So what potential is there that there will be another push for superpowerdom, this time in the Asia-Pacific region?
Keeping in mind that there is a reported gender disparity of about 50 million in China, in favor of men, as a direct result of their one-child policy coupled with their cultural preference for boys over girls - ie. 50 million Chinese men mathematically cannot have a family for lack of female partners. Apropos the flow-on effect of so many partner-less men without a cohesive family unit and how given this formula is to an accelerated militarization of a nation.
Or do you think that as a result of the natural materialism its economic growth elicits, through the agency of its incongruous ‘Capitalism Our Way’ Communist policies, China’s more likely to implode rather than ‘explode’?
Implode. Chinas a planet sized nation if you think about it, crammed into a small area geographically in relation to its population, under the control of an authoritarian government. Chinas government only cares about shutting its population up, the rest is a by-product.
China is going to have problems too with a population that is aging.
Aside from that I don’t know how real China’s efforts to dominate the region will be. I know they steal a huge amount of military technology, so they could catch up relatively quickly.
Although, on the up side, fossil is an antiquated fuel source and most of the lithium is fortunately(?) deep in Bolivia. But then on the other hand you’ve got all the uranium the Sinophilic Australian government is lavishing our potential overlords with, so…
I believe a lot of the ‘threat-talk’ regarding China is being drummed up by the Blue Team (for obvious reasons). Usually this talk revolves around the conventional force build-up of the PLA (although they may be onto something regarding cyberwarfare capabilities).
That said, I also believe that it is very, very naive to think that China is a benign “doesn’t interfere in the internal affairs of other nations good for the world” state that some China-watchers claim. They see little wrong with stealing intellectual property (all layers of society, from the cheap, fake consumer goods on the streets of Xi’an to research at their top Universities in Shanghai/Beijing). They have nicely filled the ‘tin-pot dictator philanthropist’ role the West semi-abandoned. They also remain rather immature and shaky as an A-list player on the international scene (most recently demonstrated by their top diplomats recent meltdown with Hillary Clinton) over the South China Sea.
To the “China is going to take over the world crowd” I have one question: Who does China fear most?"
The Chinese people.
China is on shakier ground than many people think, and it’s iffy if they can get it together enough to move past that. There are some serious divides that are just getting wider- east-west, rich-poor, urban-rural. And that is before we get around to the fact that huge swathes of China don’t feel particularly Chinese or believe in the Chinese project and basically have to be kept at gunpoint for decades on end. Right now the glue that is holding this all together is economic growth, but there is no telling how long that will last and what will happen when things slow down.
While I agree that the biased sex ratio is destabilizing, you’re incorrect about “Chinese men mathematically cannot have a family for lack of female partners”. Every Chinese man could get married, by pairing with a younger woman. That is, if there’s not enough women for every man in given birth year, the gap can be made up from women of the next younger year. And so on, down the years. Of course, the reality is more complicated, but it’s not mathematics that prevents men finding partners.
Why is China a threat? They have demonstrated that they want to get rich-what is wrong with that? Intheir progress toward industrialization, they have dominated many markets-why would they want to fight people who buy their products? I have never understod the India-China conflict-sure China claims Tibet, but why would China go to war with India? It makes no sense.
Well, there are a few places where we come into conflict:
America would like to see a free and democratic, though not necessarily independent Taiwan, continue to exist. China has a strong desire to rule Taiwan, and it does not seem likely they could do that and allow Taiwan to be free and democratic. Our military presence in South Korea and Japan annoys China, and I think we would be unwilling to give that up. China does business with people we refuse to deal with, and that means their interests are going to continue to come into conflict with ours in places like Iran.
That could also, with sufficient inducements, get mail-order brides from those countries that are exporting them . . . but I fear that would run up against Chinese ethnocultural prejudices.
I think the West should learn to share power. Then it won’t have to concern itself all the time with the newest “threat”, which inevitably means the next thing the West is afraid of taking away their near monopoly over everything
You’re the Chinese president, you preside over a well established system which governs over 1 billion people, the legitimacy in which resides in the ability to provide a reasonable standard of economic growth and internal stability. You can fit population wise all of Europes people and all of the US people in it together, keeping the population moderately content is its number one priority. Their power is derivative from this.
IMO Chinas government is basically the British Raj with Chinese characteristics.
Any legitimacy the British Raj had was based on a combination of superior force of arms and an assumed moral/cultural/racial superiority – not on providing India with any economic growth. The Brits did some railway-building, etc., but mostly they just left India in the Middle Ages.
The Chinese already have troubles with workers forming unions and demanding more money. Eventually the poor resist and fight exploitation. We did it before. The Chinese are beginning to and soon we will again.