Guardian: Is Vladimir Putin's Eurasian dream worth the effort?

Reacting to Russian news announced a few days back, Mark Mazower in an article published in today's Guardian suggests that "The Russian prime minister's union plan is not meant as a return to the Soviet past, but he would do well to check precedent"...

In Eric Ambler's masterly interwar thriller, The Mask of Dimitrios, the puppet master pulling the strings as a seedy Europe slides hopelessly into war is the shadowy Eurasian Credit Trust. The name was deliberately chosen. For most of the last century, Eurasia was scarcely a neutral term: it evoked the whiff of racial degeneration, the prospect of civilisation overrun by eastern hordes.

But now comes the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, perhaps looking to lift the attention of a restive public at home to something more elevated than a peremptorily staged presidential succession, supporting the idea of creating a Eurasian union of former Soviet-bloc nations that could become "one of the poles of the modern world, serving as an efficient link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region".

Putin explicitly denies that this is about rebuilding the USSR. Nevertheless, there has been a lot of talk of Eurasia since the collapse of the USSR and there is a close connection between the Eurasia concept and Soviet history. Belarus and Kazakhstan have already embarked on commercial integration and the new union will hope to take that further, perhaps attracting other former Soviet republics into its orbit: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are mentioned. And in a world where EU membership is effectively barred to Russia, and where the EU is promoting its own eastern partnership, led by Poland and Sweden to intensify European links with other former Soviet republics – including both Belarus and the Ukraine – one can see the logic in Russian efforts to extend internal markets, remove barriers to labour mobility and at the same time win the fight for the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of its western gateways, above all in Ukraine.

Politicians like the occasional grand vision, especially one with historical resonance. Yet will all this be worth the effort? The precedents are not reassuring. If the EU's eastern partnership smacks of an effort to reshape the region in the image of the early modern Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth – a time of Polish and Swedish regional power when merchants and ideas travelled easily between the Baltic and the Black Sea – Putin's Eurasian union seems stuck in the Soviet era. Of course, Soviet ambitions went far beyond Eurasia; they wanted influence in the Middle East, Africa and south-east Asia. And this became clear after 1945, when Stalin's Russia really did become a world power thanks to its defeat of Nazis and the Kremlin got its chance to build a second world of socialism around the globe that united eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Soviet republics with other socialist partners further afield. Ideas and technology – above all, ideas about technology and the modernisation of peasant societies – circulated across the borders of the countries in this second world, as far away as Cuba, Angola, Ethiopia and North Korea. Today some historians remind us that the "third world" was so called precisely because of the sustained tussle for its allegiances in the 1950s and 1960s between the first and second worlds. Yet all of this can be exaggerated. The second world was concentrated on eastern Europe, and other member states came and went. The rise of China weakened the ideological prestige of Moscow. And none of it was ever a match in purely economic terms for the astonishingly powerful global alliance system put together by Washington, linking the powerhouse economies of western Europe and east Asia with the oil-producing states of the Middle East.

The first world definitely won that particular struggle and globalisation – by which I mean the extraordinary combination of industrial productivity growth in American partners such as Japan and South Korea with the financial flows that reshaped finance after the 1970s – ultimately brought the Soviet second world to its knees, both because it simply could not compete internationally and because much of eastern Europe had become addicted to western debt. Overall, the effort of sustaining this vast sphere of influence probably cost the USSR far more in purely economic terms than it got back. It had one great achievement to its credit – the industrialisation along late 19th-century lines of its own backward periphery, but by the late 20th century, that was not enough.

There is a lesson here to be learned, surely, from an earlier foray into a kind of Eurasianism by Turkey. In the early 1990s, the then president Turgut Özal imagined a coming "Turkish century" based on a new union among the Turkic-speaking states of the Eurasian heartlands. After his death, it became abundantly clear that the choice between orienting the Turkish economy east or west was no kind of choice at all. Having learned that lesson, the Erdogan government is pursuing a sort of post-imperial foreign policy of its own. But what makes it much more powerful than the earlier Özal model is not only that it is oriented to the former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Middle East rather than to the post-Soviet Black Sea and Caspian republics, but more importantly that it is intended as a complement rather than an alternative to the increasingly European and global orientation of the Turkish economy.

In short, it is no wonder Putin stresses his new vision of deeper integration is not meant as a return to the Soviet past. The question is whether there is any alternative model that makes sense for his proposed union. If the coupling of the Russian economy to the southern Stans brings with it a decoupling from the more powerful regional dynamos to its west and east, it will end up as a drag, not a spur, to growth and Russia will pay a heavy price for an old-fashioned dream of imperial glory.

Putin's grand vision: a new Eurasian bloc with old Soviet neighbours

The Guardian, alongside many other media outlets, brings news of Vladimir Putin's expressed ambitions to (re)create a new power bloc within Eurasia:

Russian prime minister proposes 'ambitious' union across republics based on economic interests

One week after announcing that he will return to the presidency next year Vladimir Putin has laid out a grand vision to bring Russia's former Soviet neighbours back into the fold.

Putin proposes the formation of a "Eurasian union", a bloc that could boost Russia's influence on the global stage. The proposal – from the man who once dubbed the Soviet Union's collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" – raises the spectre of the Russian prime minister's imperial designs.

The Eurasian union would be based on a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Putin suggests in an article published in Izvestiya newspaper on Tuesday.

"We are not going to stop there, and are setting an ambitious goal before ourselves – to get to the next, even higher, level of integration – to a Eurasian union," he has written. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are also expected to join, he says.

Expecting critics to say he is trying to re-form the Soviet Union, Putin says: "We are not talking about recreating the USSR in one form or another. It would be naive to try to restore or copy that which remains in the past, but close integration based on new values and a political and economic foundation is imperative."

He adds: "We received a big legacy from the Soviet Union – infrastructure, current industrial specialisation, and a common linguistic, scientific and cultural space. To use this resource together for our development is in our common interest."

Putin has formed countless Moscow-led groupings aiming to maintain the power that Russia lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In recent years he has focused on economic integration and has pushed for former Soviet states to adopt the rouble as a regional currency.

In 2009 Russia formed a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan which is due to become a "unified economic zone" next year, bringing down barriers to the movement of labour and capital.

The Eurasian union would take that one step further, Putin says.

"We propose a model of powerful, supranational union, capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world," he writes in the article.

It will be an uphill battle. The combined GDP of the EU stood at $16 trillion last year, while the Commonwealth of Independent States, an informal grouping of former Soviet states minus the Baltics, was just $1.9tn, according to the International Monetary Fund. Putin has been at pains to describe the union as an open project into which no one would be "pushed or rushed".

He has issued, however, a thinly veiled criticism aimed at Ukraine, which has continued to seek integration with the EU rather than renew ties with Russia.

"Some of our neighbours explain their reluctance to participate in advanced integration projects in the post-Soviet space by saying it allegedly contradicts their European choice," Putin writes.

"This is a false divide. The Eurasian union will be built on universal principles of integration as an integral part of greater Europe, united by common values of freedom, democracy and market laws."

The other two members of the customs union, on which the Eurasian union would be based, have been criticised for their lack of democracy, with Belarus dubbed "the last dictatorship in Europe".

The article is Putin's first foreign policy pronouncement since he announced he would return to the presidency next year, potentially getting another 12 years in power.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, said: "It's quite remarkable Putin would start with this.

"The logic behind it is primarily economic, and in this sense it is different from previous attempts, which were political or just decorative, to show Russian leadership."

The move could also be a sign of frustration with Russia's 18-year-long effort to join the World Trade Organisation, Lukyanov said. "The customs union was to a certain extent Putin's response to years and years of fruitless negotiations on the WTO – if global integration is not available let's turn to a regional one."

IHT Opinion: Great Party, But Where's the Communism?

Minxin Pei, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, California, writes today in the New York Times on the state of communism in present-day China—useful in providing perspective on how far the 'nascent superpower' has come in recent decades, as well as where it may be heading...

There is little question that the Chinese Communist Party has come a long way since it was founded 90 years ago by 12 delegates representing roughly 50 members.

Yet however insignificant it may have seemed back then, there was no question about its ideology, identity and mission. Inspired by utopian Marxism, the party represented China’s idealist leftists, nationalists and the downtrodden. Its mission was to end social injustice and Western colonialism.

Today the party is a political behemoth, with 80 million members and control of the world’s second-largest economy. At home its grip on power faces no organized challenge; abroad its leaders are accorded a respect Mao and Zhou Enlai could not have dreamed of.

Indeed, we should give the party its due for having abandoned the Maoist madness of its first three decades in power — the mass terror, famine, brutal political campaigns and vicious power struggles — and for radically improving the material lives of China’s 1.3 billion people.

Yet if asked, “What does the Communist Party stand for,” few Chinese leaders today could give a coherent or honest answer.

This much we know: It no longer stands for a utopian ideology. If there is one ideology that the party represents, it is the ideology of power. The sole justification for the party’s rule is the imperative to stay in power.

Nor does the party stand for China’s masses. Despite efforts to broaden its social base and make it more connected with China’s dynamic and diverse society, the party today has evolved into a self-serving, bureaucratized political patronage machine. It is undeniably an elitist party, with more than 70 percent of its members recruited from government officials, the military, college graduates, businessmen and professionals.

So for all its apparent power, the party is in fact facing an existential crisis and an uncertain future. Apart from staying in power, it has no public purpose. The crisis is not only ideological, but also political; it explains much of the cynicism, corruption and insecurity of the party and its elites.

As the party has firmly rejected democratization, its only strategy for survival is to maintain the course it has embarked on since the Tiananmen crackdown in June 1989: drawing political legitimacy from economic growth but relying on repression to crush challenges to its monopoly of power. Although this strategy has worked well since Tiananmen, its effectiveness and sustainability are increasingly in doubt.

On the economic front, growth is about to slow down. Demographic aging, resource constraints, stalled economic reforms and environmental degradation are almost certain to depress China’s growth potential. An optimistic World Bank forecast predicts a growth rate from 2016-2020 of about 7 percent annually — a respectable number, but a 30 percent drop from today’s rate.

China’s economic revolution is also unleashing powerful social forces that will make maintaining a one-party state more tenuous. The party’s governing philosophy and organizational structure make it difficult to incorporate China’s growing middle-class politically. The convergence of an economic slowdown and rising political activism will challenge the party’s rule from several directions.

Now that the Chinese Communist Party has been in power for 62 years, its leaders might also want to note that the record for one-party rule is 74 years, held by the Soviet party, followed by the 71-year rein of Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

So when Chinese leaders toast their party’s 90th birthday, they should harbor no illusions that the party can beat history’s odds forever.

Chinese general: we 'will not match' US military power

BBC News reports comments made yesterday by Chinese General Chen Bingde, currently touring the USA:

China has no intention to match US military power, a top Chinese general has said. Speaking in Washington, Gen Chen Bingde said America's armed forces remained far more advanced than China's despite considerable progress by China in recent years.

But Gen Chen warned that further US arms sales to Taiwan could damage US-China military relations. China regards Taiwan as a renegade province that must be reunited.

"China never intends to challenge the US," Gen Chen, chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, said at the National Defense University during his week-long visit to the US.

"Although China's defence and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between you and us remains."

 But Gen Chen warned that US-Chinese relations would suffer if Washington again sold weapons to Taiwan.

"As to how bad the impact will be, it will depend on the nature of the weapons sold to Taiwan," he said.

Last year, Beijing cut off most military-to-military contacts with the US after Washington announced more than $6bn (£4bn) arms sales to Taipei.

Gen Chen's visit to the US has drawn a strongly favourable press in China - a signal of the importance that the Chinese authorities are now placing on better military ties, the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says. But there should be no illusions, our correspondent says, as superficial harmony inevitably masks significant underlying tensions. The aim of China's extensive military modernisation, he adds, is to extend its military reach well beyond its own shores and to potentially neutralise weapons systems where the US has a dominant advantage.

As you might expect, these comments have significant bearing on the question of China as a superpower, and the nature of American decline (if in fact it exists!)

China: a force fit for a superpower

The technology and firepower of the People’s Liberation Army are growing so fast that observers are no longer curious but concerned, says Malcolm Moore in The Telegraph today:

Chinese navy vessel live firing in the East China Sea

It has been a month to remember for the top brass of China’s People’s Liberation Army. While other armies fret about their funding, China’s generals have unveiled three major new weapons that could challenge the military supremacy of the United States and provide the firepower to underline China’s superpower status.

In a dry dock in the northern city of Dalian, smoke has begun to billow from the chimneys of the Shi Lang, a hulking Soviet-era ship that China bought from Russia and has refitted to become its first aircraft carrier. Named after a Qing dynasty admiral, the carrier is slated to make its maiden voyage later this year, four years ahead of schedule. Five more aircraft carriers could bolster the Chinese fleet further over the next decade.

Meanwhile, at an air base in the central city of Chengdu, China’s first stealth fighter jet has been spotted taxiing along a runway. It has yet to take off, but American plane-spotters have already begun speculating that it might be able to beat an F-22 in a dogfight. Finally, at a command bunker in the north of Beijing, the Chinese Second Artillery Corps controls the jewel in the crown – a new missile that could sink a US aircraft carrier, the first such weapon in the world. The Dong Feng (or East Wind) 21D missile is now “operational”, according to Admiral Robert Willard of the US Pacific Command, which will now have to think twice before committing a $20 billion (£12.8 billion) aircraft carrier and its 6,000 crew anywhere within 900 miles of the Chinese coast.

The unveiling of the new weapons could not have been better timed. Tomorrow, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, is due to visit the tall white skyscraper that serves as the Second Artillery’s headquarters. Mr Gates, who has admitted that US intelligence has underestimated the speed of China’s progress, will be able to see the PLA’s array of nuclear and ballistic missile options for himself.

The transformation of the PLA, from Chairman Mao’s Red Army into a modern fighting force, began in the wake of the first Gulf War, when America’s precision missiles impressed upon Beijing that modern warfare no longer depended on having the biggest army. Ever since then, the PLA has been shedding troops, from some three million during the 1990s to 2.3 million currently. Xu Guangyu, a senior military analyst, predicted that troop numbers would keep falling, to 1.5 million – “Around the same size as the US and Russian armies,” he said.

But while troop numbers have fallen, the quality of the soldiers has risen, said Mr Xu. Almost 80 per cent of officers are now graduates, and a full two-thirds of China’s defence budget is spent on salaries and training. Meanwhile, a stinging submission at the hands of the US in 1996, when Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carrier strike groups into the East China Sea to support Taiwan during a regional spat, has provoked the PLA into upping its firepower. According to the Pentagon, China has the world’s “most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile programme”. A battery of more than 1,100 short-range missiles faces Taiwan, while medium and longer-range missiles, many bought from Russia, can carry nuclear or conventional warheads to anywhere within 4,000 miles of China, giving Beijing the ability to knock out every US air base in the Pacific.

China’s economic miracle has paid for the munitions, with the PLA’s official budget increasing more than fivefold from $14.6 billion in 2000 to $78.6 billion this year. Unofficially, the spending is thought to be far higher, at $150 billion, with China’s leaders keeping many of the PLA’s deals off the books in order to avoid alarming the rest of the world. And while the sum is still just a fraction of the US budget – Mr Gates has allocated $588 billion for “non-war” military spending this year, after trimming $78 billion of cuts – China has spent the money prudently, focusing on areas of US weakness.

China’s submarine fleet now boasts 65 vessels, and by 2030, according to the Kokoda Foundation, an Australian think tank, the total could rise to between 85 and 100, more than the US and enough to establish an edge in the Pacific. China has also integrated the skills of its military and civilian computer hackers, launched several reconnaissance and guidance satellites, and installed arrays of new radars and underwater sensors to ring its territory.

“There are a number of areas where the PLA has adopted approaches that differ significantly from the US’s approach,” said a Pentagon report to Congress last month. “Examples include the heavy reliance on ballistic and cruise missiles, rather than stealth aircraft, to attack ground targets inside heavily defended airspace; an array of systems to attack intelligence, communications and navigation satellites [and] an emphasis on offensive and defensive electronic warfare.”

While the PLA’s generals have been careful to tone down their nationalistic rhetoric in recent years, dropping the suggestion of an imminent invasion of Taiwan, the army is behaving with more swagger, at least in its own backyard. China insists its only goal is to safeguard “regional peace and stability”, but it has dramatically increased its penetrations of Japanese airspace, resulting in Japanese fighter jets being scrambled 44 times in the past year, double the total for 2006, according to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “A gap as wide as what seems to be forming between China’s stated intent and its military programmes leaves me more than curious about the end result. Indeed, I have moved from being curious to being genuinely concerned.”

The PLA does, however, have a long list of fundamental weaknesses that have been pointed out by critics both in China and abroad. Its biggest failing is that it cannot, yet, produce the reliable jet engines it needs for its fighters, having to rely on Russia. That relationship was strained, in 2004, when Moscow discovered that China had copied one of the jets it had advance-ordered and put it into production. “China’s army should not have to rely on others or have to buy its equipment,” said Liang Guanglie, the defence minister, despairingly.

Meanwhile, the PLA’s Jin-class nuclear submarine is said, by the US Office of Naval Intelligence, to be noisier than the submarines built by the Soviets 30 years ago. China’s fighter pilots are no match for US Top Guns. A shortage of foreign naval bases makes it difficult for China to maintain ships on long missions. Sailors who took part in exercises against Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden were reported to have run short of water and fresh food.

And perhaps most reassuringly, the new Dong Feng “carrier killer” missile is impaired by China’s undeveloped missile guidance system. While Beijing can launch the deadly missile, it is not clear it can actually hit a ship. Since US satellites would detect the missile upon launch, an aircraft carrier would have enough warning to move several miles out of the way.

For now, Beijing wields enough power to keep the US in check in the Pacific and to discourage Taiwan from relying too heavily on American support. In the future, the Pentagon believes that the PLA could extend further into the Pacific, using its fleet to control shipping lines and oil concessions. The “pace and scale” of the PLA’s modernisation has been “broad and sweeping”, the Pentagon said. But, for now, China’s modern army “remains untested”.

 A balanced article, then: sounding a warning, but noting several important caveats... While aspiring to superpower status, China is not quite there—yet—at least in terms of military power... A highly useful article in any current attempt to assess China's superpower status (as at least one exam question asked students to do previously).

China overtakes Japan as world's second-biggest economy

BBC News Online presents the story (excerpts follow):

China has overtaken Japan as the world's second-biggest economy.

Japan's economy was worth $5.474 trillion (£3.414 trillion) at the end of 2010, figures from Tokyo have shown. China's economy was closer to $5.8 trillion in the same period.

Japan has been hit by a drop in exports and consumer demand, while China has enjoyed a manufacturing boom.

At its current rate of growth, analysts see China replacing the US as the world's top economy in about a decade.

"It's realistic to say that within 10 years China will be roughly the same size as the US economy," said Tom Miller of GK Dragonomics, a Beijing-based economic consultancy. ....

All well and good, but notice the caveats to this story at the end of the article, putting matters in important perspective:

Most economists agree that while China as a whole is growing, and the average person is getting wealthier, comparing only the size of its economy to Japan's does not paint an accurate enough picture.

"GDP per head in China is about $4,500, but in Japan it's about $40,000 per head," said Mr Miller of GK Dragonomics.

"Most people in China are still poor, more people live in the countryside than in cities. The average Japanese person is much much richer than the average Chinese person."

Do read in full: China's status as a superpower was a direct focus in one of the 45 mark examination questions asked last month for Unit 3.

Just yesterday, the BBC sounded warnings about the fragility of the Chinese economy, however impressive the "second biggest economy" news may be:

China could rue hasty dash for growth

As China has grown to become Asia's largest economy, its biggest achievement, most would agree, has been to raise hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty. But you don't have to walk far away from the main streets of Wuhan to find people who worry they are being left behind.

Xiong Qun Hui owns a small store she has to open 18 hours a day just to make ends meet. "The change is too fast," she complains. "Sometimes I stay at home to look after the shop, and if it's a while before I leave the neighbourhood, I get totally lost in the city."

Like Prof Wen, she questions whether the development going on in Wuhan, and the rising prices for real estate that come with it, will really benefit the majority of people who live here - especially those priced out of the housing market.

"This question is hard for the government as well as for the people," she says. "Why is it that those who can afford properties own many of them, when there are others who don't even have a place to live in. How can I put it? This is a problem with the system in this country - and what is wrong with the system. Well, I can't go into that."

For the government, that kind of comment is a worry, because it shows how easily complaints about the economy can turn into criticisms of the country's political system.

Imagine how much worse it would get if the asset prices - housing or land - were to collapse, as some fear could happen, leaving millions of disgruntled investors as unhappy as the poor. That could threaten the country's stability - and in China, that's always what policymakers are most afraid of.

As ever, read the whole article.

Observer: China's economic invasion of Africa

Xan Rice in the Observer speaks to a number of Chinese citizens who have made the move to Africa...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/chinas-economic-invasion-of-africa

Foreign Policy magazine: Think Again - American Decline

Gideon Rachman, chief foreign-affairs commentator for the Financial Times and author of Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety, weighs in with a reasoned article in Foreign Policy magazine outlining five reasons why American decline (and China's rise) is now really in the offing:

• Objections that we've heard about US decline repeatedly before ignore the fact that things are now fundamentally different
• The idea that China will implode under its own weight is ill-founded
• The comforting fact that America currently still "leads across the board" is not much more than ill-informed complacency
• The notion that globalization will always favour Western values is tenuous on current evidence
• Finally, the idea that "globalization is not a zero-sum game" is incorrect

Clearly there is much that could be said to counter these ideas—read the comments below the article. Nonetheless, an informed opinion from an experienced commentator / observer and one that should be read in a timely fashion.

Davos 2011: BBC Debate - The role of China?

Nik Gowing hosts the BBC World Debate on global leadership with leading figures from the United States, France, India and China.

He posed the question to China's Victor Chu: "Does China aspire to primacy in global leadership?"

Debate panel: Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations; Christine Lagarde, French Minister of Finance; Anand Sharma, Indian Minister of Commerce; Victor Chu, First Eastern Investment Group, China

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12298809

8 minutes worth watching!

Independent: Great Stall of China

Sean O'Grady in The Independent's Econoblog offers a more sober assessment of China's future as an (economic) superpower:

One has to acknowledge that journalists love puns, even bending stories, to fit a headline. So I’m a bit cautious about chucking the phrase “Great Stall of China” into public discourse, but it seems appropriate, in the circumstances.

Sino-sceptics, like me, have long worried wondered whether the hype about China taking over the world was really that well based, given all the distortions in her economy. It’s quite reminiscent of the alarmist, overblown stuff being written about Japan in the mid 1980s, before she succumbed to a 20 year slump. The latest Chinese data support that sort of scepticism.

Specifcially, if you think Britain has a problem with inflation take a little look at China where shop-price inflation has just eased back but will accelerate again soon to 6% or more,  and, more worrying still “asset price inflation” – house  prices really and shares to an extent – have been in a bubble for many months now. It is only matter of time before the Chinese real estate bubble bursts, and loud popping noise form the east seems more likely than not in 2011. That is a grim prospect.

The consequences are unknowable but might include; a mass sell off of dollar assets, causing chaos sin currency markets as the Chinese repatriate their assets; alternatively a renewed effort to return to export lead growth which would mean flooding markets with  more Chinese Yuan, equally destabilising and another ratchet up in the US-China currency war; big losses for Chinese banks, and thus the state that owns them, who lent into the real estate boom; losses for western investors in emerging market funds and companies directly involved in the Chinese economy; general collapse in global investor confidence and “risk appetite” ; slower exports form the west to China, damaging our recovery.

The point is that we can see this crisis coming; we can’t do anything to stop it, but what precautions are the UK authorities taking for the inevitable Great Stall of China?

China on equal footing with US as Hu Jintao visits Washington

.... Or so The Guardian's correspondents might have us believe in their analysis piece this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/china-equal-us-hu-jintao

Overall, the newspaper believes that China's inferiority in 'hard power' has turned to Beijing's advantage, and (that) signs of its growing 'soft power' abound...

The article is quite pragmatic, however: For all the talk of China's emergence as a nascent superpower, and discussion of apparent American weaknesses, uncertainty remains as to a future dependent on Beijing's determination and maintenance of current trends. There is still a long way for China to go!

Wired: Old school jet retooled to slay stealth fighters

More on that story from 3 weeks ago about the flight of the new Chinese stealth fighter..... Now, according to Wired: Danger Room we have the re-use of a 20 year old American classic to counter the new threat:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/

Things don't stand still long on the military front! (Makes you think that US intelligence must already have known about the J-20....)

Wired: China’s New Stealth Jet Takes to the Air

Wired's Danger Room develops the story about the new Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter, now with video:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/dont-panic-chinas-new-stealth-jet-takes-to-the-air/

The Times (archive): Europe rises as the modest superpower

From behind the great Times paywall comes an archived article that should be of interest to students of global power, global governance and the European Union (that's you!):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917324.ece

(It's a two page article, so make sure you lick through to the second page).

Published a year ago on the eve of the appointment of the first European President, the article concisely spells out reasons for considering the European Union as a nascent superpower.

China's one-child policy - success or failure?

BBC News Online has published a useful article regarding the success - or otherwise - of China's "one-child only" policy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11404623

Interestingly, the article cites evidence that China's population growth had actually started to slow well before the implementation of the controversial approach to multiple births in the early 1980s.

Overall, the estimate is that the one-child policy might have prevented 400 million births—not insignificant when it is considered that even now China has a population of 1.3 billion. But at what cost to the country as a whole? One trend that could damage China's future aspirations to rival America as an economic superpower now lies in its rapidly aging population, with too few young people to 'look after' the old.

An earlier BBC article points out that the preference for male children engendered by the policy is rapidly leading to a major demographic imbalance, with up to 24 million Chinese men unable to find a spouse by 2020:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8451289.stm

China embraces environment challenge, US ignores it...

... or at least that's the opinion of respected commentator and regular New York Times Op-Ed contributor, Thomas L. Friedman:

Aren't We Clever? ("while America’s Republicans turned “climate change” into a four-letter word — J-O-K-E — China’s Communists also turned it into a four-letter word — J-O-B-S").

In his usual concise style, Friedman outlines China's practical approach to environmental challenges and warns America of the dangers of complacency:

... because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money — and wasted money means fewer jobs and more political instability — China’s leaders would never go a year (like we will) without energy legislation mandating new ways to do more with less. It’s a three-for-one shot for them. By becoming more energy efficient per unit of G.D.P., China saves money, takes the lead in the next great global industry and earns credit with the world for mitigating climate change.

A useful opinion piece: read it in full!

China Increases Its Global Reach

An interesting article from the Guardian newspaper, describing Chinese efforts to expand their global reach with regard to trade and access to resources:

Brazil's huge new port highlights China's drive into South America (15/09/2010)

The article outlines investments designed to guarantee Chinese access to soy, oil and other badly needed resources. Discussion is made of China's potential rise to rival the USA as an economic superpower.

Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq

As the last US combat units withdraw from Iraq, the BBC's World Affairs Editor has supplied a useful overview of America's experience in Iraq since 2003:

Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq

Very interesting reading.

UPDATE: Simpson has also posted a video summary of his report.

Economist Videographic: Asia's Growing Economic Power

The Economist earlier this year published a videographic outlining Asia's growing economic power, with implications for rival regions and superpowers. A balanced view: "Asia is regaining the economic dominance it enjoyed a millennium ago - but it still has some way to go...":

Economist: China and India - a Himalayan Rivalry

The Economist today published a key article detailing the rise of two potential rival superpowers in Asia: China and India. The article gives close attention to the accompanying rise in tension—not least over outstanding sovereign territory claims—but also gives some hope for the future.

The Leader in The Economist characterises India-China rivalry as the "Contest of the Century". Both articles well worth a read!