Interesting you mention James Kynge. I've blogged about his "China Continental" thesis a few times (Most recently, in the footnote to this post, where I also linked to an FT editorial that had a more bearish take on China's economy). I hope Kynge is right that China is transitioning to an economy fueled by internal demand; that would be good for average Chinese and the rest of the world too.
I have a tough time envisioning China becoming a global military hegemon, for a couple of reasons. The first reason that comes to mind is that the post-war status quo of U.S. Naval hegemony in the Pacific has been pretty good for China and its more advanced neighbors, economically speaking. Why mess with a good thing?
The second reason is that it's a lot easier to project power globally when you are surrounded by oceans on two sides and friendly neighbors to the North and South. China is cursed by geography by comparison. Consider some of its neighbors: Japan, which mopped the floor with China in WWII; Vietnam, which fought China to a standstill, if memory serves, a few decades ago; Russia; Mongolia -- sparsely populated, but a country whose ancestors conquered China and most of the rest of the world; India, the world's most populous democracy (and a country China has fought a war or two with in the past, when India was weaker); Pakistan; Afghanistan. Add to that mix separatist Tibetans in China's southwest and separatist Muslims in China's northeast. I suspect the submarine-building (China still spends a pittance on military procurement, compared to us) is more about keeping the steel mills humming.
A more likely scenario -- and a more ominous one -- if current trends (i.e., certain self-destructive American policies) hold isn't China replacing the U.S. as a global superpower, but the world having no such superpower.
1One that had an Altman Z"-score in the distress zone, last time I checked. I mentioned this to JLM via e-mail, and he said he penned (keyed?) an in-depth response, but it was eaten up by the aether and I never received it.
Posts
3 comments:
The first reason that comes to mind is that the post-war status quo of U.S. Naval hegemony in the Pacific has been pretty good for China and its more advanced neighbors, economically speaking. Why mess with a good thing?
I don't think China wants to confront the US militarily head-on any time soon, but the combination of the national debt, an aging population and decreasing average worker productivity within the US means that we might not be able to maintain the Empire as well as we have in the past. China will be more than willing to step up to the plate wherever we leave. I think inevitably we will have to scale back our Empire a bit, to just the Americas.
Japan, which mopped the floor with China in WWII
But do you seriously think that Japan would wipe the floor with China now? I think it would be the other way around, unless the US did all of Japan's fighting for them.
Vietnam, which fought China to a standstill, if memory serves, a few decades ago
China doesn't need to invade and conquer Vietnam anymore to dominate it in every respect. And a few decades ago is a long time!
Russia
Russia will be preoccupied with Eastern Europe and its own internal problems for a long time.
Mongolia -- sparsely populated, but a country whose ancestors conquered China and most of the rest of the world
Surely you jest with this one! The Greeks conquered the world a long time ago but that wouldn't stop just about every other country in Europe from running roughshod over them now.
India, the world's most populous democracy (and a country China has fought a war or two with in the past, when India was weaker)
I'm bullish on India but they will probably never have a strong, outward facing military.
Pakistan; Afghanistan.
Rougue 3rd world states that are completely unimportant on a global scale except for scaring americans on the nightly news. They are only as important as they are allowed to be.
Add to that mix separatist Tibetans in China's southwest and separatist Muslims in China's northeast.
That's a problem for a liberal freedom loving democracy with a volunteer military, not a nationalistic autocratic state.
China still spends a pittance on military procurement, compared to us
A lot of our military budget is devoted to keeping the military-industrial complex humming. What really counts is having fully funded brilliant scientists, and encouraging them to chase their pie-in-the-sky ideas under secrecy, like we do with the JASON group.
Will China "overtake" us in sum military capability? If I had to bet, probably not within 75 to 100 years. But will they be the dominant military power in the Pacific, the Asian land mass, Africa? I think the answer is yes. They will have the feet on the ground and the funding to implement that, and we will not.
But do you seriously think that Japan would wipe the floor with China now?
I don't think either country is equipped to launch an offensive against the other right now, but if they came to blows in a few years, I think Japan would still come out on top. I don't think it would take more than a few years for Japan to reconstitute itself as a military power, if it were motivated to do so.
I do suppose that's possible, given the current trajectory of military conflicts relying on drones and bots, and Japanese talent in that field.
Post a Comment