays of force were insufficient to convince the U.S. and Taiwan to change their behavior, China escalated by
conducting military exercises two weeks before Taiwans upcoming November 15 election, including a simulated amphibious landing
on Taiwan-held islands.
Chinese escalation of force did change U.S. behavior towards Taiwan, gaining a U.S. recommitment to the one China principle and
deterring Taiwan from declaring independence. However, this success came at a price: The United States sent two carrier battle
groups through the Taiwan Straits. At the time, China was unable to prevent U.S. naval access to the Taiwan Straits. After this
incident, the PRC decided on an anti-access strategy that would depend on asymmetric capabilities and tactics designed to prevent a
repeat of the humiliating incident. A key component of this strategy is the idea of active defense, articulated in this passage from the
PLAs 2001 Science of Military Strategy: We should do all we can to dominate the enemy by striking first. Once the enemy invades
our territory and offends our national interests, it means that the enemy has already fired the first shot strategically and crossed the
border of our strategic defense. This passages vagueness presents potential adversaries with a difficult situation when trying to
gauge what constitutes an offense to Chinese national interest or Chinese territory, making it difficult to anticipate PLA action if they
enter what China considers its airspace or maritime territory.
The PLA is enhancing the deterrent effect of its active defense concept through anti-access strategy and capabilities. While the
Chinese military is much less developed than its U.S. equivalent, this advantage fades the closer the United States is to Chinese
territory. Because of this, China does not have to match U.S. military might; rather, it has to develop the capability to create a
contested zone where China has a good chance of damaging U.S. forces. In this contested zone, the PLA is seeking the capability to win
air and sea control from enemy forces by concentrating its forces at strategic points, denying access to outside powers. To accomplish
this, the PLA has developed a range of capabilities and tactical strategies including using water mines, submarines and air capabilities
to create a blockade to prevent an enemy force from leaving its naval bases or accessing key sea-lanes.
The goal behind developing anti-access capabilities and promoting active defense is not to wage a major power war with the United
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The goal behind developing anti-access capabilities and promoting active defense is not to wage a major power war with the United
States, but to present the U.S. with unacceptable risk if it interferes with what China considers a core interest. This strategy
incorporates both Sun Tzus concept of deception and of winning without fighting. Because of the ambiguity of Chinas active defense
concept any U.S. president would be unsure of what Chinas threshold is for a first strike should the U.S. commit to a show of force
near Chinese territory. The U.S. president would also know that China had the capability to inflict significant damage on any U.S. asset
near the Chinese mainland. Moreover, China bases this strategy on the judgment that the United States understands that China
places a greater value on Taiwan, or other maritime claims, than the U.S. does, and thus Washington will either hesitate or decline to
engage in a show of force. In either case, it would present China with a window of opportunity to create facts on the ground that the
United States or other powers would find difficult to reverse.
New Great Power Relationship
In the CCPs perfect world, its growing military and political capabilities will allow it to create a new great power relationship with the
United States based on the understanding of non-interference in each others core interests. Through the CCPs humane authority,
it will establish an alternative international system based on a new set of norms that will win it friends and allies. Chinas ambiguous
policy of active defense along with its anti-access capabilities will deter any outside threat to its core interests. This will ensure the
proper environment for the CCP to continue its peaceful development, and will strengthen CCP legitimacy, meeting the overarching
objective of regime survival.
In a sterile environment, this strategy is elegant and comprehensive, but in reality the other side always gets a vote and often does
not act as planners predict or prefer. American strategic thinker Edward Luttwak describes this problem as the paradoxical logic of
strategy. According to the logic of strategy, as China grows economically, it will spend more on military capabilities, as it develops
more military capabilities other states will fear Chinas rise and will counter-balance against China and seek to constrain China through
economic and strategic means. For China, pursuing its current grand strategy has not resulted in increased moral legitimacy and
attractive power; instead it is triggering an Asian security dilemma, encouraging increased military spending by other powers in the
region like Japan and South Korea while driving countries like Vietnam and Singapore to closer alignment with the United States. In
addition, even if China can deter the United States from using forcing through its anti-access strategy, the U.S. and others can respond
through geo-economic means, such as targeted financial sanctions, trade barriers for sensitive technology, or even restrictions on
trading raw materials. Any of these geo-economic strategies has the potential to undercut Chinas economic growth and threaten the
CCPs legitimacy, undermining the original goal of long-term regime survival.
Leon Whyte is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as well as the Senior Editor for the
Current Affairs section of the Fletcher Security Review. His research interests include transnational security and U.S. alliances in
East Asia. You can follow him at @leon_whyte

Topics

Features

Tags

Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)

U.S.-China Relations

R E L A T E D

Security

East Asia

China
China grand strategy

Grand Strategy

Taiwan Strait

Taiwan Strait crisis

S T O R I E S

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

May 08, 2013

Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments

Last years annual report on Chinese military developments was widely criticized. What does the 2013 version offer?

L A T E S T

B L O G S

July 28, 2015

Uyghur Issues Cast Pall Over Turkey-China Relations

Just as Turkish President Erdogan heads to Beijing, Uyghur issues are causing anger in the bilateral relationship.

L A T E S T

F E A T U R E S

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

July 27, 2015

What the Trans-Pacific Partnership Means for Southeast Asia

The trade deal would be a giant step for the four Southeast Asian countries currently in talks.

C O M M E N T S
Please read our comments policy.
Note that all comments are moderated and your comment may not appear immediately.
81 Comments

1 Login

The Diplomat

Recommend 1

Share

Sort by Best

Join the discussion

Oro Invictus 3 days ago

As with most quandaries involving government, the CPC has only itself to blame in its geopolitical difficulties. While any state, as it
accumulates influence, will naturally find resistance from others, the CPC did itself no favours by fomenting so much nationalist
rhetoric for so long. They left no space for themselves to negotiate with others, only the creation of as imperious as attitude as the
19th century US; just as the US supposedly had (and still, to a lesser extent, has) its "god-given" right to power and influence, so too
is the "natural order" of (East) Asia to have the PRC be predominant. The PRC's willingness to treat others as equals is inversely
proportional to what import the PRC places on whatever the matter of concern is, irrespective of what value the other party places
on it.
Let us consider the matter of non-interference, for example. It's already well-established that while Beijing does offer economic deals
sans political preconditions, at least, as long as those politics don't concern the PRC (more on that in a moment), it does levy hefty
economic ones; while more palatable to governments in the near-term, I suspect just as much chafing (if not more) will result from
these deals in the long-term as the political sanctimony of the "West" and their deals. As such, we see that this "non-interference"
does not extend to economic matters, but surely political matters are still sacrosanct?
Well, no. The classic exceptions in this matter are, of course, things like Taiwan and the SCS where Beijing has decided there is no
other side. Effectively, there is no interference, there is no dispute, because the PRC said so. Sure, lots of other states have done this,
but they mainly did so when a cut-off ear or poaching a pig was (ostensibly) valid justification for a war. If you were living in the
same neighborhood as such a state, wouldn't you be slightly nervous?
see more

14

Reply Share

firemagnet > Oro Invictus 2 days ago

"The problem for the PRC is that, thus far, it has been an alternative in name only, not only acting much like the US, but the
US of a hundred years ago."
Exactly, and it's because the national discourse in the PRC is that it was entirely the fault of the foreigners (and not inept
governance on the part of the Qing) that saw China stripped of its position as "the nation which swayed all others." This is
further reinforced by the notion that China can only rejuvenate if it held the same position it once did--as a world power
unmatched by others. It's the PRC's equivalent of "manifest destiny," and like manifest destiny it relies on myths and tropes
about other peoples which are not true, such as the Chinese notion that--fundamentally--national character does not change.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Therefore, according to the logic of the PRC, if the US and the European nations were rapacious in the past, they are still as
such today. Similarly, China is in this schema entirely justified in pursuing its own blatantly imperial ambitions, as they are
perceived as as a "just" reclamation of what is "China's by birthright."
My opinion of such logic is, appropriately, that you "cannot reason someone out of what they did not reason themselves into."
4

Reply Share

Mishmael > Oro Invictus 2 days ago

Look, it is obvious that China's actions are driving a security dilemma in Asia, but it is unclear whether China truly has any
other alternative. For you see, it is not just China that is rising, but petty much all the other states in Asia as well. China giving
strategic way to a more accommodating foreign policy will likely encourage other rising states or Japan to be more strident in
their already strident policy of confronting China, which will anger the Chinese people even outside the realm of ultranationalism and then threaten the status of the CPC.
I think most Chinese and most of the CPC would gladly be thought of in strategic terms as "just another USA" if it meant that
their core goals of reunification, non-interference in domestic affairs, and securitization of their international investment
interests was achieved.
4

Reply Share

Anon > Mishmael 2 days ago

That you call Japan's foreign policy post WW2 'strident' shows just how out of touch the PRC is. It is difficult to think
of a nation post WW2, that was more peace driven and focused beyond its own country than Japan.
That Japan has now done so in the face of China's claims shows just how blatantly expansionist China is!
5

Reply Share

ForensicsFighter > Anon a day ago

That is NOT true. For example they have FAILED to clean up their chemical and biologial weapons waste. It is
still a threat in China today. It will still be a threat for many years. That does not show anything peaceful. If
anything Japan acting like a baby victim when it was the aggressor shows how little it should be trusted as a
world power.
1

Reply Share

Yes! > ForensicsFighter 13 hours ago

I live in Southeast Asia and I, like most if not all of my fellow citizens of Southeast Asia, would rather
trust Japan as a world power than China. What Japan did during WW2 is water under the bridge. Post
war Japan has been a major contributor of economic development and prosperity of Southeast Asian
countries. From where we stand, China is behaving like a barbarian, and she is not likely to change that
anytime soon because China likes to think they are superior to other Asians on the basis of their "5000
year culture".
Reply Share

MingDynasty > Oro Invictus 3 days ago

This is also going on: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blo...

Reply Share

MMCRailgun a day ago

The part where the author speaks about the area access and how the Chinese wish to use that is something I found amusing. If the
US really had the political will to directly call China on their BS then we would, no problem, because even if we sailed a carrier group
through there again the CCP would do nothing. How can I be so sure? Just ask yourself if China is willing to start a war, all out war,
with the US when all America is trying to do is a display of force. Emphasis on display. Now, ask what would happen if they sunk
one of America's carrier groups? Let's just look at the facts for that. America takes pride in her military, for good reason, and carriers
are bar none the most symbolic military asset, not to mention the most expensive. Even more important is the sheer number of
personnel in a carrier group. Just the fact of taking that many American lives is something that, ask the Middle East, cannot be
deescalated. American carriers have a near impervious shield around them that is no more nor less then their aura as the greatest
display of the unions might and that is why, lest we were already at full blown war, those ships can sail where ever they very well
please.
6

Reply Share

Jose Rizal > MMCRailgun 18 hours ago

True that.
1

Reply Share

MD6888 > MMCRailgun 3 hours ago

Taliban, Al Q and now Isil..what! You just hope they laugh to their deaths.
Reply Share
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

 Reply Share

Austronesian_Pacific 2 days ago

China's touted new type of great power relationship., is in fact the "Old type of great power relations." And here is why...
China "I'm big now, I want stuff"
World "We are investing, what else you need?"
China "Some land, from the little countries, plus total control of the little countries"
World "???"
The 'peaceful rise' is shown to be the biggest lie since Adolf Hitler told his lies.
6

Reply Share

Harrow_Prease > Austronesian_Pacific 10 hours ago

China's territorial claim has drastically shrunk since 1949, go look at the official maps published by ROC. China has given
concessions to foster better relations, but you just can't negotiate with thieves who steals your stuff and sues you for not
giving them more.
Reply Share

Yes! > Austronesian_Pacific 13 hours ago

""The 'peaceful rise' is shown to be the biggest lie since Adolf Hitler told his lies.""
That. You have President Clinton to thank for. He's brought into a peaceful middle class neighbourhood an uneducated thug
who recently made some money selling poor quality merchandise and who is now flouting the rules of good community
behaviour and terrorising the neighbours and demanding respect for just being a bully with some newly-bought guns.
Reply Share

The Hard Man 2 days ago

Good article. In only two years of bullying, incursions, and island building Mr. Xi has destroyed once and for all the myth of China's
peaceful rise.
Xi was smart, until now. He doesn't know when to pull back, like Deng did. Xi understood that as China's economy slows, he could
use an aggressive foreign policy to bolster the Party's credentials with the people. So when China started making moves in the South
and East China seas in 2012, and pumping up their hacking and espionage against the west, he found that powerful morons were
counseling western leaders to show restraint, to negotiate, to accommodate. Now the west has woken up and found that this policy
has actually encouraged China rather than tempered the CCP's appetite for more.
Who are the morons? Let's name a few of China's useful idiots: Charlene Barshefsky, Jonathan Greenert, Evan Medeiros, Joseph
Nye, Kevin Rudd, John Kerry, and many more.
6

Reply Share

Exocet > The Hard Man 2 days ago

I wouldn't number Kevin Rudd among them, his remarks that wikileaks showed otherwise.
1

Reply Share

The Hard Man > Exocet 2 days ago

Yet he authored the Harvard Belfer Center's latest "let's give in to China before it's too late!" paper called "US-China
21." Among other concessions, it implored the U.S. to "cooperate more fully" with China on cyber security. They
published in April, and the massive Chinese hack of OMB was revealed only 2 months later. Pretty embarrassing. So
much for Kevin Rudd.
4

Reply Share

Exocet > The Hard Man a day ago

He implored a lot of cooperation rather than sabre rattling and told them to use force if it all went wrong. it's
going all wrong as we speak.
I think he's an idealist that still thinks the CCP and their fascist ways can be tamed, but is willing to believe they
won't.
.
4

Reply Share

The Hard Man > Exocet a day ago

It hasn't gone right for an instant since Xi took over in 2012, yet all the intellectuals continued to live in
their rarified 'unicorns and rainbows' diplomatic world for over two years. That includes Rudd, with his
2015 "US-China 21" paper. Now China is the house holding all the cards, and in this game of '21' the
west is sitting on 16 and China has stuffed all the aces up their sleeve.
1

Reply Share
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Reply Share

Andre Segovia > The Hard Man 10 hours ago

lol, Kevin Rudd is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.

Reply Share

It is me again! > The Hard Man 21 hours ago

"Now the west has woken up ..."

How did it actually wake up? By rushing to sign up to AIIB? By making massive new free trade agreements with China? By
trading more and more in RMB?
Reply Share

arrotoxieta 3 days ago

It is a bit simplistic to think that as a reaction to China's military spending we will see the economic isolation of China. Indeed,
behind the facade of enhanced military spending, there is a lot of cooperation, exchange, economic integration going on, even
between China and... Japan. It is unrealistic to think that the US will decide to isolate China. Even the isolation of Russia did not
work very well, and had so far huge costs. Isolating China would mean throwing globalisation as we know it into the rubbish bin. Is
that possible? It is certainly possible, but it would have huge costs and require a U turn in all sort of policies, which are unlikely to
happen within the current political culture in the Western world.
Would an economic downturn in China cause the collapse of CCP? First, what is the CCP? They are no longer Communists, that is
for sure. They're capitalists. The Chinese elite is an elite of capital owners. Does this elite want to change? I do not think so. They may
want to own MORE capital. So even if the Chinese elite changed its name and was no longer the CCP, they certainly do not want to
change the substance of the current political and economic arrangement. This is fundamentally different from the Soviet elite. Those
people were bureaucrats in charge of publicly owned goods (factory directors etc...) who wanted to become owners, and that is why
Communism in the USSR collapsed. Not only: the Soviets saw the possibility of jumping directly to a different model, the neo-liberal
one (Gorbachev actually preferred the Scandinavia-style social democracy), which they did in the 1990s. Today, there are no
alternative models available.
12

Reply Share

It is me again! > arrotoxieta 21 hours ago

Indeed, the list of countries which the "West" has "isolated" or which are often mentioned as potential targets for isolation are
already so numerous that sometimes one thinks who is actually isolating whom.
Reply Share

Elvis 2 days ago

What the author describes was always going to happen, no matter what others say. What matters is the final result and that will take
years, most likely decades. China will experience geopolitical successes and failures. The great majority of its neighbors will continue
to balance China and distant powers. As long as China does not go into a Soviet style stagnation or collapse, and continues to rise in
the end Chinese primacy in the Far East will happen.
As for the wisdom or necessity of China's Grand Strategy?
Fact, the gap in technology and capabilities between the US armed services and the PLA was wide in the mid 1990s and was going to
get even wider. It was imperative that the PLA close the gap as quickly as possible which required sustained big annual increases to
the defense budget to modernize the PLA therefore the Western narrative of the Chinese "military buildup".
Fact, the US has been planning to contain or confront China since the start of the 21st century. Neoconservatives and strategists were
talking about it in the 1990s and when Bush II became president, with the support of Cheney they were getting started, then 9-11
happened and priorities changed.
>>>> An example of this was the policy paper put out by the neoconservative think tank, the Project for a New American Century
(many of whom ended up in the administration of President Bush II) - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century - which spoke of the following:
1. Preserving "Pax Americana" in the 21st century.
see more

Reply Share

Harrow_Prease > Elvis 10 hours ago

it's naive for some to say, China must match platform to platform when confronting the US military, China has more than
enough asymmetrical capabilities to deter US from meddling in CHina's internal and bilateral affairs. DF-21d Wu-14, the
newly built double headed first of it's kind the unmanned divine eagle AWACs comes to mind.
Reply Share

Bankotsu 3 days ago

"For China, pursuing its current grand strategy has not resulted in
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

increased moral legitimacy and attractive power; instead it is

triggering an Asian security dilemma..."
That's because China economic and military rise is still incomplete. China must intensify its military and economic development,
otherwise China's peaceful rise strategy will fail. I have always criticised the weak and small military budget of China. It is a
nonsense military budget for a power like China.
7

Reply Share

Chris > Bankotsu 3 days ago

I'd say in peacetime that spending of around 2% of GDP is justified. The last thing China needs is a bloated and unsustainable
military like the U.S. has. Given the current situation in the SCS and with Japan, I can see 2.5% being justifiable.
I totally understand why you hold your view, but I'd hate to see China become like the U.S. in the sense of having too much
stick, and not enough carrot. Imagine the investment in infrastructure back home the Americans could pump in if they down
sized and cut 100 billion from their current military budget.
9

Reply Share

drkkrw > Chris 2 days ago

so true. infrastructure in the US is famously bad compared with Europe/UK/China due to chronic underinvestment.
also America grossly overpays for its healthcare and legal services. Europe, we get the same quality (if not better) for
less than half of the price (as % of GDP). and those costs in the US are racing ahead like a run away train, out of
control. Imagine what the US could be without those 3 burdens, military/HC/legal...if it brings those costs back in line
with teh rest of the developed economies, it d be completely unbeatable and 'un-catchable" as an economic
powerhouse.
3

Reply Share

Chris > drkkrw 2 days ago

Not sure about unbeatable. I can't see the U.S. ever being able to match China's economic potential (population
is a major factor here), but it certainly could get itself out of the stagnation it's in right now.
Reply Share

khichuri > drkkrw 2 days ago

Famously bad?! Even compared to China? Have you been to China? or USA?
Reply Share

ben lu > khichuri 16 hours ago

How about a look here.

China in Motion 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Aerial Beijing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CHONGQING TIMELAPSE |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

2014

Reply Share

Chris Chen > khichuri a day ago

I'm a Chinese and I ve been to USA before. According to my experience, I would say the infrastructures
in Chinese cities are better than USA. But if you take far west countryside part of China into account, I
would say USA is better generally.
Reply Share

CAPT Mongo > Chris 2 days ago

Yeah. Imagine the wonders of welfare the US could accomplish if we simply eliminated our military. Hey, we could all
live in peace then right?
1

Reply Share

Chris > CAPT Mongo 2 days ago

Straw man argument. What the U.S. needs is a military which can defend the country from attack, and
retaliate against an aggressor country. 100 billion or more could be cut from the budget and still allow the
military to fulfill this mission. The military America has now is the kind of military an empire aspires for, not a
modern republic.
The U.S. badly needs to renew it's infrastructure. It's literally falling apart. Private enterprise isn't coming in to
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

fix the problem, so that leaves the government to fund the work. The money has to come from somewhere,
and if Washington isn't prepared to run a higher deficit, cuts have got to be made somewhere else. The military
is bloated and inefficient *cough*F-35*cough*. creating efficiencies and some down sizing free up more than
enough money, and not hurt the real economy. On the contrary, it would do a great deal to kick it back into
action
Reply Share

CAPT Mongo > Chris a day ago

Uh. Percentage of US budget devoted to Defense? Welfare?

Your premise is fallacious. The U.S. needs to develop a comprehensive (and realistic) Defense Strategy,
determine the forces needed to carry out that strategy, and acquire and maintain those forces. Only
after that do we have any business funding welfare or anything else.
Yes, I agree that infrastructure needs attention, but we could well afford both the military we need AND
substantial infrastructure investments if we eliminated welfare.
No argument that the current defense acquisition process is hugely flawed. That is driven by civilians-not the uniformed military.
Reply Share

Chris > CAPT Mongo 15 hours ago

So you'd sooner cut money from America's already inadequate social security system, so people with
disabilities and those who can't find work starve? You'd rather do this than downsize a needlessly large
military, which is itself a drag on economic growth?
This kind of thinking is what is getting the U.S. into trouble. Nobody ever prospered by pumping money
into the military at the expense of vitally important areas of the economy.
Reply Share

Frank Blangeard 2 days ago

In the last paragraph Whyte suggests using financial sanctions, trade barriers and even restrictions on trading raw materials to
undercut China. Sounds very much like what the US imposed on Japan prior to WW2.
3

Reply Share

ForensicsFighter > Frank Blangeard a day ago

We need to be careful cause China has so many rare earth minerals. We should find anothe source before we can do anything
serious. Also we buy almost ALL of our components from China. what will happen if they sell us less?
Reply Share

Andre Segovia > ForensicsFighter 9 hours ago

We have plenty of rare earths here in our own country. It's just that China can producing them cheaper, so we shut
down our mines. We can crank up productions again if the situation demands.
Reply Share

Lauren Garza 2 days ago

Try on the concept of self-isolationisum. The deliberate taking of a path that ensures a nation will become alienated from its
neighbors due to an overarching deeply held attitude. China has turned into a deeply reactionary state caused by an internalized
hubris of its own position about its 'rightful' place in the world. These nine old men are running this entire region closer and closer to
war for the real core belief that matters to them. Keeping themselves and their government in power. Self preservation is the prime
motive to any society. And in China this has become childlike in their insistence that all others should let them have whatever they
want. As Le Carre once observed in one of his novels. "Anyone who says they've had enough, means they want more."
China needs some therapy, because simply put, they do not play well with others.
And in this case, that could get a lot of people killed. BTW, great article. One of the most articulate I've seen in many a day.
3

Reply Share

Godfree Roberts 3 days ago

China's grand strategy is to lead the world through amazement and envy. That's the most cost-effective approach and worked until
the West butted in. Now the West is being gently eased out and it's back to Plan A.
5

Reply Share

Redmond > Godfree Roberts 2 days ago

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.

6

Reply Share

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

ForensicsFighter > Redmond a day ago

Well according to the International Monetary Fund for the last 1,900 of the last 2,000 years, China was one of the top
3 producing nations in the world. That Rome equal garbage is historically false. Rome could not even compare to
China economically for 300 years. China this year surpassed the US on a PPP basis for the first time in over 120 years
as the largest economy in the world. China produces more steel than Europe, Japan and the US combined. They now
purchase more oil. Chinese students are such a small percentage of the US population yet they dominate in many of
the advanced fields. We should start worrying about laying more eggs before worring about how many of their eggs
will hatch...
Reply Share

Redmond > ForensicsFighter a day ago

Straw-man argument. I belong to the Chinese Diaspora you are referring to and my political views are aimed
against the CCP, the illegitimate government of China, and not the entire country itself. No need to turn this
discussion into an ethno-cultural debate, race-baiting, or bragging the accomplishments of the Han civilization
which does not have anything to do with the CCP, nor the PLA .
With politically-ignorant people like you, sometimes I think we really deserved Mao.
2

Reply Share

Frank Blangeard > Redmond a day ago

Redmond...are you planning to retake the mainland anytime soon? Will this be an outright invasion
from the island of Taiwan or is there a 'color revolution' in the works?
Reply Share

Silao Koi > Redmond a day ago

Wow. The mainlanders really do have bloated egos.

They cant even seem to think out of the box. Havent they asked themselves why their neighbors hate
the ccp? Members of the chinese diapora are fearful of the mainland. Ask filipino chinese.. We think an
invasion of our islands is inevitable. The ccp cannot be reasoned with. They live in their own fantasy
world. How do you negotiate and interact with a peoplen who's schizophrenic/paranoid.
Reply Share

elgaes > Godfree Roberts 2 days ago

amazement and envy? mmm where are we at now? you pissing off all your near neigbhours now your far neighbours will
look very carefully who they are dealing with. if you are not carefull you will be back into the corner reading the only book
available to you that is Mao owned bible.
the cost of maintaining security when you are surrounding yourself with all enemies are huge, it will kill your economy
before the fight even begin. if you can not secure your surrounding then forget about project power afar, and you can t secure
your surrounding if you make enemy out of everyone around you.
ccp thint they are smart, but their short sight showed everyone their true color.
as I ve warn before, a bunch of power hungry and ruthless commies dressed up in business suit, do not transform them into
businessman, do they?
2

Reply Share

Anon > Godfree Roberts 2 days ago

yes yes North Korea, Pakistan, and Cambodia are full of envy, the rest of the world is just full of amazement.. and not in a
good way, but I suppose that wouldn't matter to you.
1

Reply Share

Fallacy Ref > Godfree Roberts 9 hours ago

Player is begging the question. Tried to assume their premise "China led the world until the West butted in" was already
correct. Repeat first down.
Reply Share

tatangb a day ago

Let's stop being politically correct and call it what it really is.
Claiming indisputable ownership of 80+% of the SCS and at the same time demanding that no country (including those whose "core
interests" have been violated) should object nor interfere because this will create trouble, threaten China's "core interests", and disrupt
China's "peaceful rise", clearly shows the workings of a twisted mind. This is exactly what a robber would tell his victim and to
anyone who would dare to interfere.
2

Reply Share

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Rape the Reefs 2 days ago

Um uh, so what's the status of Taiwan reunification?

Oh, East Chinas Sea ADIZ?
Hong Kong pro-democracy movement...
Oh yeah, the 9-Dash South China Sea blunder...
Miscalculation on the Vietnam and the Philippines disputes, not to mention Japan's Senkaku,
The no-show in The Hague UN Tribunal case..
The One belt one road to nowhere.
2

Reply Share

Load more comments

ALSO ON THE DIPLOMAT

Taiwan Navy Eyes New US Anti-Submarine Warfare

Helicopters

Want to Save Ukraine? Forget Europe, Look to China

39 comments 2 days ago

39 comments 21 hours ago

The Troubled Japan-South Korea Relationship

Chinese Outward Investment and Host Country Corruption

19 comments 9 hours ago

20 comments 2 days ago

Subscribe

Add Disqus to your site

Privacy

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

R E G I O N S
CENTRAL ASIA

EAST ASIA

OCEANIA

SOUTH ASIA

SOUTHEAST ASIA
T O P I C S
BLOGS

DIPLOMACY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

FEATURES

INTERVIEWS

MAGAZINE

PHOTO ESSAYS

PODCASTS

POLITICS

SECURITY

SOCIETY

THE DIPLOMAT'S QUIZ

VIDEOS

B L O G S
CHINA POWER

FLASHPOINTS

ASIA DEFENSE

ASEAN BEAT

THE PULSE

THE KOREAS

TOKYO REPORT

THE DEBATE

CROSSROADS ASIA

THE REBALANCE
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

PACIFIC MONEY

ASIA LIFE

OCEANIA
2015 The Diplomat. All Rights Reserved.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com