US and Chinese Grand Strategy

Ah thought I knew the name, long time since I last read
The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia
Had to check on Wiki.
Still have a copy on my bookshelf, comes across as someone who has known his subject from being a young man.

john
 
The article is written from an Oz POV however, offers a sobering view of overall Chinese military capability in the Indo-Pacific region, and reflects the US aspiration to get China to the table on various previously US-Russian bilateral arms control treaties.

'The US is so weakened in the Indo-Pacific region, it could now lose a short, sharp conflict started by Beijing in just “hours”, up-ending the military order in our region.

'Furthermore, Australia is no longer able to rely on Washington to come to its defence. That’s the conclusion of a blunt new report that found years of spending cuts, an “outdated superpower mindset” and ageing equipment mean US military installations in the region are vulnerable to being wiped out by China in a surprise battle. “The stakes could not be higher,” the analysis by the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre warned.
US and allied ports and airstrips “could be rendered useless by precision strikes in the opening hours of a conflict”, it states. “Many now warn that the US might fail to deter — or could even lose — a limited war with China, with devastating consequences for the region’s future strategic landscape,” it said.'


e53d0eb002b0cffa5c697bdbd2a12a64.jpg

The range of Chinese missiles is shown above. They can now reach as far as the US territory and military base in Guam. Picture: US Studies Centre.Source:Supplied

 
Not a bad round-up of 21st C hybrid warfare.

'Warfare has changed. China gets it. Russia gets it. The West is struggling to come to grips with it.

'It’s no longer just about combat jets, warships and boots on the ground. It’s about inducing disorder. It’s about undermining authority, trust and the rule of law. It’s about destabilising one’s opponent from within to win a war without firing a shot.

'In 2003 Beijing outlined this ‘three warfares’ idea in its Political Work Guidelines of the People’s Liberation Army strategy. First, there is media and public opinion warfare. Beijing’s “wolf-warrior” diplomats, state-run media and carefully placed “agents of influence” are heavily engaged on this front. The second front seeks to exert influence over foreign domestic decision making and policies towards China. The third front attempts to shape international and foreign domestic laws to support Beijing’s agendas. Together they represent all-out doctrinal warfare.

“Here, the hostile forces are not heavily armed soldiers threatening to attack China’s territory, but liberal democratic ideals and their corollaries – constitutional democracy, universal values, individual rights, economic liberalism, free media – which have been identified by the CCP as deadly ‘perils’,” writes Lowy Institute senior fellow Nadège Rolland. “In sum: Whoever rules the words rules the world.”

 
Not a bad round-up of 21st C hybrid warfare.

'Warfare has changed. China gets it. Russia gets it. The West is struggling to come to grips with it.

'It’s no longer just about combat jets, warships and boots on the ground. It’s about inducing disorder. It’s about undermining authority, trust and the rule of law. It’s about destabilising one’s opponent from within to win a war without firing a shot.

'In 2003 Beijing outlined this ‘three warfares’ idea in its Political Work Guidelines of the People’s Liberation Army strategy. First, there is media and public opinion warfare. Beijing’s “wolf-warrior” diplomats, state-run media and carefully placed “agents of influence” are heavily engaged on this front. The second front seeks to exert influence over foreign domestic decision making and policies towards China. The third front attempts to shape international and foreign domestic laws to support Beijing’s agendas. Together they represent all-out doctrinal warfare.

“Here, the hostile forces are not heavily armed soldiers threatening to attack China’s territory, but liberal democratic ideals and their corollaries – constitutional democracy, universal values, individual rights, economic liberalism, free media – which have been identified by the CCP as deadly ‘perils’,” writes Lowy Institute senior fellow Nadège Rolland. “In sum: Whoever rules the words rules the world.”

Freeze their assets in your country.
Stop allowing their container ships to come alongside in your ports.

Play them at their game and stop pretending that ' they are nice guys really, and its all going to be all right'.
 
While the various conspiracy theories about Chinky Flu are pure Tin Foil Headgear, I don't doubt for a minute that the CCP are working hard to turn the pandemic to their own advantage. Yes, it's killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese. But there are hundreds of millions more where they came from. And it's had a devastating impact on the economies of the West, something China is all too ready to exploit.

Interesting Times indeed.
 
Freeze their assets in your country.
Stop allowing their container ships to come alongside in your ports.

Play them at their game and stop pretending that ' they are nice guys really, and its all going to be all right'.
Wasn't meant to turn into a PRC v Oz thread, but as we're on that road ...

'Nearly a century ago, Dale Carnegie achieved world renown for his book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. I’m not sure if it was ever translated into Mandarin, but I’m guessing that Chinese President Xi Jinping has never read it, either way. Perhaps he should. Under Xi’s leadership, China is currently giving the world a masterclass in how alienate and alarm even those of us who aren’t instinctively hostile toward the People’s Republic.

'It may be hard to believe and remember, but only ten years or so ago, we were all talking about the surprising emergence and effectiveness of China’s “charm offensive”. In this incarnation, China’s policymaking elites were showing an unexpected deftness and subtlety, especially in relation to Southeast Asia, where the region’s perennially Nervous Nellies were trying to decide whether the sudden rise of China was a threat or an opportunity.

'If this sounds familiar, it should. It is precisely the same dilemma consecutive Australian governments have been wrestling with for the last decade or more. The jury now seems to be in: the People’s Republic in its new more assertive/aggressive mode is clearly a danger, according to many of our prominent strategic commentators, and we must act accordingly. Quite what the finer details of this process will look like economically is far from clear, but diversification and decoupling have become prominent parts of the emerging policy consensus in Canberra. More predictably, even greater demonstrations of fealty towards the US have also become de rigueur. What better way to prove our sincerity than by promising to increase defence spending and all-around military preparedness?

<snip>

'All of these tacit bargains are beginning to unravel. Our domestic capitalist class in Australia has noticeably less influence in debates about China than they once did. Likewise, those of us who quixotically argue for a more independent foreign policy position that treats both China and the US with a degree of caution are given even shorter shrift than usual. Even those hard-headed commentators who argued that China’s strategic thinkers were playing a brilliant long game designed to culminate in global domination aren’t looking too good these days, either. On the contrary, China’s leaders seem to have squandered the limited and hard-won soft power they managed to cultivate, for reasons that remain rather mysterious.

'Given that not much of consequence happens without Xi’s say-so, the consequences of alienating and alarming just about everybody outside China could be serious for him and the PRC’s ability to achieve its goals – whatever they may be. One of Dale Carnegie’s timeless pieces of advice for how to win friends was to admit you’re wrong if you stuff up. Perhaps that’s why his book didn’t become a bestseller in a land where loss of face seems even more important than loss of influence.'


 
Top