Comments on: Andres Gentry on the sinocization of Asia

By: MG

MG — Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:57:10 +0000

Let me clarify:

Demographically, I think a good chunk of Siberia is China’s to own (economically, and perhaps eventually politically) if it wants. There are not enough Russians, who are in demographic decline, even collapse, to prevent the demographic takeover.

As for Taiwan, it appears that China has decided to be patient and woo Taiwan, rather than invade. I would be more comfortable with that assessment if I didn’t occasionally read about continued increases in SSM’s positioned across the straits from Taiwan, and other military prep. Maybe it is a calculated strategy of ambiguity, maybe not.

But, as a complete neophyte China-watcher, it appears that China has finally ended a centuries long period of isolation and backwardness, and is well on its way to being a more self-confident, powerful actor. IF, that is, it can meet the aspirations of its growing middle class.

Ask me in a couple decades, and I’ll tell you how they did.

By: Prince Roy

Prince Roy — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:53:19 +0000

funny you should mention Siberia–the Chinese already are going there in droves, but their argument is that it was originally part of China, and there’s some truth to that.

Taiwan? depends what you mean by ‘going there’. IMHO, they are using ‘peaceful evolution’ to bring Taiwan into the fold. This may ultimately prove successful. If you are arguing military force, I’d say the answer to that is a qualified ‘no’.

By: MG

MG — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 07:53:13 +0000

Actually, I think China IS going places:

Eastern Siberia
Taiwan

for direct control, anyway.

By: Prince Roy

Prince Roy — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 07:15:37 +0000

I read the China piece, and while he made a few interesting points, his main conclusion, that ‘in reality there is no China’, is simply laughable.

The Han have had a strong cultural identity beginning at least from the Qin, well over two thousand years ago. They have always made up the largest ethnic group in China and absorbed every other ethnicity of note, with the exceptions of Tibet (too remote), Uighur Xinjiang (too recent–19th century) and Mongolia (the fish that got away thanks to a fledgling USSR). There are now no numerically significant minorities left. The Han comprise approx. 93% of the population.

I’ve never understood these guys who argue that ‘there is no China’. There’s been a China in one form or another for over two millenia, certainly longer than any comparable Western ’state’, and we may as well get used to the idea. China isn’t going anywhere.

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 01:27:27 +0000

A couple of points. First, let’s not assume that the North Koreans want to have nukes. Frankly, it’s not clear that they do. North Korea’s primary security concern is not external, i.e. an American and/or South Korean invasion, but internal, i.e. its failed economy. It’s unclear how nuclear weapons will alleviate this problem. Yes, they might be able to sell them, but not without risking massive American retaliation. Simply possessing nuclear weapons without the numbers required for credible deterence actually makes the North less secure; it would have to sink even more money on air defences, hardened silos, etc. to discourage an American first strike or American air strikes on its nuclear facilities. No doubt that they want the Americans to believe that they’re going for broke, but I’m not sure if that’s actually the case. Anyway, the second point is not what we will do to change the dynamic, but what will the North do to change the dynamic, and what will others do to encourage the North to change the dynamic. The North, after all, started this crisis because they wanted aid. Without negotiations, there can be no aid, and what they would be left with an expensive nuclear weapons program that not only isn’t making any money, but make the country even more likely to be attacked. The North Koreans don’t want that to happen - heck, neither do any of its neighbors - so if we just sit on our hands a bit and pretend that we don’t want to talk, too, we stand a good chance of making the North bring there demands down. What we DON’T do is go shooting off our mouths about how much we want or need to talk, because as soon as Pyongyang hears that they’ll do exactly what they did yesterday - pretend that they don’t want to talk and then it’s us, not the North Koreans, who have to give JUST FOR THE HONOR OF TALKING WITH THEM.

I know that doesn’t make anyone feel any better. North Korea is a hard diplomatic nut to crack, but assuming that the US doesn’t want to risk starting a major war, this is what you gotta do.

By: Guyjean

Guyjean — Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:49:43 +0000

Yeah, but the prob with allowing the Norks to keep the status quo is that this implies they get to continue making nukes to use or sell.

This must not be allowed to happen.

I’d luv to hear some thinking about what we should make happen in the next two months before the next (probable/possible) meeting with the Norks to change the dynamic?

restating our known position ain’t gonna get us nowhere and gets the Norks closer to more nukes.
Guyjean