Is Mainland China Still A Communist Nation?

Links: A. China Moves Away From Reform
           B. People's Liberation Army

We all have certain phrases and clichés that rub us the wrong way.  One phrase which always brings out the red-ass in me is, "we must compromise with China because they are the world's biggest economy".  Actually, a few variants exist on the same basic theme.  Reading between the lines, the point is that since China has become so powerful economically, we must defer to China and ignore the distasteful laws and actions of the government in Beijing.  The detention and execution of political reformers, religious intolerance as a rule, and hardline support for the likes of Kim Jung-Un in North Korea are three particular issues that I have with China, and if you give me about two minutes I can come up with five more.  While the western world was attempting to peacefully evolve from the age of colonialism, China invaded Tibet and brutally murdered any and all local opposition.  China continues to clamp down on even the slightest display of nationalism in Tibet, which is about as indigenous to China as Tahiti is to France.  I'm not usually an apologist for Islamic "freedom fighters", but China has reacted brutally to expressions of Islamic identity in far western Chinese Provinces.  I believe these examples are all indications that the Chinese government is just as reactionary and just as opposed to basic individual freedoms as they have always been. 

The evolution of a Chinese middle class has done much to encourage people into believing that China isn't a Communist country anymore.  How could they be, with such a large and powerful economy?  China does have a growing middle class (growing SLOWLY), and also an elite class of highly placed party leaders who lead lives very different that the average rice grower out in the provinces.  The Generals who sit in positions of power in the People's Liberation Army all lead very comfortable private lives as well.  Their families also enjoy the benefits of luxury and influence.  But this is how Communism has always betrayed itself.  If you've managed to get through anything penned by Karl Marx (don't lie!), you know that the example must be set at the top, not at the bottom.  Wealth should be evenly distributed, and equality should be the focus of all government domestic policy.  But Communism has yet to follow through on this admirable but unrealistic plan.  Have a look at the Soviet Union, Laos, Vietnam, and China, just for starters.  The people in positions of authority (I thought the working class was the societal authority?) always live well, or at least better than most.  In China today, I wouldn't be surprised if the growth of the middle class slows to a crawl, and the number of rich Chinese dramatically increases.

For the average citizen of China, the rules and regulations of Chinese society haven't changed in over sixty years.  Well then, why do we see so many wealthy Chinese?  Because someone found a way to game the system.  When Europe and the United States opened up to China and embraced Chinese products, the increased flow of money allowed a select few to take advantage of newly discovered avenues to wealth.  Chinese products have always been attractive to western consumers.  Originally interest might have been influence by the sense of the exotic that Chinese products delivered.  Quickly, though, it became about money.  Chinese merchandise was always much cheaper than the competitor.  Chinese businessmen who were fortunate enough to have a relative in the National Bank were able to take out loans and build large factories, duplicating European products at a fraction of the cost.  These businessmen joined the wealthy list as well.  But China is a country of more than one billion people, and the vast majority have always lived within the confines of a limited economy.  The closest most Chinese will ever come to wealth is to wash dishes in an exclusive Shanghai restaurant.

The Chinese economy is a force to be reckoned with.  I will argue that the United States, Japan, and Europe were instrumental in helping the Chinese economy transform so dramatically in a relatively short period of time.  The Chinese needed open markets and favorable trade agreements, and the west obliged.  In the 1970s, the argument was, "there are almost a billion Chinese, we MUST be supportive of their efforts to reform (expand) their economy".  Along with the establishment of middle and upper classes, the Chinese government became flush with cash.  Not just from favorable trade, but also from a streamlined tax system.  The Chinese used the financial largesse to increase their influence diplomatically, especially through building projects in Africa (roads, dams, hospitals, etc.). The Chinese also enjoyed spending money in the United States, with enormous real estate ventures on both coasts.  As far as I am concerned, the most important figure in this discussion is 1.2 trillion.  That is the amount, in dollars, of U.S. debt that China currently owns (eight percent).  How does a Communist country manage to own such a substantial amount of debt from the world's wealthiest nation?  Forgive....I hate rhetorical questions as much as you.

I believe that China is a Communist country.  A country-side tour, outside of Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, will remind the tourist that China continues to be more rural than urban.  Subsistence farming is still the staple way of life for many Chinese families.  It's my understanding that the educational system has improved dramatically in the past two decades, both by the number of schools and the quality of teachers.  As the economy flexes, jobs are created, and China gives the appearance of a nation on the move.  Allow me to share with you the reasons why China continues to be deeply embedded in Communism.  The entire educational system is controlled by the government.  Every Chinese government school textbook is pure propaganda.  Once a student completes what we would consider "grade school", they must take a test to determine their aptitude for whatever direction that they would prefer (occupation/trade).  Most young Chinese follow in their father's footsteps; its probably rarely by choice.  I have had the pleasure of meeting many Chinese students who are studying at U.S. universities.  The tuition for these foreign students is almost always paid for by the university.  After a bit of research, I learned that these students were the children of Generals, Admirals and Governors.  I would have been so thrilled to read, "rice farmer" under the space marked "parent occupation", but it was not to be.  So anyone who thinks that China is "less" Communist because of the plethora of Chinese students studying at U.S. schools, think again.  Chinese students almost always attend universities who have been selected for highly sensitive U.S. Department of Defense research projects.  These students enter the United States with a server on their computer that can't be monitored, and links them directly to Beijing.  This information has been detailed in one news article after another, yet left-wing academia continues to arm-wrestle for the opportunity to host Chinese students.

In the past, Communist nations have always spent disproportionately on their military budgets. I'm not exactly sure where China fits on a scale of military spending, but I do know that since the Nixon rapprochement with China in 1972, the Chinese have become steadily less reliant on outside sources for military equipment, and better at copying the best that the west has to offer.  The Chinese have refined a particularly nasty little trick that a number of countries like to try.  If a particular company has created a really useful mobile missile launcher (for example), the Chinese will invite the company reps to demonstrate the equipment in China.  The reps will be wined and dined, and given the impression that the sale is basically a done-deal.  Sometime while the equipment is in storage in China, the Chinese will take it apart down to the last screw, photograph and measure everything, then put the equipment back together.  The next day, the company reps are abruptly dismissed with a curt, "not interested".  Roughly one year down the road, the Chinese will introduce their own, "indigenous" mobile missile launcher.  But China has not always played the game so smoothly.  One reason why Taiwan has not been swallowed up by the mainland (yet), is because the Chinese Air Force could not guarantee control of the air.  The Taiwanese pilots in their latest F16s were more than a match to waves of whatever the Chinese pilots were flying at the time.  Another issue was naval.  The Chinese navy did not possess a dependable method for transporting troops across the Taiwan Strait (sitting ducks for the Taiwan Air Force).  But since the late 1970s the Chinese have made steady progress in all areas of military concern.  Some people will ask why the Chinese don't just invade Taiwan and resolve the issue once and for all.  I'm sure China could.  When a country can turn to a population of over one billion, there can be no doubt that China could just drop a million troops on Taiwan and smoother the country into submission.  But we are dealing with subtleties here.  The Taiwanese military is no slouch.  It's well-equipped and well-trained, and the navy includes three Daphne-class French submarines that are capable of housing a missile delivery system.  The mainland Chinese are itching to take Taiwan, but they want to look good completing the job.  So a few more military preparations appear to be in order.

Most folks would find it easier to identify a Democracy than a Communist state.  As Eric Cartman on South Park put it so eloquently: "Its the difference between smelling the sweet air of freedom or the stale air of repression".  The Chinese government has shown no disposition towards religious tolerance, and in far western China, Muslims are being targeted by Chinese police and military solely for practicing Islam.  Rumors abound in China that couples are only allowed to have one child, and lets hope that the newborn isn't a girl.  The Chinese government has population controls, in that you must apply to live in certain areas (the Chinese have grown accustomed to many, many waiting lists).  We have already demonstrated the tight grip the government has on all levels of education.  As for students, the government likes to turn them into little spies, because they have the kind of valuable access that case officers would love to have.  I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.  China continues to be a nation happily integrated at every level with Communist philosophy.  Am I sure?  Have you taken a peak at their electoral process lately?      

Whats Up with Syrian President Assad And His Moscow Handlers?

Links: Russia And The Syrian Civil War
           What Are Assad And Putin Up To?

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation.  To be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

fair, the Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution that partitioned Palestine and created two separate states (the Palestinian state never really got off the ground; the Jewish half became Israel).  Given its strong support of a Jewish state following World War II, it's no surprise that the United States supported Israel from the beginning (I'm not saying a word about the politically influential Jewish lobby). However once Cold War tensions elevated, the Soviets sided with the Arab regimes in the Arab-Israeli conflicts in order to maintain thier position in opposition to the United States, Israel's strongest ally.  Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states brings to mind three separate military engagements: the War of Independence (1947-1949), the Six Day War (June 1967), and the Yom Kippur War (October 1973).  In truth, my earliest memory as a child was my father celebrating President Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972; my family lived on U.S. Army Bases in Germany (Bad Kreuznach,  Kaiserslautern, and Bad Hersfeld). But I can still recall the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.  I was barely out of diapers but I remember being so confused at how easy it was for some people to hurt others.  As I sit here in 2014, it seems as if Israel and the Palestinians have never really taken a break in their conflict.

The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures".  They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily.  Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters.  The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews.  I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow.  To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal.  I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).  Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield.  The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river).  The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry. 

Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs.  Before the start

Syrian T-55 ARV armored recovery vehicle
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/News)

of the Syrian Civil War, the army still laid claim to 2,000 T-55 tanks, for goodness sake.  The only way to keep a few of those old junks running would be to cannibalize some of the others.  At one time Syria had a healthy number of T-62S, T-72S, and T-72Ms in its arsenal.  I have no clue how many have been destroyed in the war, how many have been captured, or how many just don't run anymore; the Soviets were not known for their weapons craftmanship (ever fired an AK-47?).  As for the Syrian Air Force, the great majority of its jet fighters were aged Mig 21s, 23s, and 25s.  They also have a handful of Sukhois and Mig 29s.  It was rumored that Russia has been hesitant to supply Syria with the new model Mig 31 because of pressure from the west.  The truth is, for offensive purposes, the Syrian Air Force no longer exists.  I realize that the media puts out the odd report of Syrian government Helicopter Gunships shooting up civilian areas, but if the Syrian Air Force had any real offensive capability, they would be laying it to the Islamic State (safe to assume?).  Interestingly enough, I have seen more conversation lately regarding the Islamic State and Migs than I have the Syrian Air Force.

Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war.  It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the

Bashir al-Assad

Kurds in Kurdistan. Additionally the IS is attacking the Kurds full-force in north central Syria (Kobani) all the while under a regular barrage of death from the sky (Carl von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave).  What is most amazing is that the Islamic State continues to have the initiative on all fronts.  Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad could not be happier, as the Americans and their allies (some are hated enemies of Assad and his Ba'ath Party) degrade the fighting ability of the Islamic State forces (I'm being optimistic).  No doubt Assad has used this respite to reorganize his army, repair and upgrade his armor, train new recruits, and prepare the West for an inevitable diplomatic offensive, sponsored by Putin.  I just hope Bashir has had a few extra minutes to try and locate his missing chin. Seriously.  Never in my life have a seen such a "chinless" person.  Too bad he doesn't live in Beverly Hills; he could've bought a chin and had it installed over lunch.

Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world.  Can we afford

another Libya?  Assad knows that Obama can't support a coup orchestrated by the U.S.-trained New Syrian Army.  It would be to much meddling for Obama to stomach, and would also infuriate Russia.  If the New Syrian Army defeats the Islamic State, they will probably make a play for control in Damascus.  However, Obama can't let that happen, and Assad is aware of this fact.  I expect that the New Syrian Army and the regular Syrian Army will actually be fighting side-by-side against the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, Khorasan, and all the other baddies.  Assad may offer blanket amnesty to the Syrian military officers who originally deserted to form the New Syrian Army.  When the time comes, Assad will have many Aces up his sleeve, and will have Vladimir Putin to watch his back.  It's not difficult to imagine Assad making amends with the leaders of the New Syrian Army, and presenting a fait accompli to the United States and its allies.  So from my optic, Assad is in the cat bird's seat.  The chair is a bit wobbly, though.  He needs to continue do everything possible to reconstitute his military, especially the Air Force.  I started this post pointing out the historic ties between the Russians and the Arabs, and I want to end it on a similar note.  Why is Putin so intent on keeping Assad in power?  Because Syria has a bit of land that serves as a coastline to the Mediterranean Sea.  Putin has visions of Russian Navy ships and, more importantly, submarines, having a home away from home in the Levant.  How the Obama Administration deals with this evolving situation will be a fascinating piece of the puzzle.

Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part II)

Link: The Crusades

The Birth Of Israel

Part II

How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations?  First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined.  From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians.  The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states.  No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy.  Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity.  Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel.  Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).

Herein lies the root of the issue.  The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel.  During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel.  If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States.  Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged.  Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation.  It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians.  Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel.  Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel.  Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace.  One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods.  I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime.  I'm not optimistic.  The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake.  I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized.  We can't even get to that point with these two.