Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[warrickdll]

defeat in these kinds of little wars was exactly what send China into the downward spiral in the late 1800s, and no Chinese, whatever their political bent, wants to see a repeat of that era.

Perhaps "little wars" is a bit subjective as both a term and as the cause of the downward spiral. As well as the numerous "foreign adventures" (a completely subjective term) there was the Taiping Rebellion (how many millions of people need to die for it to be a "big war") and, if you weren't referring to the Taiping Rebellion as a "little war", you appear to be glossing over its contribution to the downward spiral.

Combating the Taiping Rebellion, the Nien Rebellion, and the Moslem uprisings in the west would severely weaken an already floundering state.

Thus, I would argue that the current shifts in Chinese military posture is not an indication of aggressive expansionism but only an adjustment to face modern military realities.

I would argue that aggressive expansionism (is there leisurely expansionism?) by China has historically been contained by either China's own tendencies towards feelings of (hmmm....) condescension of non-Chinese cultures, and by China's ability to be preoccupied with internal uprisings and rebellions (it wasn't just Mao or the 20th century Civil War).

While the historical holds on Chinese expansionism may not now be present, I would agree that Chinese expansionism is not the likely course, for the near future. China is a growing threat because it is growing, and shares no common bond with other nations.

You do bring up 1979, which is the more likely threat from China, limited military punishments against nations that impede China's interests (Gunboat diplomacy - no irony), or as a show of force. Or squatting in disputed areas and then daring anyone to move them.


On another note - China is often heard complaining about the Japanese occupation, but says nothing of when it was an imperial power. China might not have occupied much more territory then it now has, but it did control other nations by threat and demanded tribute be paid to it - No apologies from China for its demands for concubines from Korea for the Emperor.


Again though, I agree, any nation in China's position would be doing exactly the same militarily. A nation of that size and economic power won't sit around without any modern military capability.

 

[Britney Spears]

Perhaps "little wars" is a bit subjective as both a term and as the cause of the downward spiral. As well as the numerous "foreign adventures" (a completely subjective term) there was the Taiping Rebellion (how many millions of people need to die for it to be a "big war") and, if you weren't referring to the Taiping Rebellion as a "little war", you appear to be glossing over its contribution to the downward spiral.

Combating the Taiping Rebellion, the Nien Rebellion, and the Moslem uprisings in the west would severely weaken an already floundering state.

Examine the context of the Taiping rebellion more closely. The defeat of the Qing in the two Opium wars, their inability to check the expansion of western commercial interests, the bankrupcy of the Imperial administration due  to indemnities and looting in the aftermath of the peace treaties were crucial in the Taiping rebellion's beginnings and later success. Nor is it lost on the Chinese that the rebellion was crushed largely with Western arms and advisors (Remember "Chinese" Gordon? He's a household name in China to this day). While the Qing certainly had a host of other internal issues that served to undermine their rule, in purely military terms the British and French invasions (Both were limited wars) were one of the principle causes of the Qing decline in the mid 1800s. Of course, lets not forget the Boxer rebellion (another reaction to Qing weakness in the face of the Western imperial powers) and the Sino-Russo-Japanese wars of the early 1900s whcih were the final nails in the Qing coffin.

Besides, it's always more fun to blame the evil foreigners, the Chinese are no exception to this rule. One must take into account that influence in strategic thinking regardless of its historic validity.

As an aside, I always like to half seriously point out  that Hong Xiu Quan's theology was supposedly influenced quite heavily by an American Baptist missionaries, and the Taiping rebellion as an example of Fundamentalist American Protestant theocracy. 

I would argue that aggressive expansionism (is there leisurely expansionism?) by China has historically been contained by either China's own tendencies towards feelings of (hmmm....) condescension of non-Chinese cultures, and by China's ability to be preoccupied with internal uprisings and rebellions (it wasn't just Mao or the 20th century Civil War).

While the historical holds on Chinese expansionism may not now be present, I would agree that Chinese expansionism is not the likely course, for the near future. China is a growing threat because it is growing, and shares no common bond with other nations.

Fair enough. No serious disagreements here, although I personally would emphasize a different set of factors.

On another note - China is often heard complaining about the Japanese occupation, but says nothing of when it was an imperial power. China might not have occupied much more territory then it now has, but it did control other nations by threat and demanded tribute be paid to it - No apologies from China for its demands for concubines from Korea for the Emperor.

That's a pretty awful comparison. 8 years of occupation and the massacre of millions, versus demanding a marriage to cement an alliance during a period where it was customary to do so? Somehow I can't see those as being on the same level.

In any case, the ancient Chinese tribute system was generally meant as a token show of respect for the dominance of Chinese civilization and culture, and reciprocated with a similar transfer of Chinese goods to the tributees. Sometimes this evolved into goverment sactioned trade, but  it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was.

 

[TCBF]

I think they could accomplish the same aim, yet perhaps be a bit more subtle.  In a decade or two (well, OK, three), we may well be buying high quality Chinese made autos like we buy high quality Japanese and Korean ones now.  China will be even more dependant on the security of international sea lanes for trade, and there may come a time when certain countries in the west urge China to help with the burden of 'global policeman', much as the Japanese have been asked to assist (with funding).  Sabre rattling across the Straights of Formosa are counter-productive to the aim.

If China truly does plan 'long term', they should listen to their western educated anylists when they explain which messages push the wrong buttons in Washington.  They could modify the message and accomplish the same mission.

The sale of IRBM and advanced SAM and ASM technology to governments the west considers less than stable could perhaps be explained in better terms - or stopped.  It's not like they need the money.

 

[Kirkhill]

Britney:

Are you sure you're not confusing lack of capability with lack of intent when you state "... it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was."  In China's various empires most of the subjugated states were City-States or regional empires of City-States,  just as they were in the West, the Middle East, India and the Americas.  The reason that those older empires didn't expand it that they were restricted to the speed of a man on horseback to act and communicate and the ability of the mark one eyeball to see.  Tribute empires were common everywhere.  The fact that the Chinese never got past such an empire doesn't seem to me to indicate any greater disposition not to seek a greater empire.

 

[TCBF]

Well, at one point a faction did decide not to maintain a seafaring capability.  Had they not taken that turn, the Americas may well have been colonized from the west coast rather than the east.

Now THAT would make an interesting premise for an alternate history series of novels.

Brit, got lots of time on your hands?

Tom

 

[Britney Spears]

In China's various empires most of the subjugated states were City-States or regional empires of City-States,  just as they were in the West, the Middle East, India and the Americas.  The reason that those older empires didn't expand it that they were restricted to the speed of a man on horseback to act and communicate and the ability of the mark one eyeball to see. Tribute empires were common everywhere.  The fact that the Chinese never got past such an empire doesn't seem to me to indicate any greater disposition not to seek a greater empire.

See TCBF's point about the decision to not maintain a seafaring capability. The Chinese of the Ming dynasty made a decision to b forego seaborne expansion "over the horizon", as it were. Chinese culture even before that had already been insular, and military thinking shifted from naval power to the construction of the Great Wall (The "Ming Wall" that you see today). China has pretty much never had a professional military like the Romans or the 16th Century European powers, and the Chinese concept of defence has for millenia been to station military colonies made up of peasant conscripts on it's borders, near a big honking wall. The Manchu "Banner armies" of the 17th Century being a short lived expection that provided China with most of it's modern day Non-Chinese holdings in Tibet and XinJiang, before being swallowed into the Sinicized Manchu administration.  The concept of having professional colonial armies specifically for service outside its borders simply doesn't exist in Chinese thinking. I suppose it is possible that such ideas may one day develop but I've not seen any evidence of this happening.

Now THAT would make an interesting premise for an alternate history series of novels.

<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/books/review/02WILFORT.html?tntemail1>1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered the World</a>

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt>The Years of Rice and Salt</a> The Plague does European civilization in, and world development centers instead on Islamic and Chinese empires.

 

[TCBF]

Good thing Gavin Menzies was a RN Submarine Commander: a lot of his critics appear to be bent on hunting him to exhaustion.  Oh well.

 

[warrickdll]

Examine the context of the Taiping rebellion more closely. The defeat of the Qing in the two Opium wars, their inability to check the expansion of western commercial interests, the bankrupcy of the Imperial administration due  to indemnities and looting in the aftermath of the peace treaties were crucial in the Taiping rebellion's beginnings and later success. Nor is it lost on the Chinese that the rebellion was crushed largely with Western arms and advisors (Remember "Chinese" Gordon? He's a household name in China to this day). While the Qing certainly had a host of other internal issues that served to undermine their rule, in purely military terms the British and French invasions (Both were limited wars) were one of the principle causes of the Qing decline in the mid 1800s. Of course, lets not forget the Boxer rebellion (another reaction to Qing weakness in the face of the Western imperial powers) and the Sino-Russo-Japanese wars of the early 1900s whcih were the final nails in the Qing coffin.

So much was going wrong for China all at the same time: Floods, Wars, Strife, and the final acceptance that the world had moved forward while China had not. There is no shortage of factors that go into the collapse of imperial China.

A century of nothing but context, and there is no way to view the Taiping and Nien Rebellions without the foreign attacks, but without them (and the other mid-century uprisings) there might have been some longevity in the empire.

Besides, it's always more fun to blame the evil foreigners, the Chinese are no exception to this rule. One must take into account that influence in strategic thinking regardless of its historic validity.

No matter how valid Chinese xenophobia might appear to someone in China - that it exists at such a level only adds credence to seeing China as a threat - as it shows a China unable to see the context of foreign actions.

As an aside, I always like to half seriously point out  that Hong Xiu Quan's theology was supposedly influenced quite heavily by an American Baptist missionaries, and the Taiping rebellion as an example of Fundamentalist American Protestant theocracy. 

The Heavenly Kingdom did have some progressive ideas. Who knows, maybe if a new religion catches on with the peasants there will be another need for the Ever Victorious Army.

That's a pretty awful comparison. 8 years of occupation and the massacre of millions, versus demanding a marriage to cement an alliance during a period where it was customary to do so? Somehow I can't see those as being on the same level.

In any case, the ancient Chinese tribute system was generally meant as a token show of respect for the dominance of Chinese civilization and culture, and reciprocated with a similar transfer of Chinese goods to the tributees. Sometimes this evolved into goverment sactioned trade, but it was never used to economically subjugate wholesale entire countries like Western colonialism was.

Yes it is an awful comparison - an awkward attempt to vilify. Moving forward from that though - the tribute system varied in levels of severity, but it did always show vassal status. You can't seriously say China's relationship with Korea was one of Trading Partner can you?

 

[Britney Spears]

So much was going wrong for China all at the same time: Floods, Wars, Strife, and the final acceptance that the world had moved forward while China had not. There is no shortage of factors that go into the collapse of imperial China.

A century of nothing but context, and there is no way to view the Taiping and Nien Rebellions without the foreign attacks, but without them (and the other mid-century uprisings) there might have been some longevity in the empire.

I meant in terms of purely military factors. Of course other socio-economic factors did play a role but there is hardly a military remedy for those. Besides, I think modern westerners have difficulty understanding how much the economic issues were a direct result of defeat in the Opium wars. For example, China in the 18th and 19th centuries had a two metal currency system based on silver bullion for large transactions(i.e. rents on land) and copper coins for smaller ones (daily expenses for peasants). The massive outflow of silver currency through the opium trade resulted in decades of rapid inflationary pressures (copper being worth less and less) that crushed peasant farmers and sent millions fleeing the land into banditry (or opium addiction). The sheer size of the post war indemnities(another outflow of silver) were such that the goverment was for years simply bankrupt, and being forced to squeeze the peasants for more cash to purchase foreign weapons in the hopes of coming out in one piece in the next foreign war, which of course never happened.

No matter how valid Chinese xenophobia might appear to someone in China - that it exists at such a level only adds credence to seeing China as a threat - as it shows a China unable to see the context of foreign actions.

That works both ways, of course.

Yes it is an awful comparison - an awkward attempt to vilify. Moving forward from that though - the tribute system varied in levels of severity, but it did always show vassal status. You can't seriously say China's relationship with Korea was one of Trading Partner can you?

Of course not, you're trying to view pre-19th century relations with a modern concept (equal trading partners) in mind. Why would the Chinese view the Koreans in the 15th century as an equal trading partner? The disparities in the levels of economic development between China proper and the prehiphery most of the time was so great that nations like Korea and Japan were generally eager to pay tribute (a minor expense with no economic consequence)in return for either Chinese technology or political support. I just don't think the 18th-19th century Western concept of aggressive colonial expansion(generally based on a percieved racial superiority) can really be applied.

 

[Kirkhill]

(generally based on a percieved racial superiority)

Don't even go there.  The Chinese not only demanded tribute from vassals but they took tribute as their divine right - by reason of "racial superiority".  This was their attitude up until the 19th century and made the shock of encountering the west all the greater.  This in turn fired the Boxer rebellion, Sun Yat Sen and ultimately Mao Tse Tung.

The Japanese saw the world in similar terms, as did the Muslims, as (no doubt) did the Veddic peoples of India when the Northern Races came through a couple of thousand years ago.

Racial Superiority is not a White Problem.  It is genetically coded in every race.  Every race seeks to survive and prosper in a competitive environment.  It is simply a reality of the geo-politics as much as mountains and rivers and cities.

 

[Britney Spears]

No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks. No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism and "the white man's burden" exists in other cultures and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Check out the number of extremely successful non-Chinese emperors in Chinese history.

Perhaps this could be spun off into a different topic.


*And the "Muslims" are not a race.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yep, nice to know the "white man" [your words] are the only ones 'big" enough to want to understand and reason why......notice your lovely Chinese culture won't.

 

[a_majoor]

What the Chinese realized was that an all out invasion would be unlikely, but a regional, high intensity, short duration conflict where training, equipment, mobility and airpower counted for more than numbers or political indoctrination would now be the norm. Thus the new emphasis on power projection, rapid downsizing of the army and (most importantly) the establishment of professional NCO academies and much more enticing NCO career progression, something that most third world armies never manage to pull off. This type of western style army would NOT be very well suited for wars of conquest (that would require numbers), but better for the type of regional skirmish that the Chinese leadership envision themselves getting into around, say, the Diaoyu islands or the South China sea.  To put this into a cultural context, defeat in these kinds of little wars was exactly what send China into the downward spiral in the late 1800s, and no Chinese, whatever their political bent, wants to see a repeat of that era.

Thus, I would argue that the current shifts in Chinese military posture is not an indication of aggressive expansionism but only an adjustment to face modern military realities.

The force structure of the modern Chinese military does not seem well suited for regional skirmishes in the south China sea, or other "regional" duties, but seems very explicitly structured around asymmetrical counters to "blue water" forces, denying them the ability to enter or conduct operations (for example, US carrier Battlegroups attempting to reinforce Tiawan). That they can also conduct regional operations of this sort is more of the fallout effect, just as the United States has sufficient capability to conduct "2 regional wars" gives it the ability to take on smaller taskings as a side effect. In terms of numbers, the Chinese still overmatch almost any conceivable force in the region, either individually or in combination with regional or external allies. Numbers still count, even if it is just a means of forcing the enemy to expend his logistics stocks before you do, so having an airforce of MiG 19 and 21 derivatives is not always a bad thing (especially if used in conjunction with 800+ short range ballistic missiles).

As a side note, I have read 1421, and while it is a good read, the idea of a "round the world" expedition seems very tenuous at best, and I would like to see a lot more supporting evidence before I buy into the treasure fleets breaking out of the Indian ocean. The "why" they never seem to have gone on and colonized the Indian Ocean basin or the West Coast of North America is an interesting one, if they really are that insular then much of how we "read" Chinese civilization and actions needs to be reappraised.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks. No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism and "the white man's burden" exists in other cultures and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Check out the number of extremely successful non-Chinese emperors in Chinese history.

Perhaps this could be spun off into a different topic.

*And the "Muslims" are not a race.

Oh geez....

Last time I checked Western European/American weren't a race either.  Regardless, that's an absurd statement to make.  The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior.  Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races."  Of note, although politically incorrect, tribal warfare in Africa is fought on the same grounds.  If they see their race as Hutus and Tutsis as an inferior race, then that war of expansion was no less racially motivated than the Nazi expansion into Poland.

On the other hand both the American Manifest Destiny and British Imperialism although obviously bigoted, were about expanding their ideologies.

Got anymore apologist merde to share with us?



Matthew.  :

 

[TCBF]

"No it isn't. Cultural chauvunism is one thing, but the pseudo-science of scientific racism as a cornerstone and rationale of imperialist ideology is purely a Western European/American phenomenon arising out of a need to exlain in rational terms the holocaust that was unleashed upon the Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks."

- I don't recall ever reading a rational or scientific explanation for either.

" No equivilant ideology or body of writings such as scientific racism "

- if it is rascism, it is not scientific. If it was scientific, it would not be rascism.  Right? 

" and slavery based soley on race does not exist anywhere else in the world."

- The Arab enslavement of blacks in Africa?

Slavery was on it's way out in the USA anyway.  It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism (albiet colour coded) that was ill suited to an emerging technical revolution requiring educated, motivated workers.  How hard will a slave work? Just hard enough to avoid being beaten, and that is not good enough to build an economy on.  Just ask the Communists.

 

[Britney Spears]

As a side note, I have read 1421, and while it is a good read, the idea of a "round the world" expedition seems very tenuous at best, and I would like to see a lot more supporting evidence before I buy into the treasure fleets breaking out of the Indian ocean. The "why" they never seem to have gone on and colonized the Indian Ocean basin or the West Coast of North America is an interesting one, if they really are that insular then much of how we "read" Chinese civilization and actions needs to be reappraised.

As I understand it is discredited in most scholarly circles, although I have not yet read it.

Last time I checked Western European/American weren't a race either. 

Of course not. Took them the better half of a century to realize it though. See why I called it a pseudo-science?

The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior. Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races." 

Cite? I grant you that the Japanese conquests during WW2 did have a racial element, but the Japanese have proven themselves remarkably adaptable when it comes to foreign influences.

Of note, although politically incorrect, tribal warfare in Africa is fought on the same grounds.  If they see their race as Hutus and Tutsis as an inferior race, then that war of expansion was no less racially motivated than the Nazi expansion into Poland.

*shrug* I think you're right to some degree, but equating tribal warfare in Africa with the Nazis? Straining credulity if you ask me, but I'm not an expert in that conflict so I will limit my comments.

On the other hand both the American Manifest Destiny and British Imperialism although obviously bigoted, were about expanding their ideologies.

Really? Do you require me to provide some quotes from American and British leaders to indicate what they thought of the "little brown men"?

Got anymore apologist merde to share with us?

I'm not apologizing for anyone, but if you have something factual to share with us, I'm all eyes.

- I don't recall ever reading a rational or scientific explanation for either.

Well, yeah, that would be why we've advance past that stage now, haven't we?

- The Arab enslavement of blacks in Africa?

Slavery was on it's way out in the USA anyway.  It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism (albiet colour coded) that was ill suited to an emerging technical revolution requiring educated, motivated workers.  How hard will a slave work? Just hard enough to avoid being beaten, and that is not good enough to build an economy on.  Just ask the Communists.

Try this:

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

This is sort of going all over the place here, but it is generally accepted that the institution of slavery in 19th century Europe and America were unique in that black Africans and Native Americans(before most of them died) were slaves SOLEY by virtue of their skin color, and that all sorts of scientific pronouncements were made in an effort to justify this. Consider the Dred Scott case, where it was decided that a black man, even in a non slave holding state, could be stripped of his rights and "returned" to the south on the word of any white man, with no legal recourse. While slavery in some form or other existed throughout most of the world, it was usually based on the premises that POWs were considered spoils of war.  The Romans, Arabs, Indians, and mostly everyone else never considered a specific race or color of people to be only suitable for slavery, and there was never a general law to prevent Romans and Arabs from becoming slaves themselves through debt or criminal behaviour. They, and that includes the Chinese, generally found it much more economical to enslave their fellow citizens than to bring in large numbers of fit young foreigners.

It was a paternalistic form of cradle to grave socialism

Sorry, I'm not easily offended but I find this offensive.

James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong is a good introduction to the whitewashing, if you will pardon the pun, of the history of American race relations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cite?

Do you require me to provide some quotes

So which way do you want to carry on this discussion...

What a pile of claptrap you do spout.

By the way Britney .... congratulations.  You managed to push enough of my buttons to make me forget an earlier vow to ignore you.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[TCBF]

"Sorry, I'm not easily offended but I find this offensive."

- Why?  Of course it was an odious, murderous, callous system.  But so are many other forms of totalitarian systems.  Whether a person is enslaved on a plantation because they are another race, or enslaved in a labour camp because they are politically unreliable is moot.  One is as bad as another, no?

Rascist  view other races as inferior.

Communists viewed other political animals as inferiour.

Islamo-fascists view Jews, specifically, and infidels in general as inferior.

PETA-toids view carnivores as inferior.

Are these forms of injustice not merely variations on a theme, or has what Bruce Catton once called "The undigestible lump that was slavery" become the new "White Man's Burden?"

Oh, and I would not be suprised if tribal issues in Africa exceded the holocaust in deaths.  Rwanda proved that the ratio of 12,000,000 in ten years set by the Germans can be exceded in short spurts.

 

[Britney Spears]

The Japanese and Chinese both have a long history of racial superiority as cornerstone of their civilizations and that other races by virtue that they were divine and others were not, were inferior. Wars of expansion by those civilizations were therefore fought to "for their race to gain land, resources and territory from other inferior races." 

What exactly am I saying that so offends you? I asked as politely as I could for clarification of the above statement because I've never encountered such a view in any of my readings, either Western or Chinese. For example, what/who is the source of the quote? If there is a "long history", then why can you not provide an example?

So which way do you want to carry on this discussion...

Do you dispute my statement? I am asking if you want a quote because I really don't think any are neccesary, as it is fairly common knowledge amongst historians that scientific racism was a cornerstone of 19th century Western imperialism. Asking for a cite for something so obvious would seem to me meaningless fillibustering, but if you want one just say so and I will provide it.

None of this is meant to be offensive or accusatory, I'm certainly open to discussion on any of my points, but until one of you actually comes back to clarify/qualify your points as I have requested, or indeed bring back something, anything factual to debate(as Iterator has done quite eloquently), there's nothing else I can add here.

- Why?  Of course it was an odious, murderous, callous system.  But so are many other forms of totalitarian systems.  Whether a person is enslaved on a plantation because they are another race, or enslaved in a labour camp because they are politically unreliable is moot.  One is as bad as another, no?

That isn't the typically accepted meaning of "cradle to grave socialism" and you know it, but let us get back to the topic at hand.

 

[TCBF]

"That isn't the typically accepted meaning of "cradle to grave socialism" and you know it, but let us get back to the topic at hand."

- In retrospect, I should have written "a murderous, brutally extreme example of cradle..."  The point formed in my mind that way because the changing economy of the USA was in the process of rendering slavery uneconomical and therefore finally financially - as well as morally - obsolete.

In any case, now that we have finished illustrating the methods by which various cultures convince themselves that other cultures have been far more murderous than their own, we should ask ourselves:

Is the Chinese Central Committee receiving sound advice on the reason the west looks suspiciously on their build up?    Have they made a risk assessment regarding the state of their economy and the effect on trade - if any - saber rattling over Taiwan may have?

Do they Care?