backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Nov 19 at 5:55 AM


View of hundred year old coal mine fire in China.   (Source: NASA)
Annual report raises economic and technological concerns

Yesterday, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (ESRC) delivered its expansive report to Congress.  The opening remarks contained some positive comments and a long list of concerns.
 
Beginning with the good, the commission was pleased to see China bolstering its export controls to limit nuclear proliferation as well as its involvement in the six nation agreements to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.  The commission noted China’s pledge to send a combat reconstruction battalion to Sudan, the elevation of 200 million Chinese citizens out of poverty, and the country’s acknowledgement of environmental problems.

Unfortunately, said ESRC chairman Carolyn Bartholomew, China is reversing course on its path to a more market-based economy.  Indications of this regression include the government’s control and ownership of a dozen key industries, subsidizing export industries, fixing the currency artificially low, and a total failure to protect the intellectual property of foreign countries.  Quite alarming is China’s willingness to invest in oil-rich countries with terrible human rights records and its increasing border tensions with India.  Bartholomew also cited information censorship as a concern.

“By demanding stiff penalties for dissent on the Internet as well as rewards for journalists who play by the rules, Beijing has created one of the most effective information control regimes in the world,” stated Bartholomew.

Vice Chairman Dan Blumenthal spoke about the rising security threat China presents, citing spying and asymmetrical warfare techniques.  He said the country’s “defense industry is producing new generations of weapon systems with impressive speed and quality” due to integration with commercial technologies.  The expansion of these systems is also credited to industrial espionage. 

China’s asymmetrical warfare techniques are disruptive actions focused on crippling the communication systems of enemies rather than pure ballistic might.  Examples include the anti-satellite missile tested earlier this year as well as the laser used to attack an American satellite in 2006.  Blumenthal also noted an increase Chinese cyber attacks on American and European government offices.  In the last year American government investigators have implicated Chinese hackers for compromising both Pentagon and Homeland Security systems.

Blumenthal stressed the point that the evolution of China’s military seems to focus on fighting a war with America, which is more heavily reliant on satellite networks than most other countries.  He also made a vague allusion to war with China when he mentioned the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.  It has been speculated that the act would be used as the impetus to actively engage China should the country take hostile action against Taiwan.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

China
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/16/2007 11:33:52 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone who doesn't see an eventual pissing contest with China is kidding themselves. China is trying to be the new USSR and are pulling out all the stops to get there.




RE: China
By ElFenix on 11/16/2007 11:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
It certainly seems that way. Bill Clinton's reason for engaging China was that as a middle class grows it should start demanding more political rights. And, as the old saying goes, democracies don't go to war with each other (depends on the definition of democracy, obviously). So, even if it short term meant smaller growth for the US, it would pay off in the long run.

But I think there are a lot of Chinese people who are more interested in national glory for China than political rights for themselves. If that is the case, a rising middle class might not do what Clinton figured it would.


RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By bdewong on 11/16/2007 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
what are these "Good" drugs that you are taking?


RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By lompocus on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 12:58:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The draft is brought up because there aren't enough to kill all of the commi-chink bastards.


<Sarcasm>
Hooray for ignorance, racism, and genocide!
</Sarcasm>

Whenever China's brought up, the Neocon trolls always start coming out of the woodwork...


RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By jconan on 11/16/2007 7:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
China's government is definitely ruled by a communist party but China is not communist. Capitalism has always prevailed in China. As far as war goes I doubt China will even go to war they are only saber rattling over Taiwan to get them from declaring independence. Taiwan wants autonomy and doesn't want merge because of loss of self-autonomy like Hong Kong even though Hong Kong is supposedly self-autonomous. Hong Kong for the time being still retains freedom from the basic laws (constitution) drafted between Britain and China that is slowly eroding away because of forced recognition of mainland Chinese laws from the communist party e.g. Hong Kong's article 23 of the basic law, and ending of universal suffrage of Hong Kong's Chief Executive and Legislative Council by the residents of Hong Kong after 2007 and chosen by China's communist party.


RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But I think there are a lot of Chinese people who are more interested in national glory for China than political rights for themselves. If that is the case, a rising middle class might not do what Clinton figured it would.


My experience with Chinese citizens has been that many tend to be apolitical. They care about the economy more than politics, mainly because a good economy means they can earn money to support their families. Demonstrating and activism are generally marked as impractical, because you can't put food on the table with abstract concepts. While we may disagree with that sentiment, it's not an invalid way of looking at the world. (This is also a very old viewpoint, since ancient Chinese philosophers held much the same opinion even before Christ was born.)

So I'd say it's less a case of "interested in national glory" and more "interested in national prosperity." And to them, it's hard work that leads to prosperity, not demanding rights. Politics becomes a big issue only so far as it intersects with economic stability and growth (hence why anti-corruption measures are popular).

Based on the current trend, I'd say a rising middle class in China might demand higher quality goods and more accountability for businesses, but not any radical changes in the government structure. They largely have yet to see a need for it. (And they certainly aren't going to be persuaded if the US tries to bully them into it!)


RE: China
By spluurfg on 11/16/2007 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Rather, I think Russia is trying to be the new USSR, considering the new state approved history textbook regarding Stalin's totalitarianism as 'necessary' etc.

China seems more concerned about being an economic giant rather than a massive military hegemon or a diametrical political opposite at this point. Rather than pull out all the stops, I think they're being practical/a bit sneaky, and doing whatever they feel they can get away with.


RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/2007 12:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hell does anyone even have to mention that they are trying to poison us through the assembly and manufacturing of our goods that the selfish greedy companies that want to shove extra money into their pockets have outsourced to china?

Does anyone have to mention that kids are getting lead poisoning because china wants to be whatever they want to be?

Well, poisoning consumers will get you FAR from the largest ANYTHING except the largest DISGRACE on the planet. Thats what china is. They have been so upset that they suck all these centuries. That a country like japan, thats not even half of chinas size, wins out over china simply because of their logical thought process that actually has japan growing. Even if there is corruption in japan it isn't like in china, where they are trying to harm if not kill americans through the production of our goods.


RE: China
By jconan on 11/16/2007 11:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Corp. here should be ones that consumers point their finger at. Price wise everyone is looking for a loop hole to make money. So the less cost it is to them the more profit that they pocket without having to pass on to the consumers unless they need it to compete. On ethics wise it is the companies fault. Check this article out: http://extras.sltrib.com/china/ for everything that U.S. imports it is poisoning the factory over there with lenient safety and health standards and poor environmental controls since China is so relaxed about it. As opposed to here companies can't get away with it with OSHA, EPA and lawsuits galore. Over in China employees can't strike or complain, they're just an extra number that can be replaced with so many people looking for jobs over there. Here yep it's an employee's opportunity to get rich over the deep pockets of the company. So really it's not totally China's fault except the business practices and the contracts the awarded with no oversight. Just blaming China doesn't solve anything. U.S. should demand better safety and health and environmental controls in China. For every lead that is claimed to be used I'm sure the factory employees over there are exposed to it just like the diacetyl induced respiratory issues that we have in the popcorn industry. Creating a powerful safety and health, and enviromental board free from corruption will foster better competitiveness than not just like ridding of sweatshops that are still around here in the states or south of the border.


RE: China
By spluurfg on 11/17/2007 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, the joys of sensationalism.

I'm not saying that we should put up with substandard or unsafe products from China, but this sort of thing is to be expected for any developing country. It takes these sorts of events to trigger reform -- i.e. the sinking of the Titanic to have mandatory lifeboats for all passengers, or Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' to reform America's woeful meat packing industry.

Though I'm glad you honestly believe there is some grand Chinese conspiracy to poison America's children in order to get an upper hand in the global arena *rolls eyes*.


RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't have to be that way, though. As some experts have pointed out (the one I read consistently is a Yale economics/international policy professor), China's military build-up is mostly a response to their worries about a US strike on them like what we did to Iraq. Their reasoning is that since the US now has a policy of attacking anyone who looks like a threat, the only way to avoid war is to make it too costly to consider. In other words, the US policy of pre-emptive war has brought back the "mutually assured destruction" policies we fought so hard to get rid of in the 80's!

For example, we make a big deal about their anti-satellite tech. In fact, China's been the one leading the international effort to get rid of that sort of weaponry and efforts in trying to prevent the militarization of space. The major proponent of anti-satellite weapons is the US. This forces China to match our capabilities. We then use it as an excuse to boost our own. And so on until it's Star Wars II.

According to China's neighbors (such as the Vietnamese PM), China has yet to threaten or even hint they'd use military force against another country. Unlike the USSR, which sought to expand through military force, China has to date firmly pursued a live and let live policy of economic trade and coexistence.

If we took a less threatening posture in world affairs and opened more economic and diplomatic inroads, I think you'd find China much more receptive to cooperation than the USSR was. Having talked with many Chinese nationals, there's a clear consensus that they would like to work with the US and like the people here, but they're worried that the US doesn't like them and doesn't want to cooperate. If we can get rid of the negative prejudices on our side, a strong alliance is definitely possible. If China is our enemy, it's mainly because we've put them in that role because of our own shortsightedness.

(Taiwan is an internal matter, as such their rhetoric and stances there are different. Having lived in Taiwan, I can say most of it is just posturing; no one except some of the far-left fringe in Taiwan think there'll be war between the mainland and the island. The American propaganda machine loves to blow it all out of proportion.)


RE: China
By KernD on 11/16/2007 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China has yet to threaten or even hint they'd use military force against another country


You must have missed all the threats of invasion on Taiwan then, or you don't consider it an other country?


RE: China