The most obvious competitor presently capable of challenging U.S. primacy is the European Union. The E.U., although not hostile toward the U.S. or its interests, is capable on multiple levels of challenging the strength of the American monolith. More so than all other potential competitors, and possibly those competitors combined, the E.U. has wealth. Wealth is a necessity if a state or group of states wants to be strong in any worthy endeavor. Without sufficient capital, no other aspect of interstate relations can flourish. Insufficient capital will undermine any state's cross border relations but in a competition for the title of global hegemon, a state must be capable of competing monetarily with the one which holds that position.
Monetarily, the E.U. is really the only potential competitor which can come close to challenging the U.S. (Art 2003, 242). Although the E.U. boasted the world's largest GDP in 2008 at $14.94 trillion U.S. dollars (PPP) (the U.S. 2008 GDP was slightly less at $14.44 trillion) (CIA World Factbook), it is far from certain that the entity as a whole is capable of harnessing that GDP in order to make a credible challenge to American global dominance. Inasmuch as the E.U. is a work in progress and seems to be in the process of working out innumerable kinks in its overall existence, there is a great deal of unknown in terms of E.U. capability across the board. Indeed it seems a little premature to even calculate an E.U. GDP since many of its member states’ citizens have yet to identify themselves first as E.U. members rather than their own nationalities.
With the potential to rival the U.S. monetarily, the E.U. is on fertile ground to challenge the U.S. for military supremacy. According to Art, military equality requires little more than a comparable military; comparable in size, ground, sea, and air assets, technological advancement, etc. By this standard, according to Art, no other state actor has the potential to rival American military supremacy over the next few decades but the E.U. Presently the E.U. has 27 member states with 3 negotiating entry (Europa), and a population of 491.5 million (CIA World Factbook). In conjunction with its monetary capacity, the E.U. could probably produce a military to rival that of the U.S. However, the advantage the U.S. has in this regard is that it has been producing superior military capability for two full generations, whereas, other than a piece-meal, patchwork military with units thrown in from various states within the E.U., the E.U. would need many years to produce a uniquely European Union military capable of rivaling that of the U.S. on the battlefield. It is problematic in many ways to believe that the piece-meal strategy of military building would be an efficient and effective answer to American military hegemony (Art 2003, 243).
The other potential rivals for American hegemony would be China and Russia, likely in that order. These two states have unique problems in such an ambition. China's military infrastructure and tradition is seriously lacking in comparison to that of the U.S. China would rely almost entirely on a consistently increasing GDP at a rate of 7 percent per annum to match American might within three decades. Without said increase, China may never obtain parity with the U.S. Russia, on the other hand, has the infrastructure and tradition in place to potentially rival the U.S. as a global power, but that infrastructure and tradition is badly deteriorated and out of date, and it would likely take a few decades to upgrade and retrench that military prowess to enable a competent rivalry with the U.S. In either case, America seems firmly entrenched as the singular global power for at least two decades and probably three (Art 2003, 243-244).
The E.U. and the U.S. have a uniquely intertwined history and culture. As a result, it would be unlikely that the two would ever be at military odds with each other, but rather, should the E.U. develop a comparable military might to that of the U.S., the two would in all probability, dominate the world together in a co-equal partnership, with cooperation much like that seen in NATO. The strength of the E.U. is an asset to America and the strength of America is an asset to the E.U. It would be in America's best interests for the E.U. to develop into a formidable competitor in the modern world.
Art, Robert J. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press. 2003.
Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/candidate_countries/index_en.htm. (accessed December 13, 2009)
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html (accessed December 14, 2009).
Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/index_en.htm (accessed Decmeber 13, 2009).
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Monday, March 12, 2007
China vs. the West via the Internet
A few weeks ago I noticed a trend which I thought a little remarkable in who was visiting my blog. At various times the visitors to my blog from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) outnumber the visitors from the United States, and sometimes quite dramatically. This may not have been a big deal if I was getting only a couple dozen visitors per day but my visitors have been pretty consistently above 150 per day. One may surmise many things as a result and obviously the greater the number of total hits on a blog per day as compared to the number of visitors from the PRC in that day, the more one could assume about the PRC and the rate of increase in technology proliferation there.
On any given day I might receive 60 hits from China and 60 from the United States, while all the other countries in the world combined will only give me 30 to 50 hits. Even hits from Canada, and generally other industrialized nations, will only give me 20 to 30 hits per day. The population of each country will obviously have a great deal to do with the number of hits coming out of that country, but while the population may have a direct correlation to the number of hits coming out of China, still that number is substantially larger than India where the population is only slightly smaller than in China (India will only produce 1-2 hits per day).
The first question I considered in regard to this trend was the number of internet connections in China as compared to the United States as a total volume but also as a ratio of its population. My thinking on this regard touches on areas of national security concern for the United States and other industrialized nations as well as several other areas such as intellectual capital, economic capability, international influence, etc. The numbers of Chinese with access to internet connections is clearly on the rise, and at an alarming rate. As a portion of the population, more than 10 percent of Chinese use the internet on a consistent basis (at least 1 hour per week). Since January of 2005 this percentage has increased at a rate of between 12 and 13 percent annually. Currently at 137 million users, the total number of internet users in China is up 25 percent (from 103 million users) since January 2005.
As pertains to U.S. national security, the rate of technological growth in China can be demonstrated in China’s recent demonstration that it has the capability to shoot down a satellite in orbit several hundred miles above Earth. The very nature of the Chinese state has tremendous potential impact on U.S. national security. Its landmass, natural resources, access to trade via shipping, population, and intellectual capability all combine to present a near perfect entity to challenge U.S. dominance in the world. Although China has recently put forth a friendly façade to convince the world that they intend to make nice, the ingredients are there to be a dangerous threat. The state is still strongly controlled from the center, corruption and intrigue are rampant, the Chinese state hates criticism from within and still harshly deals with dissidents, and it still strongly regulates commerce, media, fiscal and monetary matters, and has an active propaganda-misinformation element. Ideologically, the PRC still has chasmatic differences with the United State and the west. Its cross-border relations and influence are clear when one considers the negative consequences of the Chinese relationship with Tibet and Taiwan, as well as the apparent inability of outside entities to influence said relationships.
Intellectually, China is dramatically improving and internet use is a strong indication of this. Improved and increased military research and development, as evidenced by its near tripling of military expenditures over the last decade (as reported in official Chinese budget publications), have led to high-er tech advancements in its SS and SA (and of course more recently Surface to Space) missile capability, tactical and strategic surveillance, communications, radar and airspace awareness, and strategic targeting capabilities. China’s intellectual capital is growing exponentially as Chinese students engage in round-trip education, gaining education abroad, then returning to assist in building up the Empire of the Dragon. Its nuclear capabilities are certainly not to be left out. China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to be between 150 and 300 operational nuclear devices, surely small by comparison to the United States and Russia, but with increasing GDP and intellectual capability, its nuclear capacity is certainly not far behind.
I’m no scientist but it was with piqued interest that I noted this significant detail from my blog. Perhaps the Chinese are on their way to ultimate peace with the world but the obvious strengths in the PRC are enough to create concerns for present global and regional hegemons.
On any given day I might receive 60 hits from China and 60 from the United States, while all the other countries in the world combined will only give me 30 to 50 hits. Even hits from Canada, and generally other industrialized nations, will only give me 20 to 30 hits per day. The population of each country will obviously have a great deal to do with the number of hits coming out of that country, but while the population may have a direct correlation to the number of hits coming out of China, still that number is substantially larger than India where the population is only slightly smaller than in China (India will only produce 1-2 hits per day).
The first question I considered in regard to this trend was the number of internet connections in China as compared to the United States as a total volume but also as a ratio of its population. My thinking on this regard touches on areas of national security concern for the United States and other industrialized nations as well as several other areas such as intellectual capital, economic capability, international influence, etc. The numbers of Chinese with access to internet connections is clearly on the rise, and at an alarming rate. As a portion of the population, more than 10 percent of Chinese use the internet on a consistent basis (at least 1 hour per week). Since January of 2005 this percentage has increased at a rate of between 12 and 13 percent annually. Currently at 137 million users, the total number of internet users in China is up 25 percent (from 103 million users) since January 2005.
As pertains to U.S. national security, the rate of technological growth in China can be demonstrated in China’s recent demonstration that it has the capability to shoot down a satellite in orbit several hundred miles above Earth. The very nature of the Chinese state has tremendous potential impact on U.S. national security. Its landmass, natural resources, access to trade via shipping, population, and intellectual capability all combine to present a near perfect entity to challenge U.S. dominance in the world. Although China has recently put forth a friendly façade to convince the world that they intend to make nice, the ingredients are there to be a dangerous threat. The state is still strongly controlled from the center, corruption and intrigue are rampant, the Chinese state hates criticism from within and still harshly deals with dissidents, and it still strongly regulates commerce, media, fiscal and monetary matters, and has an active propaganda-misinformation element. Ideologically, the PRC still has chasmatic differences with the United State and the west. Its cross-border relations and influence are clear when one considers the negative consequences of the Chinese relationship with Tibet and Taiwan, as well as the apparent inability of outside entities to influence said relationships.
Intellectually, China is dramatically improving and internet use is a strong indication of this. Improved and increased military research and development, as evidenced by its near tripling of military expenditures over the last decade (as reported in official Chinese budget publications), have led to high-er tech advancements in its SS and SA (and of course more recently Surface to Space) missile capability, tactical and strategic surveillance, communications, radar and airspace awareness, and strategic targeting capabilities. China’s intellectual capital is growing exponentially as Chinese students engage in round-trip education, gaining education abroad, then returning to assist in building up the Empire of the Dragon. Its nuclear capabilities are certainly not to be left out. China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to be between 150 and 300 operational nuclear devices, surely small by comparison to the United States and Russia, but with increasing GDP and intellectual capability, its nuclear capacity is certainly not far behind.
I’m no scientist but it was with piqued interest that I noted this significant detail from my blog. Perhaps the Chinese are on their way to ultimate peace with the world but the obvious strengths in the PRC are enough to create concerns for present global and regional hegemons.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
One-child China
Since the early 1980s, when China implemented its “One-child Policy”, an estimated 300 million births have been prevented in China. With the cultural phenomenon of ultimate male child supremacy, however, China’s sex imbalance has become a problem of national security concern.
When a couple reaches its retirement years, it is the son who is responsible to take care of and provide for the aging parents. Female children are not much more than property to be sold to another family’s son to raise up children for that other family. Traditionally, very little is to be gained by producing female children. When the “One-child Policy” was implemented, those families had little incentive to keep their female children, but would instead abort them or otherwise dispose of them (infanticide). After 20 years of this practice the Chinese population is drastically imbalanced with a majority of males. Some official estimates suggest an imbalance of as much as 17 percent or 120 males for every 100 females. With a population of 1.314 billion, that suggests a numerical difference of 40 million more males than females nationwide. In some areas of China the difference is 26-38 percent more males than females.
“Coalitional Aggression,” that’s the term used to describe the behavior of poor surplus male populations that have no chance of doing anything but existing. They resort to violence in order to improve their situations. Not only do they resort to violence, but they band together with other outcast, surplus males, to form violent coalitions by which to accomplish their objectives. Kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, HIV/AIDS, and a multitude of other problems, along with crime in general, are becoming rampant and increasing almost exponentially in many areas in China. Just using the imagination should paint a vividly clear picture of the dire circumstances, socially and economically, China will find itself in over the next several decades. Not only China, but many of its neighbors as those surplus males make their way out of China in order to find a better way of life and/or a bride. Potentially China’s dilemma could flow over its boarders and afflict a great number of other countries, the United States included.
The development of “Bachelor Villages,” villages where an enormous number of men are single and unable to find wives, is a growing trend. The first generation born under the “One-child Policy” is just now reaching the age of marriage and the crisis is becoming evident.
The “Population vice Minister” claims that measures are being taken to alleviate much of this crisis. He claims prenatal sex-determination procedures and sex-selective abortions are illegal. What he doesn’t say is they have been for some time and a great many people are able to determine the gender of their baby despite the government’s procedures to eliminate the practices. The Chinese government is implementing other mechanisms as well to eliminate the problem, giving grants, scholarships, subsidies, retirement pensions, etc. to families with female children.
Despite the obvious potential crisis, the “One-child Policy” remains in effect and will continue. The government refuses to relax it and even recently renewed it. They must believe the potential danger of an exploding population exceeds that of the sex imbalance. Perhaps they would prefer to see millions of unmarried men as an advantage militarily, or perhaps that HIV/AIDS will slow their mushrooming population, further accomplishing their eventual goal of fewer Chinese. In any case, the problem does not only belong to the Chinese but to the world. There must be something said for measures such as this and their unintended consequences.
When a couple reaches its retirement years, it is the son who is responsible to take care of and provide for the aging parents. Female children are not much more than property to be sold to another family’s son to raise up children for that other family. Traditionally, very little is to be gained by producing female children. When the “One-child Policy” was implemented, those families had little incentive to keep their female children, but would instead abort them or otherwise dispose of them (infanticide). After 20 years of this practice the Chinese population is drastically imbalanced with a majority of males. Some official estimates suggest an imbalance of as much as 17 percent or 120 males for every 100 females. With a population of 1.314 billion, that suggests a numerical difference of 40 million more males than females nationwide. In some areas of China the difference is 26-38 percent more males than females.
“Coalitional Aggression,” that’s the term used to describe the behavior of poor surplus male populations that have no chance of doing anything but existing. They resort to violence in order to improve their situations. Not only do they resort to violence, but they band together with other outcast, surplus males, to form violent coalitions by which to accomplish their objectives. Kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, HIV/AIDS, and a multitude of other problems, along with crime in general, are becoming rampant and increasing almost exponentially in many areas in China. Just using the imagination should paint a vividly clear picture of the dire circumstances, socially and economically, China will find itself in over the next several decades. Not only China, but many of its neighbors as those surplus males make their way out of China in order to find a better way of life and/or a bride. Potentially China’s dilemma could flow over its boarders and afflict a great number of other countries, the United States included.
The development of “Bachelor Villages,” villages where an enormous number of men are single and unable to find wives, is a growing trend. The first generation born under the “One-child Policy” is just now reaching the age of marriage and the crisis is becoming evident.
The “Population vice Minister” claims that measures are being taken to alleviate much of this crisis. He claims prenatal sex-determination procedures and sex-selective abortions are illegal. What he doesn’t say is they have been for some time and a great many people are able to determine the gender of their baby despite the government’s procedures to eliminate the practices. The Chinese government is implementing other mechanisms as well to eliminate the problem, giving grants, scholarships, subsidies, retirement pensions, etc. to families with female children.
Despite the obvious potential crisis, the “One-child Policy” remains in effect and will continue. The government refuses to relax it and even recently renewed it. They must believe the potential danger of an exploding population exceeds that of the sex imbalance. Perhaps they would prefer to see millions of unmarried men as an advantage militarily, or perhaps that HIV/AIDS will slow their mushrooming population, further accomplishing their eventual goal of fewer Chinese. In any case, the problem does not only belong to the Chinese but to the world. There must be something said for measures such as this and their unintended consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
