IT’S CHINA, NOT THE PHILIPPINES, THAT HAS PROBLEMS
China is not as invincible as it makes itself out to be.
The big news last week was China showing off its ability to drop bombs over the Philippines, what with a reported H-6K bomber making use of a runway over one of China’s artificially constructed “islands” in the Paracel area.
According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: “The base H- 6 aircraft’s combat radius of nearly 1000 nautical miles means even China’s basic bombers taking off from Woody Island could cover the entire South China Sea. Nearly all of the Philippines falls within the radius of the bombers, including Manila and all five Philippine military bases earmarked for development under the USPhilippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.”
This is not the first time though that the H-6K has made an appearance in the region.
Shortly after the Philippine victory in its Hague case against China, the latter made a conscious effort to “demonstrate its military strength in the region.” Thus, by early May 2016, Chinese “state- run media have released photos and videos of H-6Ks flying over Fiery Cross Reef, Scarborough Shoal, Mischief Reef and Livock Reef in the southern Spratly Islands, as well as Woody Island in the northern Paracel
Islands (Beauchamp-Mustafaga, Garafola, Cevallos, and Chan; 2016).”
On the other side of the world, the US seems to have put its trade war with China “on hold,” that is according to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. This was seemingly contradicted shortly thereafter by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.
The media, of course, pounced on this possible confusion within the Trump administration; portraying it as uncertainty on how to proceed tactically or how to “sell” the trade war to the public. Personally, I think it’s deliberate.
Because as far as China is concerned, the US has time on its side.
Consider, after all, that China is not as invincible as it makes itself out to be. That recent well-publicized H-6K stunt is a possible indicator. No secure power does that.
Whether intended for a domestic audience or international one or both, it smacks of possible weakness, albeit the nature of which remains undetermined for now.
Ian Bremmer (for Time magazine) pointed out that, compared to the US, “China’s vulnerabilities are far greater. The crudest measure of this is the $300 billion — plus trade deficit that Trump has complained so much about. xxx Although it is less important to the economy than it was, trade accounts for almost 40% of Chinese GDP vs. less than 30% in the US.”
Another problem is debt. China’s “economy has been slowing down for several years, and its government has tried to manage the pace of deceleration by providing large amounts of credit. Heavy spending by the government and state-owned companies have pushed debt levels to dangerous new heights.”
This column’s longtime readers know it subscribes to the China collapse (or implosion) view. Many, of course, have criticized this line of argument. There are a few who do think it’s possible, pointing to the economic factors mentioned above.
We believe the flaw lies in China’s world view, something that even Stanford University’s Gordon H. Chang (not Gordon G. Chang, more on him later) inadvertently alludes to:
“Despite the talk of the decline of American power, Chang doesn’t see the US being eclipsed by China any time soon — certainly not in his lifetime. He cites the advantages of American English (“the language of the world, international intercourse, is no longer British English, it’s American English”), military power (“the US military budget is equivalent to the rest of the world’s put together”), and soft power (“movies, cultural values, sports, leisure activities, fashion”) as the key drivers keeping America ahead in the power stakes. And then there’s the tricky issue of China learning how to operate on a world stage ( South
China Morning Post, 2016).” Of Gordon G. Chan, he of the much-reviled China collapse predictions, certain factors admittedly did get in the way from such coming true. As China commentator Peter Navarro points out:
Gordon G. Chang “could not have anticipated the colossal blunder of president Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress in paving China’s ruthlessly mercantilist way into the World Trade Organization just five months after his book was published. That mother of all unfair trade deals — a well-deserved target of both the Sanders and Trump presidential campaigns — kept China’s Great Walls of Protectionism largely intact. However, it also opened US markets to a flood of illegally subsidized Chinese imports — and catalyzed the offshoring of millions of American manufacturing jobs.”
But if Donald Trump manages to correct that situation, where does that leave China? Particularly in the context of China’s “poisoned food, water, and air,” “huge capital flight,” huge “national debt,” and “horrible” construction and education that Professor Navarro mentions?
And if China is indeed vulnerable to “imploding,” what could its government do to secure itself from a critical citizenry?
Create an external distraction perhaps, by way of international conflict.
Like in the West Philippine Sea.