Why is China aggressive? or China vis pacem, ergo para bellum.

China is arming at an alarming speed, granted. It is also pursuing important territorial claims. So far, so true. The question, of course, is why?

In our title up there, I used a modified version of the old roman adage that means : “If you want peace, prepare for war”. The saying itself can hardly be refuted. At the beginning of the Second World War, most European countries were so tired of war that had devastated their continent for so long that they switched from wanting peace to wishing for it. In other words, instead of getting ready for the next one, they abdicated preparing in the hope that it would not come. We all know what followed : one of these countries had a revenge to take and cooked up the necessary forces in addition to setting its collective mind to the task under dubious but efficient leadership and went on to force not only Europe but eventually the World itself to wage it in response.

Is China then the next Nazi Germany of 1933-1944 or is it something else? I did write a post a while ago on China that showed its present emergence to be at least partially due to the way Western Civilization imposed its will on it ( Find it here ). That is however not quite enough to have put China in a revenge mindset in and of itself., especially since the rise and subsequent grab of power by the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) markedly changed the situation. The CCP went on to modernize China but until recently did not do so as aggressively as it seems to be doing now. So that our inquiry can be derived from the one at the top of our post to become : What has changed?  or simply Why now?

Between 1949 when it “won” the civil war that had begun in 1922 and say 1999 and the near onset of the 21st century, the CCP was busy as we said turning an old  nation, poor enough and relying on rather basic agriculture for sustenance of its huge population into the modern superpower that its Permanent Member seat on the United Nations’ Security Council implied. It clearly succeeded to accomplish that goal in those 50 years, in part due to the complete control over all spheres of national life that is one of the perks of totalitarian regimes. It also succeeded because in the rest of the world, rampant unchecked capitalism as led and embodied by America shipped its less attractive manufacturing ventures or jobs to it without much of an afterthought until … which was apparent to all in the last US election when we heard one of those responsible for that situation suddenly denounce it his bid for power, something that many including this blogger pointed out in no uncertain terms.

That period changed China a lot. It made it rich. Before we go on however, let us understand that it did not, repeat did not erase the past. China is way too old a societal construct for that.

During that period, Tibet was the main “conquest” of China. It has to be remembered though that this was the fact of the Kuomintang, the very opposing force to the CCP, circa the 1940s. Until now, all other gains were made by treaties as for instance Hong Kong. Since it was “acquired” by Britain through war, one can hardly fault the Chinese for wanting it back which more or less happened in 1997. Since both of those territories had been part of China before, we’ll reluctantly let it pass, at least to keep our focus on 2013.

* * * * *

Things have changed. Every day or almost one can now read or listen to the news and learn about incidents involving China and one of its neighbours, the spat surrounding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands with Japan taking center stage. But China has many other disputes within that region as we saw in another previous post : Find it here. And less we forget, many analysts are talking of the Gwadar port in Pakistan or the Seychelles naval base in the Indian Ocean.

The only way to look at this is to resort to a map. 1 shows Gwadar / 2 shows the Seychelles / and the Diaoyu/Sensaku are up and left of 3 over Taïpei’s name.

In geo-politics, a centered map is the only way to go in order to understand how a given nation “feels” about its surroundings. During the Cold War for instance, such a view showed the USSR to be fenced in by Canada and the USA ( Alaska ) to the North, Western Europe to the West Japan and South Korea in the East and China itself, half ally half competitor to the South with no clear access to free waters towards the South-West. Similarly, in the picture above, one finds China to be fenced in. Land locked save for the South Asian seas, it needs the Pakistani offer to insure deliveries of oil and gas from the Middle-East and Gulf regions. The very same applies to the Seychelles that provide a safe haven in the waters used for transit of merchandise to and fro the Mediterranean or Africa. After all, the Americans and French have bases in Djibouti, the UAE, La Réunion and Diego Garcia which is rarely mentioned as a threat although it may seem like one to China? The only real and definitive way for the Celestial Empire to reach blue waters is in the East. No wonder they are getting edgy about it and ready to fight for that. ( So are their neighbors, check here. )

Of course, territorial waters also mean a slew of resources and that is regularly mentioned : fish, oil, etc but there is one reason most specialists forget to delve on. China is a nuclear power. And part of that power discretely rests on or rather under maritime routes : ballistic missiles launching submarines or SSBNs. These operate around the 330-350m meters depth. If the waters are any shallower or if the trafic is important, they need to be escorted by surface ships and planes for their protection. Ships that when out of their territorial waters attract unwanted attention to themselves and their protégé. Look at the next map now : the disputed islands sit right to the edge of the drop and near Taïwan which China also claims, of course. Both opening to the Pacific.

With all these islands belonging to other nations, the Chinese have a difficult time getting out to the blue wonder of the Pacific. Every route is covered by “enemy” forces that can detect and plan the subs movements. This endangers the nuclear deterrence of China and poses a direct threat to its ability to insure protection of its interest by way of the nuclear “umbrella” which should not be too difficult to understand. For that reason and that reason only, all the noise and gesturing is justified in the views of the Chinese leadership. The USA, the UK and France which all own SSBNs have sufficient access to blue waters to safely deploy their submarine fleets and would certainly act just as aggressively if it was not the case.

Yes, the Chinese are also developing planes for their air force but in regard of the size of their country, it only makes sense that they would and besides, the ones often seen on Internet are actually prototypes and not ready for induction for a good while to come. In any case, these planes are for now nowhere near the quantities owned by Russia or America. The most interesting prospects in air means are those that can and will be fielded on the new Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and its successors : the J-15 Shenyang ( a copy of the Flanker/ russian-made SU-33 ). Again, the use is naval in nature and the range of the aircraft suggests that it will be used mostly for local coverage in the South-Asian seas ( Find article here ).

We can close the strictly military chapter of this analysis by pointing out that there are at present no other real force projection capability to the PLA ( Peoples’ Liberation Army ), an indication of little if any intentions to wage war away from home as things stand.

* * * * *

No geo-political image however could rest on geography and military points of view alone however. Politics are as the name implies essential to a complete understanding of the state of things. In my honest opinion, that is where the crux of the matter lays as far as China’s efforts in military improvements.

We have talked about China’s economic growth. The country made sagacious use of virtually every chance dropped in its lap by the West of manufacturing quality goods to better its industry ( Find research here ). That in turn made many people rich, many people, mind you and not the People. If such a situation seems to pose no problem in a vibrant long-established capitalist format , it does in a maturing poorer setting. As we have seen in recent posts about India or can witness in young and artificial democracies the world over, a disparity exists between top of the ladder individuals and the greater mass of citizens. The same is true everywhere by the way such as the United States where at present, the top 400 richest persons own more wealth than the lower half ( 150 million Americans ) of the population. This would warrant a stern debate in itself but democracy is supposed to work because each vote is equal and the 150 million folks could theoretically reverse such an unfair process/situation. I’ll reserve my views on this for a later post for clarity’ sake and let it pass for now. In a non-democratic setting however, it is quite different. In a dictatorship or autocracy, the concentration of riches does not pose a problem either since the unhappy masses are not allowed to complain out loud. In a communist/socialist/aspiring democracy, it does bring along difficulties, usually corruption.

Corruption is most often due to a failure of the trickle down of the overall wealth of the nation. Either there is too little for all and those in charge keep what is available for themselves or the system is so bad that greed rules and those that can won’t let go of what they have acquired in terms of power and thus money just because they can. The worst case in corruption is to be found when wealth is there but not incentives for it being spread to all which is in the Chinese case the result of insufficient passing of time. Yes, the regime in Beijing is not democratic in the full sense of the term. Still, as we said, it did manage to better the country as a whole and make millionaires. Chinese cities are modern and inhabitants that partake in the lively economy derived from the influx of Western manufacturing jobs have seen their living conditions rise enormously. They go on vacation and buy cars and clothes just as folks do in Germany or Canada. Still, both the regime and the fact that most of China is rural yet in an old school backward understanding of the term means that marked inequalities persist.

Enter Xi Jinping and the new gang of CCP leaders “elected” at the end of 2012. To those who think this new guard represent no change over past directorates, let it be brought the following : the government has taken an incredibly modern stance. The reeducation camps system is under scrutiny and may disappear or at the very least be reduced drastically ( Find article here ) . The fight against corruption is also a priority of the present officials as evidenced by mister Jinping’s repeated statements on the matter ( Find article here ). The times, it would seem, are a-changing.

How does this link with the view of an aggressive China? Well, simply put, the same way that the use of strength is a political tool in the West. The same people that hold strict views and opinions on China’s military build-up and/or its conflictual attitude towards its neighbours are on average not quite that vocal about the 6 to 7 billions of military spending by the US. They disregard apparently the chronic expeditionary wars of America which since WW II have boosted the American economy. They dismiss the enormous political gains of Margaret Thatcher at the head of the UK during the Falkland episode or that George W. Bush got re-elected in part on the manly stance that saw him declare war for fallacious and fictitious reasons on Iraq or most recently the complete turn around of the opinion the French on their new President François Hollande since the decisive intervention in Mali. All through history, leaders have used aggressive posturing or occasions for action in order to better their position. Why would we not get it when it happens in China?

Because you see, that is a major motivation in the present case. The Chinese are waking up to a rebirth of their nation and not being less nationalistic and patriotic than others nor  more immune to manipulation of these sentiments by their government, that is not a cause they are likely to fight. What’s more, apart from their immediate neighbours which have every right to blanch under the threat, all those who squabble incessantly at China are not only forgetful of their own faults in similar situations in the past and in that way unfair, they are also fueling Chinese resentment and worsening the problem. As have always been those who see the straw in the other’s eye but not the plank in their own?

Without condoning China’s every move by any means, let’s make sure we are not forced by our nearsightedness to walk that plank off the side of our own ship?

Good reflections all, Tay.

Additional reading :

http://dawn.com/2013/02/19/china-given-contract-to-operate-gwadar-port/

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/china-to-open-its-first-military-base-abroad-in-indian-ocean-157282

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139

http://www.energytribune.com/72387/beijing-masters-the-art-of-geopolitical-posturing-in-southeast-asia

http://www.energytribune.com/11628/the-south-china-sea-wikileak-cables-little-tricks-awash-in-controversy

http://www.voanews.com/content/japan-pm-condemns-chinas-dangerous-use-of-weaponstargeting-radar/1598037.html

And straight from the horse’s mouth :

http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8101015.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8102701.html

http://english.people.com.cn/90786/8127474.html

http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8133482.html

http://english.people.com.cn/90883/8133483.html

And just to show that envy of the West’s is still very alive for the Chinese, here is the link to an organization that organizes trips to America for rich Chinese ladies to America where they give birth to allow their kids US citizenship by virtue of birth on American soil which also means the parents get a green card when the kids turn 21 ( sic ), the motto and pics speaking for themselves :

http://www.asiamchild.com/portal.php