China is not just an economic threat

At last,  someone writing in a British newspaper has mentioned China's imperialist ventures in Africa.  Niall Ferguson,  in the Sunday Telegraph (you need to register but it's free),  said:

Already, China is making its presence felt both economically and strategically in - guess where? - Africa. While Western journalists have been wringing their hands impotently about the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur, the Chinese government has done a deal with the Sudanese government to exploit that country's oilfields. That says it all. While we indulge our Victorian urge to give alms to the Africans, Beijing is pumping black gold.

As usual,  Ferguson sees the full picture.  Read that first sentence again - 'economically and strategically'.  China is military and political threat to the West,  not just an economic one.

Unfortunately,  Damien McElroy,  writing in the same paper,  still doesn't get it.  He explains how China has used industrial and commercial espionage to steal technology from the US and Europe.  This has enabled China to develop its military technology more rapidly than western observers had anticipated.

Among recent Chinese military advances, which experts believe increase Beijing's military strength in the sensitive Taiwan Strait, is a new cruise missile copy of America's Tomahawk weapon and a sea-borne defence system based on stolen Aegis system blueprints.

Despite  this evidence in his own article,  McElroy tells us that  China is using espionage  "to achieve its objective of commercial dominance".   Read the introduction and conclusion to his article:

A network of Chinese industrial spies has been established across Europe as the Communist government's intelligence agencies shift their resources and attention from traditional Cold War espionage towards new forms of subterfuge aimed at achieving global commercial dominance.

A Chinese adage holds that one good spy is worth 10,000 men. As China strives to displace America and Europe as a global economic powers, that ancient insight could help propel the country to new economic heights.

Like most commentators,  he only sees the challenge of China as economic.  It's as if the danger of military and political dominance is too frightening to acknowledge.  Try re-writing these paragraphs by taking out the comfort words 'commercial' and 'economic'.  The message becomes a lot clearer.  China's espionage is "aimed at achieving global dominance" and it "strives to displace America and Europe" as global powers".

Let's stop pretending that China is simply an economic threat.  The Chinese government does not make the distinction between the strategic and the economic.  Its goal is simple and straightforward - global dominance.

Comments

[john b]

China has never sought to expand outside the places it regards as historically Chinese.

The country's strength sucks for the people of Tibet and Taiwan. There's no reason, though, for the rest of us to get antsy...

[Steve]

John, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it won't.

The Arabs were a pastoral people, warring amongst themselves for thousands of years, then in the 7th century they broke out and conquered a huge empire.

In the 15th century, huge Chinese ships reached Africa with the intention of establishing a wider empire. OK, they never followed it up but it looks as if China's current rulers are reviving the project.

Mao sought world domination too. His successors are just sticking to the long-term plan.

[Jarndyce]

I've posted here on this before, Steve. As you know, I agree with John. Economic power for me will be far likelier to revive the Greater China project that unheard of Chinese wider imperialism. If I was Taiwanese I'd be shitting it. Mongolia, maybe even Indochina, ditto in the longer term.

[Ciarán]

Jarndyce, I'm sort of with Steve on this. The risks are not just of rampant Chinese expansionism (which may not be entirely in their interests). Rather, wider-than-regional conflict could arise as a result of competition between the Chinese and the Americans over, most obviously, oil. Geographic empire need not be the driving force behind conflict.

[Steve]

They are also dangerously close to the Russian Far East and Siberia, with its vast mineral wealth. A new Russo-Chinese war would be no picnic.

[Blimpish]

It's fairly true that they'll start off being aggressive on their own doorstep rather than across the world - but so what? Either we make clear that expansion will be counted sooner or we deal with it later, when they've got a much stronger position. Given globalisation, etc, if they controlled all of central and south east Asia, we could hardly ignore them, could we?

China's had no global imperialist history simply because it hasn't been powerful before during the modern age, when transport and trade made world empires possible. It doesn't mean, as Steve says, that they won't be willing when they do get their power.