Fareed Zakaria , thoughts on China today

[deziloooooo]

This is a interesting commentary by Fareed Zakaria regarding China and some things that seem to be changing in it's leadership and it's interactions with the United States. Is there a new power coming to the fore in China ? Taking a leadership role where as before they were subservient to the Chinese Communist party which is primarily led by civilians, not the military.
Is the military now starting to push their agenda in the relationship with the West and their neighbors or does the party still have the major say in those relationships
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"China's President, Hu Jintao, is coming to town.

Now, at one level, U.S.-Chinese relations are in pretty good shape. Ever since Richard Nixon, American presidents have worked to integrate China into the international system. China, for its part, has seen its primary mission as economic development, and it has been cooperative, not competitive, with the United States. The godfather of modern China, Deng Xiaoping, directed Beijing to adapt a strategy of humility and a sort of tacit alliance with Washington in its external relations. So the grown-ups on both sides have been in charge and seem sensible.

But there are new pressures in the two countries that are urging a more combative relationship. You only have to listen to a Congressional debate on China to understand the forces at work here in the United States. And yet, it is in China, which is reputed to have the more controlled, rational, strategic decision-making system, where policy now seems pretty unpredictable.

Over the past two years, China has dealt with the Obama administration in a very puzzling manner. Obama came into office talking about the importance of great power relationships and the supreme importance of strategic ties with China. He traveled to China early, and he marked the trip by accommodating the Chinese in various symbolic ways.

Despite all of this, Beijing has been distinctly combative towards Obama. It overreacted to his meeting with the Dalai Lama and to a U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, which were both predictable and routine events. It humiliated Obama at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. And then, on January 10th, while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in China, it refused to agree to senior military to military ties between Beijing and Washington.

Now, these actions could be viewed as a series of misperceptions or as single events, one-offs. But, when taken along with China's new assertiveness in Asia, they suggest there's some larger trend at work, and there's a lot of speculation among China watchers as to what's causing this turn. Is it the change in leadership that's taking place in 2012, the rise of a new, younger cadre of officials, the importance of China's neoconservatives, rising Chinese nationalism?

Dai Bingguo, the man who's in effect China's foreign minister, recently wrote a 9,000-word essay setting out China's foreign policy and explicitly rejecting any talk of replacing or challenging-American supremacy. So this was a sign that the Communist Party still adheres to Deng Xiaoping's line of conciliation.

But there is another center of power in China that might not see things in exactly this light. The People's Liberation Army, the largest army in the world, has always been a force within the Chinese system, but it was formerly subordinate to the Communist Party. From Mao to Deng, senior Chinese party leaders always had military credentials. But this hasn't been true for the last 15 years, and the PLA has been given larger budgets and greater autonomy.

In his recent trip to China, when meeting with President Hu Jintao, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mentioned the Chinese military's test of its new stealth fighter. Here's the bizarre part, Hu -- President Hu appeared not to know about the test flight. The Chinese military, perhaps because of these budgets but also its ideological and strategic mindset, seems on a separate course, which considers the U.S. as China's sworn enemy and believes that a conflict between Beijing and Washington is inevitable.

So the big question for U.S.-China relations in general is are the grown-ups really still in charge, and, specifically, do the civilians in China's Communist Party control the military?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Interesting questions that people have been concerned about for some time. I just don't see China having that size of a military, unless it plans on using it at some point in the future. I think you couple that with China's traditionally uncaring view of human rights, and you have some serious issues.

[deziloooooo]

From what I can understand and also have heard on shows who have supposedly those with knowledge on the subject, NPR had a good one last week, there are a lot of freedoms now in China never before even considered.

Private businesses , how they dress , no more uniformity{Mao jackets, remember}, movement around, moving for work, acquiring wealth forget just riches, plenty of millioners, even many Billionaires. Yes corruption too, at certain levels{Are we going to be the ones to throw stones?}

However, the Communist Party is in control.
They are terrified of losing that control and the state security forces will come down with a sledge hammer, forget a hammer, on any one, any group, that SEEMS to be in the process of threatening their control , definitly if spreading the word and that means prison time.

Population is what? 1 billion , 200 million plus? They have problems there , big ones. They have to feed all those people, get rid of the waste, drinking water, cloth them, pollution, transport them , infrastructure, medical care, natural disasters, get power to them....

There are great benefits to being a member of the Party..they will do anything to make sure the Party stays in power..a lot like our political parties right?

Possible not our leaders of the parties would go to extremes for that, though you sometimes wonder about that, but lets say constrained by political correctness.
However , when you get to the supporters of our political parties, the common folk so to speak, like here on these little boards and read their feelings of the other side, both sides all so cool it with the response, one wonders what the results would be if they had the power?
Never happen you say, nothing extreme? ? There was a little thing that took place in a western power not that long ago when you consider history, called the French Revelation, the people took over...google it, pretty horrific.

[Value Buy]

Dezi, one does not have to go as far back as the French Revolution, which was a revolution of the people and for the people.

Just go back to 1917- The Communist revolution. Then count the millions of people murdered by the Communists.
Next go back to the late 40's when your hero Mao took over, and the millions of people he slaughtered in the name of so-called freedom....
Now this was horrific.

[deziloooooo]

"when your hero Mao took over", with all respect Value, where the hell did you get that from.
The man was a psychopath who killed millions of his people, as did Stalin, the other communist leader at the time.

A hero? You been smoking or snorting something this evening.

If your getting that from what I said about the security agency of China and the goals of self preservation of power by the Communist Party in control and why, that was not praise of, just the honest truth of the matter.
You must believe in the old saying "shoot the messenger if one doesn't like the message"

[burnsattornincan]

Possible not our leaders of the parties would go to extremes for that, though you sometimes wonder about that

Therein lies the beauty of the foresight and wisdom of your founders, the 2nd Amendment, to give the populace a chance to rid themselves of self serving corruption and give an example of what will happen to despots who abuse power and this example should deter any repeat performance for a couple hundred years.

[deziloooooo]

I allways though a important reason for that amendment was to have a armed semi trained militia to be ready to go to the defense of the new Republic, a small standing Army in that, not even sure if that was considered at the time, and in the late 17th century a group of citizens armed with muskets[very few rifles were available} were a substantial force.
That is my interpetation of the reasoning for that amendment and it's to bad we can't go back and ask them. I believe too, that if we could and IF they agreed with my ideas of the why on the amendment , so many here would be arguing with them along the lines , "no, no, your wrong you really meant ....."

[burnsattornincan]

Mr. deziloooooo, you might want to read that amendment again. There were references to "tyrannical" government and how citizens should have the right to abolish a government as such and we all know what the only method of removing such a government happens to be.

[deziloooooo]

I stand by my thoughts on post # 6, especially on many folks arguing with the ones who were respnonsible for the amendment as to why. No reason to go back and forth on it...at least from my standpoint.
You?...go for it.

[billisonboard]

...it's to bad we can't go back and ask them.

I think it would be better if we could bring them forward, give them an opportunity to study modern reality, and have them give their views on what we should do now.

[handyman2]

One difference in China today is that the leadership is much better educated and understand world economics much better. They are much less dictatorial than in the past. Their views on capitalism is now a positive rather than a negitive. When they were reunited with Hong Kong the younger leaders came under the influence of the capitalists there and started a shift to become a world competitor rather than a closed society. True they have a large army. One thing they have not lost is a wary regard for the intent of the other nations. This is inbred by the British and French rule of the past.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 17, 2011 13:16:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

...it's to bad we can't go back and ask them.

I think it would be better if we could bring them forward, give them an opportunity to study modern reality, and have them give their views on what we should do now.

Got a feeling they might be clamoring to go back as fast as they could..Hi def, cell phones, computers, McDonalds not withstanding...think their feelings would be along the lines of

" You all are completly out of your mind, gord , out of control and we meant nothing that like what you are reading into it, the constitution, you got it all wrong, now send us back and a pox on you. "