Hu Jintao tells China navy: Prepare for warfare

[wp2000]

I've just spent 5 seconds on google and found out that president Hu asked PLA to prepare for war (or military actions) with 649,000 results,

And just by checking the first 3 pages, he has been saying this line from 2006 for who knows how many times.

Why this time it's so sensational? Even in this year, he said the same words in march.

Frankly speaking, the only reason I can think of is that, at moment, western propaganda machines need something to work on the backdrop of Obama's "we are back to Asia" slogan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Frankly speaking, the only reason I can think of is that, at moment, western propaganda machines need something to work on the backdrop of Obama's "we are back to Asia" slogan.

not western propaganda at all, its all about lazy journalism

the chinese were so indignant at australia for allowing a shared facility with the US that they agreed to run combined disaster revovery exercises with australian military personnel.

that didn't appear in much mainstream media..

 

[gazzzwp]

I bet if we were to think hard and long enough we would agree that the 'prepare for war' is part of a clever strategy. This is:

'How would the US and her allies react if we announced such a thing? Where would we see US hardware deployed? Who would be on alert? What ripples would we detect in the US war machine and can we predict the response?

I can't think of any other believable rationale other than China is simply testing the water to gather intelligence.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

China does have a vastly smaller navy than the US, but still does operate a sizeable fleet in the region :

1 Aircraft carrier

That carrier isn't ready for combat, nor is the PLAN ready to use it. It's many, many years away from being fully integrated into the fleet, if it ever becomes more than a training ship.

My question still remains, why is China's ascent as a superpower considered so dangerous to the West? Is it only because the US and its allies want to remain top dogs? Or something else?

1. China remains an autocratic nation. Most global conflicts in the last century were started or escalated by autocrats or their governments (the Kaiser in WWI, Hitler and Stalin in WWII, North Korea in the 50s, Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War, etc). Democratic countries do go to war, but you have to admit that the worst conflicts have been down to non-democratic countries causing trouble. Democratic countries are also fearful of nationalism, and China is becoming increasingly nationalist.

2. China is a strategic competitor to the US and its allies. China has outstanding territorial disputes with Japan, Taiwan (an unofficial ally) and the Philippines. Now you may retort that China would never strike the first blow, etc, but that's based on your perception. You can't offer a cast-iron guarantee that China won't decide to settle problems through force.

3. China has demonstrated in recent years more and more forceful about its claims. Yes, the official line is still about peaceful development. But various politicians and generals are increasingly saying that if people don't like what China's doing, they can go hang. There is a concern that hardliners are becoming increasingly powerful in government. Whereas the Foreign Minister (aka the big diplomat) is still excluded from the Politburo and Standing Committee.

 

[Eeshaan]

Thanks for correcting me there, Sea Toby.

It's more about international boundaries & the potential for oil & natural gases to be found in the area then, I guess.

 

[Belesari]

Yes, I am. And as far as one-liners go, that one barely made it past the start gate. But I can see where you might have been going with the triple question marks. The non-interventionist policy is shifting and in doing so, China has two recent (last 100 years) models of foreign policy to choose from. First is the semi-isolationist policy which they've held to since 1949, exception being the Korean War. However, it's become clear that they will need to secure their global economic assets with more than just words.

So, they must adopt a more interventionist policy. And who has used interventionist policies effectively in the past 100 years? The US, the UK, Japan, Germany. I'm not saying that they're going to start blowing up railroads or sending foreign contingents to fight for causes they support. But they will assert themselves whenever and where-ever they feel they should. Because the one thing they can count on is that the US does not want push to come to shove because a war with China would ruin everyone's year. So China feels fairly confident with prodding its neighbours with a pokey stick. Prodding mind you, not shelling them because of suspicions like North Korea.

I'm from Singapore. I'm a lot closer to China than you are. I don't particularly see the threat as being all that large. Your comparison fails to account the vast differences in government. Japan began its modernisation in 1860 with the intent of being able to militarily oppose and defeat the western powers. By the 1930's, any form of moderate civilian government had been ousted by military leaders. China is not currently being run by military leaders and its focus is economic dominance. Its younger officers are not running around promoting war and plotting against the government (see Mukden Incident). Nor is China annexing and colonizing areas by force. The fact that there are even talks and disputes shows that China is not resorting to the military as its answer the way Imperial Japan did. Military assets are simply a means of backing up claims and providing security.

Though I note one parallel that you may not have come upon. Both China and Japan were forced open (to be exploited) by gunboat diplomacy. I wonder who gave these Asian nations the idea that might makes right. Again, colonialism finally coming back to bite the west in the arse.

My question still remains, why is China's ascent as a superpower considered so dangerous to the West? Is it only because the US and its allies want to remain top dogs? Or something else?

China's defence spending is nowhere near that of the US. That alone should prove that they're not pouring money into a rapid military mobilization like Japan did.

Just a tiny point: its quite possible that China is not being truthful about its defense spending. This is brought up regularly. Also the US spends around half of its entire defense budget on personel and not more weapons and such. Chinese soldiers dont cost as much as western soldiers just like the average Chinese worker works for less. Plus the US supports a enormous logistics force that has in many ways made NATO operations possible.

And China doesn't have Duties of patroling and policing the entire planet which the US has somehow become stuck with.

If the chinese do something i'm not worried about the next 5yrs but the next 20yrs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a tiny point: its quite possible that China is not being truthful about its defense spending.

estimates are that they're understating by a factor of 2 to 3

they also are understating national debt levels

 

[Schumacher]

..............

1. China remains an autocratic nation. Most global conflicts in the last century were started or escalated by autocrats or their governments (the Kaiser in WWI, Hitler and Stalin in WWII, North Korea in the 50s, Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War, etc). Democratic countries do go to war, but you have to admit that the worst conflicts have been down to non-democratic countries causing trouble. Democratic countries are also fearful of nationalism, and China is becoming increasingly nationalist.
....................

I agree, we are seeing so many wars like the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam wars etc in recent history by undemocratic and nationalistic nations like US and some NATO countries.

 

[CheeZe]

To add to the above...Listening to some of the American nationalism at my university back when the President announced that they'd killed OBL, I have to say that I'm a little more terrified of that because it hides behind the cloak of "democracy." Things like "Take that, ragheads! America, f*ck yeah!" Or listening to some of the Republican presidential candidates makes me feel very uncertain about the direction that the US may be going.

That's not to say there aren't any great and wonderful people in the US because there are. However, the crazies are becoming rather vocal these days and support seems to be increasing. And as a foreign student studying there, it only makes me feel even more unwelcome.

US nationalism can be pretty ugly and if anyone doesn't think so, I suggest you look up Executive Order 9066. Hitler wasn't the only one to round people because of their racial differences in WW2.

But that's not particularly on topic. China has one (second-hand) carrier and a number of smaller craft. They're not stupid enough to take on the US. Anyone who thinks they're even moving in that direction should get a head check. IMO, they're only ever antagonistic because someone else riles them up which seems to be the case with a lot of things. Still, as I mentioned previously, the Chinese work through established international bodies for a lot of disputes. I can't think of any recent instance when the Chinese ignored an international ruling that resulted in a fiasco as damaging as the 2003 Invasion. Though, I'm happy to have my history corrected if sources can be provided.

EDIT: Another point of interest would be the Navy and Coast Guard plan to deal with these rogue fishermen who kill South Koreans.

 

[rip]

To add to the above...Listening to some of the American nationalism at my university back when the President announced that they'd killed OBL, I have to say that I'm a little more terrified of that because it hides behind the cloak of "democracy." Things like "Take that, ragheads! America, f*ck yeah!" Or listening to some of the Republican presidential candidates makes me feel very uncertain about the direction that the US may be going.

That's not to say there aren't any great and wonderful people in the US because there are. However, the crazies are becoming rather vocal these days and support seems to be increasing. And as a foreign student studying there, it only makes me feel even more unwelcome.

US nationalism can be pretty ugly and if anyone doesn't think so, I suggest you look up Executive Order 9066. Hitler wasn't the only one to round people because of their racial differences in WW2.

But that's not particularly on topic. China has one (second-hand) carrier and a number of smaller craft. They're not stupid enough to take on the US. Anyone who thinks they're even moving in that direction should get a head check. IMO, they're only ever antagonistic because someone else riles them up which seems to be the case with a lot of things. Still, as I mentioned previously, the Chinese work through established international bodies for a lot of disputes. I can't think of any recent instance when the Chinese ignored an international ruling that resulted in a fiasco as damaging as the 2003 Invasion. Though, I'm happy to have my history corrected if sources can be provided.

EDIT: Another point of interest would be the Navy and Coast Guard plan to deal with these rogue fishermen who kill South Koreans.

It is not too difficult to understand why some people will react emotionally, when other people are trying to kill them. When they say that your very existence is an affront to God and that you are the source of all evil in the world. When reacting in a similar manner by calling them dilatory terms like “rage heads” is understandable on an emotional level but of course that emotional response dose nothing to improve the situation. Such unhelpful emotional responses are not however a product of American nationalism but of miss directed rage. American nationalism is something different though that difference is not a proper subject for this forum. That is why international relations needs cooler heads and older minds to prevail over the emotions of the moment.

As for China, it has been a great power several times in the past and it looks that it will be a great power again. With its size and resources and the industry of it people it should be. There is no question that it shouldn’t find a more prominent place in the world and be an important player within it including with all that that means with military power. The only question is, what kind of international citizen it will be? What kind of world order will it promote as a major world player? You can talk about ships and guns all you want but in the end they are far less important than the mindset of China’s people and its leadership.

The very fact that it did isolate itself for so long and did so at the very time that the current world order was being formed, especially as to international law and the world trading system, means that neither does it full appreciate why it was set up the way that it was to forever chance the way nations both act as nations and interact with other nations, nor does it have a deep stake in preserving this new world order. I am not saying that the current word system cannot be improved upon, it will always need to be improved upon as the world continues to change, I am saying only that its destruction would have very bad consequences for everyone including China.

My personal opinion is that their thinking is stuck in the 18th century but I am not saying not that they are evil or dangerous. But that does not mean that they will not learn in time to become a full partner in the world order only that there is no guarantee that they will. Until then, the rest of the world must insure we have the ability to stop China if it pursues the failed habits of the past. Habits that were at one time the normal way of nations but are no longer.