Article

2005-02-08 Home Front: Politix

Congress Furious as EU Ponders Lifting China Arms Embargo

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-08 2:39:05 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Time to remind the fellows about the Alabama incident. The Alabama was a commerce raider ship built in England in the Civil War. Left England manned by English sailors and commanded by Confederate officers, to spread destruction among America's merchant marine. So effective was the Alahama and her sister ships that vast numbers of American shipping reregistered under the English flag. It would take a world war to reverse that effect. The American government sought redress of this destruction. Of course the English government refused to pay for their part in the affair. Until - a confrontation arose with France later in the century. The American government then pointed out that if the English held that their participation was legitimate in the Alabama affair, then the entire east coast ship building capability and manpower would be available to their pending opponent. The matter was resolved. If the French and Germans would like to become the merchants of death with the Chinese, there can be an opportunity in the future for the Americans to sell the finest military equipment on the planet to someone who is not as tolerant of French or German whines as we are.

Posted by Phique Spoluper4664 2005-02-08 5:06:32 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:06:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Who were the three?

Posted by someone 2005-02-08 5:09:23 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:09:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Time to find out who the 3 @$$h@t$ are who voted against it. Lemme wager that one is Barbara Lee.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-08 5:11:29 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:11:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I am glad that Sen. Kyl is bringing this to the forefront. I am also heartened that the House resolution passed 411 to 3. I wonder who the three were that voted against it, and why. 16 years after Tianamen square, things have not changed for people under the Chicoms. The EU is hurtin' for funds because of the loss of market from Saddam.

PS4664, your comment is right on. There is a serious price to be paid for selling out one's allies and oneself for some silver.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-02-08 5:14:58 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:14:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 uh, but PS, we're not currently at war with China.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-08 5:16:09 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:16:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 And yet, here we are, hat in hand, on bended knee, supplicants to European favor this week. Our move is either delectably dishonest or disgustingly submissive.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-08 5:18:13 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:18:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 HR 57 - the three nays : McKinney (of course), Oberstar, and Paul

Posted by Frank G 2005-02-08 5:26:26 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:26:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 condi aint on no bended knee. Shes trying to reconcile based on shared interests, which is perfectly right. Theres a middle ground between submission and hostility.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-08 5:27:13 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:27:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Thank G-d for Paul, so that Dems arently the only loonies.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-08 5:28:00 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:28:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Does that middle ground encompass the Chinese Arms Embargo Dismantlement site?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-08 5:32:40 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:32:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh we have disagreements. They do things we dont like, we do things they dont like. Doesnt mean we shouldnt talk to them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-08 5:34:50 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:34:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 So, in your opinion, don't worry about them lifting the arms embargo to China, the Euros have it under control?

That'd be a first. Guess all the fallout will be in their court, then?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-08 5:36:47 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Obviously we're not at war w/China. I think the Taiwan equation comes into play anytime anyone wants to give the Chicoms any new toys that we may have to find a counter measure for. Hence, it's a security concern and the French et al know it.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-08 5:38:55 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:38:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 We're not at war with China... Yet.

Posted by someone 2005-02-08 5:40:11 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Jarhead-I usually like what you have to say, so maybe I am off base here. I just wonder how long a list those "common interests" make, and whether that list isn't trumped by declared intent by certain EU members to see the US weakened. This is one sure way of doing it, and seems to follow the European model of heading down a dangerous road with no Plan B.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-08 5:44:12 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:44:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Plan B? What is this Plan B you speak of? Oh, you American cowboys, so unsophisticated and simplisme!

Posted by .Chirac 2005-02-08 5:54:23 PM|| 2005-02-08 5:54:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 The great powers have always armed native potentates. None of this shiny new weaponry prevented any of the great powers from beating the natives, though. We will simply have to spend more on defense, and not sell it to the Europeans. That will hit them where it hurts - in their pocketbooks. Is there anyone who thinks we can't beat the EU in an arms race? Dismantling NATO might be another useful step.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 5:59:29 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 5:59:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 There is a serious price to be paid for selling out one's allies and oneself for some silver.

But wait! I thought *we* were the money-grubbing capitalist warmongers eager to sell our grandmothers for a coin. What a topsy-turvey world!

Of course, the EU knows it can get away with this because it will not be them cleaning up the mess when push comes to shove. Same with selling nuke tech to the Iranians. Same with Saddam. At least Oil For Food sounded noble.

Posted by SteveS 2005-02-08 6:00:46 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:00:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks Jules, I admire your posts as well.

I'm not sure if I said something in the past about "common interests" or if that was LH. For my part I think we have legit serious concerns about chicoms getting more EU technology because of the Taiwan situation. I think that's obvious. I feel that you're quite correct, the French/German govts know this and are playing on it because one, they need the capital & two, it may be a way of snubbing us. Like you said about no plan b, if we get into a possible conflict w/china, that would be disasterous for the world economy imho. I don't know if the EU is looking fifty years down the road by doing this. In the mean time, France for her part has made numerous assertions about counter weighing the U.S. A typical Allie in my thought might think such a thing but to openly make that statement brings a latent hostility to the discourse. I think that's the way many Americans read that as well.

My political thought is that countries never really have friends, they have interests, when those interests are shared by other countries alliances can be made.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-02-08 6:01:31 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:01:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I haven't seen much evidence that Jacko cares about anything other than staying out of jail.

Posted by Dishman 2005-02-08 6:10:13 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Zhang-Isn't that an ironic reversal of what we did to the Soviet Union? Only this time, WE would be the ones spending ever-increasing amounts of money in an attempt to outrun another country's military capabilities? Is there a tipping point, economically, beyond which that won't be feasible for the US? Just asking...

If it played out that way, there would be a second irony. Indirectly, Europe would have actually brought Bin Laden's fondest wish to fruition: destruction of the US through economic means.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-02-08 6:12:10 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:12:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Is there anyone who thinks we can't beat the EU in an arms race?

That depends. If the arms race is being financed by China using surplus dollars to pay the Euros [Germans are not shabby technologists or arms makers, as I recall] for technology they can then pirate or mass produce with low cost labor while we fail to resolve the Social Secuirty issue, it could become interesting.

I could see Pat Buchannan gaining a larger following.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-08 6:18:23 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:18:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 This is a tacit admission that the US sees China as its #1 potential enemy. And this is official notice to Europe that they had better be DAMN careful which side of this potential conflict they pick. Trying to play the middleman, like they did with supplying arms and permitting smuggling with Iraq is no longer acceptable. This could literally destroy most of the major internationalist organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the WTO, and any number of economic, military and political organizations. It even begs the question: Are you declaring your alliegence to China against the US?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-08 6:28:14 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:28:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I've been hoping that the EU would come to its senses over this - looks like it's not going to happen.

The consequences of lifting the embargo - for what, 20-30 billion dollars worth of arms sales? - so completely outweighs the benefits that you have to wonder if they're sane.

So long as it kills internationalist organisations, that's fine with me, as the Coalition of the Willing is working, and I agree with Jarhead - countries have interests, not friends.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-02-08 6:36:36 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:36:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 It seems to me there is a concerted effort in certain European Governments to undermine the U.S. I think they want to return to a time when Europe called all the shots worldwide. This is a way for them to play the role of the the person in the schoolyard who was always trying to pit the 2 strongest ones against each other so he could come out on top. They can't challenge the U.S. directly so they do it through their proxy, China. This is a very dangerous game because the proxy may become strong enough to turn on it's handlers.

Posted by KIllroy 2005-02-08 6:59:27 PM|| 2005-02-08 6:59:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 #25 was me.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-02-08 7:01:20 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:01:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 J187: Zhang-Isn't that an ironic reversal of what we did to the Soviet Union? Only this time, WE would be the ones spending ever-increasing amounts of money in an attempt to outrun another country's military capabilities? Is there a tipping point, economically, beyond which that won't be feasible for the US? Just asking...

If it played out that way, there would be a second irony. Indirectly, Europe would have actually brought Bin Laden's fondest wish to fruition: destruction of the US through economic means.

The Soviet Union was spending about a third of its economy on defense. The rest of the economy was being run into the ground by Party apparatchiks convinced that the Party knew best. Great talents were imprisoned, sent to Siberia or shot for not being politically-correct. (That is the traditional meaning of politically-correct - anyone who deviated from the Party line was putting himself in danger of physical harm up to and including death). Ultimately, the Soviet Union fell, not because of it spent too much on defense, but because its economy fell apart. Spending too much on defense merely accelerated that collapse. Thanks to Reagan's efforts, the Russian empire did not get the breathing space necessary to reconstitute itself as a capitalist dictatorship, unlike China. Russia fell apart, and is no longer a great power except for its nukes. And once the missile defense system becomes comprehensive, any Russian pretensions to superpower status will effectively have vanished.

We spent 50% of our GDP on defense annually for four years while fighting WWII - outproducing friends and enemies combined. We are spending about 4% today, and have a vigorous non-government run private sector that can sustain much larger defense expenditures. At the height of the Cold War, we spent about 8%. There's no way the EU can outspend us - we have a bigger, stronger and more dynamic economy than theirs.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 7:20:33 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 7:20:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 But again, as Mrs. Davis pointed out, why are you only thinking of it in terms of the EU 's expenses? What about the revenue side?

Posted by jules 2 2005-02-08 7:27:56 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:27:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Well fuck them -- yeah, I know this sounds like "my country right or wrong," laugh it up -- but does anyone see a good counter to this? And I don't mean Zenster-level either ... I mean something that could actually be done. :P

Posted by Spemble Whains3886 2005-02-08 7:35:51 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Ron Paul is a nut, first-class, clueless, not evil like the Lefty Dems, just lives on a different planet, and is best ignored. This is why I stayed Republican and did not join the Libertarians. Totally naive on foreign policy.

The rumor is that, because he is such a space case, the Saturn moon Titan has petitioned to become part of his district in Texas. The residents there consider we owe them since we landed a probe there, and made a mess of a favored recreation spot... {facetious snicker}

He is also the only Republican who voted against congratulating the Iraqis on their election...

Hs was the ONLY MEMBER OF CONGRESS who didn't congratulate Yushchenko on winning the Ukraine presidency. Even the leftie nutcases like McKinney voted for that one...

Posted by BigEd 2005-02-08 7:40:50 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:40:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 This is a very dangerous game for the Euros to play, but I think their greed will not let them do otherwise. We have to look at what technology they actually sell. Will it be super-quiet coastal subs that threaten our carrier operations near Taiwan? Will it be aircraft that we can blow out of the sky with our currently superior craft? Tanks? SAM's? I guess other than the subs I am not overly concerned by any of this. If the Chicoms get the Eurofighter, the F-22 will blow it out of the sky. If they get the Leapord or Challenger II tank, I will put my money on the Abrams, A-10 and Apache. One other thing is that, at some point, this is going to piss off the Russians too. Then Europe might really be squeezed.

Posted by Remoteman 2005-02-08 7:54:25 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:54:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 One other thing is that, at some point, this is going to piss off the Russians too.

You got it Remoteman...

Tsar Vlad I will get a might testy about any sino-European deals...
I think W & his team should keep an eye on this point and play it to our advantage...

Posted by BigEd 2005-02-08 7:57:43 PM|| 2005-02-08 7:57:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 I would imagine it may also piss off Japan, were a new toy or two to end up in North Korean hands.

Posted by Beau 2005-02-08 8:05:12 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:05:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 MD: That depends. If the arms race is being financed by China using surplus dollars to pay the Euros [Germans are not shabby technologists or arms makers, as I recall] for technology they can then pirate or mass produce with low cost labor while we fail to resolve the Social Secuirty issue, it could become interesting.

The gains for the EU will be limited. The Chinese will use the EU as a bargaining chip against Russia. Note that Russia makes pretty good stuff, but has been reluctant to hand over the production technology to China. Once the EU agrees to sell stuff to China, Chinese leaders will pressure Russia to hand over the production technology as a condition of buying arms from Russia. I see China getting stronger and making more arms indigenously using Russian and EU technology, but the likelihood is that both parties will end up selling at or below cost and transferring their production to China. (The Chinese drive a very, very hard bargain). And in time, China will end up pushing the EU and Russia out of the low end of their traditional markets. I don't think this is really such a big deal - the EU is going to regret opening this Pandora's box.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 8:05:17 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 8:05:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I was over at the OECD site. Could it just be naked economic motivation on the part of the Euros? With the Euro becoming more expensive, the EU 15 are now running a (admittedly tiny) trade deficit (as of Oct 2004). Internal markets are shrinking due to depopulation. Germany is running a surplus, but has record unemployment -- reunification is still hurting them. I think that they're more desperate than we know.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-08 8:06:47 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:06:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Remoteman: This is a very dangerous game for the Euros to play, but I think their greed will not let them do otherwise. We have to look at what technology they actually sell. Will it be super-quiet coastal subs that threaten our carrier operations near Taiwan? Will it be aircraft that we can blow out of the sky with our currently superior craft? Tanks? SAM's? I guess other than the subs I am not overly concerned by any of this. If the Chicoms get the Eurofighter, the F-22 will blow it out of the sky. If they get the Leapord or Challenger II tank, I will put my money on the Abrams, A-10 and Apache. One other thing is that, at some point, this is going to piss off the Russians too. Then Europe might really be squeezed.

This is a setback in the sense that we'll have to spend more money on weaponry. I suspect we're going to have to ramp up defense expenditures to about 6% to deal with it. I'm putting my money on China as the new Russia, in terms of the conventional arms rival to beat. Once the Euros and the Russians start fighting each other over to build armaments plants in China, you are going to see a China that is the new weapons exporter to reckon with. From then on, it won't just be mortars, RPG's and AK's. The Euros are going to regret this, big time.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 8:11:21 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 8:11:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 11A5S: I was over at the OECD site. Could it just be naked economic motivation on the part of the Euros? With the Euro becoming more expensive, the EU 15 are now running a (admittedly tiny) trade deficit (as of Oct 2004). Internal markets are shrinking due to depopulation. Germany is running a surplus, but has record unemployment -- reunification is still hurting them. I think that they're more desperate than we know.

Trade surpluses don't mean a thing. We were running huge trade surpluses during the 50's and the 60's, and the European economies were growing faster than ours. The Japanese economy is running big trade surpluses, and its economy has been on hold for the better part of 20 years. For many developed economies, a trade surplus is an indication that the domestic economy is doing so badly that consumers don't feel confident enough to spend any money.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 8:14:53 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 8:14:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Weicome to the Big Show, Condi!

Posted by john 2005-02-08 8:30:35 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:30:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Welcome to the Big Show, Condi!

Posted by john 2005-02-08 8:31:19 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:31:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 ZF, you are absolutely right that the EU is going to set up their own competition. If the Russians play the same game, they will too. The current and projected Chinese manufacturing capability is being ignored by both. Once they get the local production capability, watch out. And yes, we will have to retain/build the capability to deal with massed conventional arms. This will have to be done in combination with our focus on asymetrical warfare/nation building.

Posted by Remoteman 2005-02-08 8:34:08 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:34:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 My take, based on things I've read here and there, is that China is struggling internally, and the struggle will only get worse, in several dimensions:

1. Demographics: Because the one-child thingy followed hard on Mao's original call for large families, there is a huge baby boom type bump in population that soon will have to be supported in its old age by a much smaller number of spoiled "little emperors" and "princesses". And following hard on that is the multi-million deficit of females, which means lots of unhappy men without the moderating influence of wife and family to care for.

2. Environment: unregulated factories polluting air, water and soil throughout the country; overuse of farmland and fertilizers causing severe erosion and wearing out the topsoil; lack of water for power and consumption (that's why they built that huge dam ... the missile magnet whose name escapes me at the moment), coupled with continued severe flooding, which destroys housing and industry, and causes further erosion of the soil.

3. Discontent: as the gross inefficiencies of the Communist economy continue to be shaken out, huge numbers of people have lost their jobs -- and there is no safety net that I am aware of. These people are, naturally enough, not very happy with their government. Separately, the hyper-successful educated class is learning to think independently along the financial/business metric, and will soon translate that -- along with technological/computer savvy -- to independent political thought. The combination of unhappy intellectuals with unhappy masses is what led to the success of Mao Tse Tung's communists in the first place -- the thought of what is to come cannot be conducive to peaceful slumber in the bedrooms of China's current rulers.

Not to mention the quiet inflation caused by the severe imbalance between exports and imports, and the increasing, and increasingly visible, gap between rich and poor... As I re-read this post, I am beginning to wonder if China will be able to survive in its current form long enough to wage the war that they are now working toward.

I hope for educated criticism of these thoughts which I've thrown out for you. Just please be gentle ... you all know my limitations are vaster than my abilities.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-08 8:43:45 PM|| 2005-02-08 8:43:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 TW - three gorges dam.

The rest of your post sounds accurate, though I'm no chicom expert. ZF is the man on that I think.

Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-02-08 9:11:41 PM|| 2005-02-08 9:11:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 The answer to your question, trailing wife, as to whether China will survive, from an American whose parents immigrated from Taishan:

I DAMN WELL HOPE NOT.

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-02-08 9:26:49 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-02-08 9:26:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 The EU hopes to distract and weaken the US. They do not see the PRC as a threat to themselves.

Responses? About $0.15 of every dollar that WalMart (and all the others) sends to China goes to the PLA. The PLA is investing heavily in advanced manufacturing capabilities as well as buying foreign weapons ie. they now produce their own Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft.

We could decide that our security is more important than our cheap crap at WalMart.

We might consider 300 Pershings with the appropriate business ends to Taiwan.

Japan could be large scale nuclear in less than 12 months.

We truly do live in interesting times.

Posted by SR71 2005-02-08 9:34:10 PM|| 2005-02-08 9:34:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Dismantling NATO might be another useful step.

Precisely what I was thinking.

Once freed of NATO obligations, we could then remove ALL U.S. military personnel and equipment from Europe; to leave them to their future, whatever that might be. The Poms would probably be worthy of support if needed, but that would be IT.

TGA, if this were to happen, you'd better get your ass over to the U.K. or over here to our shores as soon as practicably possible.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-08 9:37:26 PM|| 2005-02-08 9:37:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 MD: 1. Demographics: Because the one-child thingy followed hard on Mao's original call for large families, there is a huge baby boom type bump in population that soon will have to be supported in its old age by a much smaller number of spoiled "little emperors" and "princesses". And following hard on that is the multi-million deficit of females, which means lots of unhappy men without the moderating influence of wife and family to care for.

This is largely wishful thinking. If there's one thing that humans are good at, it's making babies. The Chinese can turn on a dime on this issue. And babies are prized in Chinese culture. If the government were to stop population control, the population will ratchet right up again. China isn't overpopulated either - its population density is one of the lowest in East Asia.

MD: 2. Environment: unregulated factories polluting air, water and soil throughout the country; overuse of farmland and fertilizers causing severe erosion and wearing out the topsoil; lack of water for power and consumption (that's why they built that huge dam ... the missile magnet whose name escapes me at the moment), coupled with continued severe flooding, which destroys housing and industry, and causes further erosion of the soil.

This is Earth-worshippers engaging in wishful thinking - that humans deserve to be punished for disrespecting Gaia. This kind of thing is easily fixable once China moves up the development scale. The same kind of thing happened in other developing countries in East Asia before they got rich enough to start protecting the environment. And this kind of thing makes a lot of sense. Who even remembers the mercury poisoning at Minamata, Japan, during the 1970's? Did that herald the complete destruction of Japan's environment? If Israel can make farmland out of the Negev Desert, China can reverse whatever damage it does in its dash to development. Northern New Jersey is full of Superfund sites where manufacturers who did not know any better dumped heavy metals in the soil (this is why New Yorkers refer to New Jersey as the Garden State with a snicker). All this handwringing is just wishful thinking.

TW: 3. Discontent: as the gross inefficiencies of the Communist economy continue to be shaken out, huge numbers of people have lost their jobs -- and there is no safety net that I am aware of. These people are, naturally enough, not very happy with their government. Separately, the hyper-successful educated class is learning to think independently along the financial/business metric, and will soon translate that -- along with technological/computer savvy -- to independent political thought. The combination of unhappy intellectuals with unhappy masses is what led to the success of Mao Tse Tung's communists in the first place -- the thought of what is to come cannot be conducive to peaceful slumber in the bedrooms of China's current rulers.

At no time in Chinese history, have safety nets been part of the existence of ordinary Chinese. Even during the full-blown Communist era, every able-bodied Chinese had to work for his rations. China doesn't have a problem with unemployment - anyone who is willing to work can find work. Some people who have had cushy jobs at state enterprises are now somewhat dissatisfied because their sinecures are no longer available. But the reality is that China has held together for over 2200 years because its administrators are skilled in applying the right mixture of coercion and compromise. The shortest-lived indigenous dynasty has lasted 200 years. I think the Communist Party is going to be around for a while, yet.

TW: Not to mention the quiet inflation caused by the severe imbalance between exports and imports, and the increasing, and increasingly visible, gap between rich and poor... As I re-read this post, I am beginning to wonder if China will be able to survive in its current form long enough to wage the war that they are now working toward.

I'm not sure what the trade surplus means for Chinese buying power, but every major exporter in East Asia has seen major increases in their buying power. The gap between rich and poor is one of those things left-wing journalists and assorted journalists harp upon in their quest to make respectable taking money from people who've earned it, and handing it to people who haven't. The reality is that revolutions are fueled by incompetent governments, not the gap between rich and poor. Throughout China's history, revolutions have been fueled by famines, not periods of prosperity, when the gap between rich and poor was at its greatest. Bottom line, I don't think we should expect China to fall apart.

It may seem that I've become much more pessimistic about China (from the standpoint of US national interests). Well - I am. I used to take the press's commentary on China as gospel. I put my knowledge of Chinese history on hold and accepted what journos reported at face value. But I've been there quite a few times in past few years. Every time I've gone, I've seen improvements in infrastructure - unflashy things that speak to local government officials that understand what economic growth requires. My feeling is that China will approach Malaysia and Thailand's per capita GDP in the next decade. Multiplied by 1.2B people, China will become a power to be reckoned with.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-08 11:23:11 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-08 11:23:11 PM|| Front Page Top

17:24 Liberalhawk
17:24 Liberalhawk
17:14 Liberalhawk
17:14 Liberalhawk
03:19 dog care
03:17 dog health information
03:15 about dog products
03:13 pet dogs
03:20 dog training information
03:21 different dog breed
03:25 interesting dog books
03:24 about dog food
03:26 special dog gift
03:23 dog apparel
23:58 SC88
23:35 3dc
23:23 Zhang Fei
23:13 .com
22:58 Mike Kozlowski
22:36 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:32 .com
22:29 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:25 .com
22:22 Duh