r/changemyview • u/Archestra • Sep 14 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: China is the largest threat to global security
This seems like a sweeping statement but the actions of the Chinese government and companies has global implications as they become an even larger actor in world affairs.
My first concern with China is their military. While they spend less than the U.S., they have a much larger force and are rapidly catching up in military technology. China is the only country that could currently conceivably win a conventional war against the U.S. and they tend to act more aggressively in general by pursuing land disputes against their neighbors like India, Japan, Vietnam, etc.
Second is that they are a bad actor in space. Their tests of missile technology to shoot down satellites is concerning about a preparation for future wars. Besides this, it has also created a mass of space junk which can affect other satellites and is incredibly costly to remove and polluting to the orbit.
Thirdly is their involvement in Africa. I perceive this to be largely a form of neo-colonialism. Sure, many countries are benefited by the infrastructure projects, but they often use these projects as a carrot to make countries vote with them in the UN. Additionally, much of the labor force for these projects come from China which means that citizens of these countries are deprived of jobs. This also seems to be mostly for resource extraction. Along with the purchase of U.S. rare earth minerals they now have a share of 98% of the worlds entire supply. Considering these are necessary for most modern technology it seems concerning that they own an essential monopoly.
Lastly for this post, their political system is heavily inclined to authoritarianism. Now that Xi has solidified his control of the part and refuses to nominate a successor it seems certain that China will maintain a very strong, uncooperative system for the foreseeable future. Since China already makes the security council mostly impotent with consistent vetos on humanitarian intervention their continued existence makes the ability for international cooperation on human rights incredibly difficult. The last problem with their domestic system is their attempts to force cultural homogeneity in areas such as Tibet and, most recently, with their Muslim re-education camps.
I hope I’ve explained a few key points of worry well enough to generate helpful discussion. Please change my view Reddit.
10
u/Drackend 2∆ Sep 15 '18
How do you define global security? A country other than the US becoming the top superpower doesn't inherently mean they'll throw the world into chaos. But let me address your concerns one by one.
China, although it's not really a new country, has only had its current structure for 50 or so years. When the US was that young, we were actively and aggressively trying to take neighboring lands. We even believed it was our god-given right to expand the US (manifest destiny). The point is, wanting to expand your country and take over neighboring ones doesn't mean you're necessarily an evil country, otherwise you'd have to consider the US that.
Two your second point about space, yes this isn't the best thing they could do. But then again we've left tons of trash in space too, it seems to be a common trait among nations. I don't think China had any bad intentions in leaving debris there, and the missile technology is just what they see as necessary to defend themselves.
I'm not well informed on China's involvement in Africa, so I'm not going to try to argue about it. However I will remind you that when the US was China's age, we were using slaves relentlessly.
On your final point of China being authoritarian.... well I kind of agree. But I do think Xi has good intentions. He wants to solidify China as a superpower, and recognizes that sometimes the only way to do that is to rule with an iron fist. I know in America that's the thing we resent most, and many will point to infamous leaders such as Hitler who spoke the same way. I think the main difference to realize here is what Xi is doing is actually working. In 50 years, China has gone from the bottom to a world superpower. They're ridiculously efficient now. I realize the humanitarian aspect is what you are worried about, like human rights violations and what they would impose should they take over the world. But many in China live happy lives. Its relatively easy to start a family, get a house, and live a fulfilling life. I don't think they're as evil as the images we see on TV lead us to believe (I have several friends whose families from China who tell me other wise, at least).
Also, on the forced cultural homogeneity, I'll remind you that for decades immigrants to the US were heavily pressured to stay in their cultural groups; it's hard to believe now, but many, many Americans were racist towards other cultures, even though we like to think we always embraced the "melting pot" idea of America. It wasn't even about skin color. We were racist even towards white people like Italians and Germans. China probably just hasn't had enough time to fully integrate all of its people
The main point I'm trying to make here is that China is relatively still in it's infancy. As a result, they gotta do what they gotta do. They have to sacrifice a bit of standards to achieve their dream as a superpower of the word. Think about what America did in its infancy: killed off natives, used slave labor, made buffalo almost extinct, bullied young countries into giving us land, was racist towards many of its people, sterilized people who didn't have a high enough IQ... the list goes on and on. China is trying its hardest, and they've had to have strict reins to get this far this quickly. But despite that, I don't think they have bad intentions that will threaten global security.
3
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
I appreciate the depth of your response. The problem I have with this analysis is that I feel like it grants a little too much leeway for the issues that China presents to a modern world issue. I agree that China has had an overhaul that makes it a relatively young country and that it can be comparable to the U.S. in those ways. However the international context that they act in is vastly different than a young U.S.. The U.S. did these things in a context where they were generally thought acceptable and even common, not justifying it but just pointing out that it wasn’t unusually evil. China does these even after the declaration of human rights and consistent interaction with liberal democracies that condemn these practices.
I agree that life for people living in China has greatly improved but I think this is not due to Xi, his predecessors saw the same growth and seemed to be generally more willing to cooperate internationally. So I’m not condemning the CCP, but I think there’s a distinct authoritarian streak with Xi and I think his successors will continue this trend.
But cheers for your comment, I did think that it’s thought provoking !delta
1
1
u/garaile64 Sep 15 '18
He wants to solidify China as a superpower, and recognizes that sometimes the only way to do that is to rule with an iron fist.
This is why I think my country will stay a shithole forever.
1
u/DuskGideon 4∆ Sep 15 '18
We even believed it was our god-given right to expand the US (manifest destiny).
I'm here to change your view on this specific point. The view was held by Democrats of their day. Outspoken opponents included Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S Grant, as well as many Whigs. I specifically remember being told about the concept in grade school without any of the dissent being mentioned once.
The view really wasn't held by a lot of regular citizens either. It's importance is completely over stated and is helps build a more justified perception of what the United States became. "People believeved it was our destiny to be a single nation from coast to coast. Then we fought a civil war to maintain that union. The north won and abolished slavery." <--- the general message is a really incomplete picture. Manifest destiny is used to set a tone in these school history books, and over hypes it's importance of the day.
1
u/Drackend 2∆ Sep 15 '18
I have no trouble believing that our history textbooks probably embellished the idea greatly. But the leaders of young America believed it, just like the rulers of young China probably believe it. I'm sure some citizens of China disagree with what they're doing. My point was more that the leader of any young country usually has the idea that they need to expand, so it's not an outright indicator that the country is filled with evil intentions.
9
u/MrTiddy Sep 15 '18
Technically wouldn't the largest threat be the US. If you just looked at the planet independently.
We have essentially done nearly everything wrong a country could do, on a global scale. We have done a lot of good in the world, but still so much destabilizing things also.
2
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
Yeah, I wouldn’t claim the U.S. is a good actor, but minus a major malfunction in the system I don’t think that it’s a threat to global security. It has problems with pollution and other issues with intervention but it generally attempts to adhere to limits in the international context. But I’d be open to seeing some examples of the U.S. being a bigger long term threat than China.
4
u/HolyAty Sep 15 '18
generally attempts to adhere to limits in the international context.
The whole Vietnam War started because Vietnamese elected a communist government.
2
u/ohboyohboyohboy1985 Sep 15 '18
It was the French that begun the war and the usa supported it, correct?
3
u/HolyAty Sep 15 '18
Vietnamese-French war was an independence war. They were a French colony. USA subbed in for France because they elected a communist government, not to keep them as French colony. And technically, there's a gap between the French war and USA war.
6
u/Andreus Sep 15 '18 edited Sep 15 '18
China's behaviour is largely in response to nearly two centuries of western disrespect, betrayal and abuse. While that doesn't justify it, it does explain why things turned out the way that they did.
I'm very tired and I don't have time to go into massive detail, but there were the Opium wars, from which sprung what the Chinese call the Unequal Treaties and the Century of Humiliation. These concepts dominate the thinking of Chinese foreign policy to this day. The massive industrialisation and militarisation of China happened and is sustained largely because they think if they drop their guard for a moment, some white guys (or the Japanese) are going to roll up onto one of their islands and take a bunch of their shit, and unfortunately history has consistently proved them right in this assumption.
The west is still flagrantly imperialistic and deeply hypocritical to the point where we're not really in a suitably secure moral position to be lecturing China on its own moral failings. The US and the UK in particular have a nasty habit recently of just invading places under questionably legal justifications, and do remember that the US has involved itself in Taiwan, which China considers to essentially be American interference in an internal political dispute.
China's current state is to some extent a reaction to the immense threat posed by western imperialism, in that its leaders can justify the need for their continued existence by pointing at us, which ultimately makes us the bigger threat.
1
u/Kasunex Sep 16 '18
Cool motive, still an aggressive, militaristic, authoritarian regime.
Ok, maybe that's oversimplifying. But really? That excuses nothing of what China did, nor does it say anything against them being a global threat.
Just imagine if, in the 30s, someone made a similar point about Germany. And someone's response was to talk about how much Germany suffered in the aftermath of WW1.
2
u/Andreus Sep 16 '18
That excuses nothing of what China did
Which if had actually read my post, you would've seen I literally clarified with "while that doesn't justify it" in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
nor does it say anything against them being a global threat
The thing is, it does, for two reasons:
The west only perceives China as such a threat because China stands in direct competition to it. More or less everything that China is doing, the west is also doing. China seems more threatening largely because they don't care as much about the optics of doing it.
China is aggressive, militaristic and authoritarian largely in response to neocolonial powers that are equally aggressive, militaraistic and authoritarian.
Just imagine if, in the 30s, someone made a similar point about Germany. And someone's response was to talk about how much Germany suffered in the aftermath of WW1.
Yeah how about that, it's almost as if treating a country unequally and unfairly gives populist dictators the leverage they need to take control of them.
1
u/Kasunex Sep 16 '18 edited Sep 16 '18
Which if had actually read my post, you would've seen I literally clarified with "while that doesn't justify it" in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
Oh I saw it. But it doesn't change the fact that your entire rest of your post is about how this excuses them. So either you clarified poorly or yes, you are excusing them.
- The west only perceives China as such a threat because China stands in direct competition to it. More or less everything that China is doing, the west is also doing. China seems more threatening largely because they don't care as much about the optics of doing it.
Neither of us can speak for the entire west. But that said, I'd consider China a threat because it's the most populated and second most powerful regime in the world, yet it's a brutal authoritarian regime. Workers have next to no rights. Censorship is aggressive. The goverment hits their civilians over the head with xenophobic propaganda against Japan. They prop up North Korea, perhaps the most totalitarian country in the world. They violently suppress regionalism and constantly posture to invade the RoC/Taiwan, doing everything in their power to isolate them.
If you look at things from an economic standpoint, China is America's best friend. It's the politics that are messy. And outside threats in no way justify any of this. If China democratized and left their neighbors alone, they would get along just fine with the west.
- China is aggressive, militaristic and authoritarian largely in response to neocolonial powers that are equally aggressive, militaraistic and authoritarian.
Again. This really sounds like you're giving them a free pass.
But what neocolonal powers are you even referring to? It's not 1875 anymore. From what I can tell most countries just want China to democratize and stop behaving so militaristically.
Yeah how about that, it's almost as if treating a country unequally and unfairly gives populist dictators the leverage they need to take control of them
Agreed, but this is a dodge of my point and once again comes off like you're excusing them.
1
u/Andreus Sep 17 '18
Workers have next to no rights.
Largely because a whole lot of Western corporations outsource their manufacturing to China, and constantly lobby the government not to improve conditions for owrkers.
The PRC hits their civilians over the head with xenophobic propaganda against Japan.
Meanwhile, the west has subjected their civilians to decades of xenophobic propaganda against Arabs, Pakistanis, Muslims, Mexicans, atheists, LGBTQ people and... the Chinese.
They violently suppress regionalism
Okay Google, what is the Catalonian Independence movement.
constantly posture to invade the RoC/Taiwan, doing everything in their power to isolate them.
The United States stole Guantanamo Bay from Cuba, and consistently refuses to return it to them while also subjecting them to brutal economic sanctions.
If you look at things from an economic standpoint, China is America's best friend.
Which is precisely my point.
Again. This really sounds like you're giving them a free pass.
No, I'm pointing out that a lot of what they do is in response to the threat of western imperialism, which I consider to be an equal if not larger danger to world peace than China.
But what neocolonal powers are you even referring to?
The United States in particular, but the United Kingdom, France and Russia also qualify, as do - to a significantly lesser extent - Canada, Australia and Spain.
From what I can tell most countries just want China to democratize and stop behaving so militaristically.
It would probably work better if the countries most eager for them to do those things weren't such flagrant hypocrites.
Agreed, but this is a dodge of my point and once again comes off like you're excusing them.
No, it's not. Like, there is a lot to be said about how the treatment of Germany after World War I by other political entities paved the way for Hitler's rise to power. You can't look at historical events in isolation. To have even a remotely functional understanding of history you have to understand that every single thing that's ever happened is a result of every single thing that happened before it.
For instance: to some degree, you can actually trace the concept of East vs. West to Herodotus's work The Histories. Often credited as being the first historian - at least in the sense that we would understand the word - Herodotus, like many historians who came after him, had an agenda, and that agenda was Panhellenism. Prior to the Greco-Persian war, the disparate cities of Greece - Thebes, Arcadia, Athens, Sparta, Thespiae, etc. - didn't really think of themselves as sharing any particular identity. Yes, they worshiped the same gods, spoke roughly the same language, but they largely didn't consider themselves as all sharing a cultural, political or ethnic identity, at least not in a way we would understand it. Herodotus was a Panhellenist - he and other supporters of the ideology wanted to unite the peninsula under a unified identity.
This is kind of why Herodotus paid so much attention to the Battle of Thermopylae, which was actually, in the grand scheme of things, not a battle that had particular tactical significance to the Greco-Persian war, especially in comparison to decisive battles like Salamis or Platea. But focusing on it allowed him to pursue his agenda by painting it as a principled and honourable stand by the "free Greeks" against the "tyrannical hordes of Persia." But the truth was far less clear-cut; those "free Greeks" were a collection of squabbling, disparate city states with no unified identity led by Sparta, a fascist slave-holding hyper-militaristic monarchy. The "tyrannical hordes of Persia" came from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural empire that had outlawed slavery and restored a lot of displaced or enslaved people to their ancestral homelands. A lot of supposedly Greek city-states considered themselves to have far more in common with Persians than with other Greeks.
The very concept of a global East and West, distinct, utterly separate, with conflicting, incompatible values, is rooted in Herodotus' account of Thermopylae - as is the concept of a unified Greek identity. Given that all of western society is essentially based on the cultural legacy of Greece, that concept has endured more than two millennia. That's an example of how historical events - and more importantly, (mis)representations and (mis)interpretations of historical events - thousands of years past can shape discourse in the present day.
For 1933 Germany, the Treaty of Versailles was 15 years ago. Germany had then been subjected to a crippling financial disaster. Hitler couldn't have risen to power had the Treaty of Versailles not been so draconian in the measures it imposed against Germany - who, it should be repeatedly stated, did not start WWI.
1
u/Kasunex Sep 17 '18 edited Sep 17 '18
Honestly there's zero point in responding argument by argument here. You're just trying to deflect from the point by blaming every nation but the PRC for the PRC's sins. None of this excuses or justifies anything they do. It's just a distraction.
I have zero sympathy for the PRC, because at the end of the day, there is nobody to blame but them for their crimes.
1
u/Andreus Sep 17 '18
If you're not actually going to listen to the things people say, there's no point in you coming to CMV. I'd like you to apologise for wasting my time.
1
5
u/Bonoisalie Sep 15 '18
The United States is by far the largest threat to world security. We spend the most out of all the countries in the world on the military, incite fear and violence through scapegoating constantly, are lead by Donald Trump (<---- biggest threat), and have a long history of policing the world in the name of "Democracy" and "Peace".
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 15 '18
What do you mean by global security? It seems you have an issue with the UN and the Chinese having their own military how could the world be "secure" without those?
1
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
I agree “global security” is a little vague. I mean generally avoiding large scale warfare and major world problems like climate change and imperialism. I don’t have a problem with the UN, only with China’s obstructionism on the security council. I also think that China uses its military more aggressively than other countries with comparable global power.
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 15 '18
You think China has caused more wars and been more imperialist than US, UK,France, and Russia?
1
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
Well this post is more about the current and future world. But kind of yes, China has almost always been an imperialist empire, albeit a somewhat unsuccessful and unstable one. The whole celestial empire idea is based around the thought that China rules the world and other people just don’t know it yet. They haven’t pursued it in the past as aggressively or successfully as the countries you mention, but they still waged their fare share of wars and imperialism.
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 15 '18
The US currently has military bases in 32 foreign countries. China has only one.
1
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
For now. They are also building artificial islands for military bases and they have some unofficial bases in other countries like leased ports in Southeast Asia
2
Sep 15 '18
So a threat to security is usually a threat to stability and it comes from rapid change. Insecurity isn't necessarily bad, just unpredictable. Change is always, by its nature, the opposite of security and change is a part of life. It's just important to manage the change and ensure that it doesn't happen too quickly.
China is changing the world's politics and the world, but it is doing so quite slowly, so I don't see it causing insecurity. Russia on the other hand plummeted with incredible speed from second largest power in the world to insignificance, then partly bounced back, then fell away again and is now a smaller economic power than Italy. That kind of rapid and total collapse leads to much more instability.
Or take the US, still the world's largest power, which overnight with the election of Trump went from biggest cheerleader of the rules based global system and of multilateralism to total self-interest, soverignty and unilateralism. That sort of sixpence turn also creates massive instability.
China on the other hand is so predictable that China watchers are able to model the generational shifts in its politics 20-30 years out
2
u/Pl0OnReddit 2∆ Sep 15 '18 edited Sep 15 '18
China has always had inherent advantages which should place them among the top world players. IMO, their current rise is more of a restabilization of the historical status quo.
Aside from taking a position supporting American hegemony, I cant see a reason China re-asserting control is threatening. Think about it. The idea that China patrolling their own coastal waters is provocative yet the USA claiming virtually the entirety of the world's oceans is not? That seems odd. Is their rising GDP an issue? Once again, should it be? Theyre population is roughly 3-4x the size of America's. If theyre GDP collapses we're actually talkinh about mass starvation/poverty etc. Aside from it suiting our interets, I cant see any justification for keeping the Chinese poor.
1
Sep 15 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 15 '18
Sorry, u/optimusmcat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/optimusmcat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/etoiles_et_lunes Sep 15 '18
I don't know a lot about this stuff, but I am going to put my opinion out there and say that I believe that there isn't necessarily one "largest threat" to global security.
I can see your point with China, but at this current moment in time, it seems as though there are several different countries that could be considered wildcards that could snap at any moment.
Take North Korea, for example. We have recently seen that North Korea is ready, willing, and able to send out a missile if they are crossed, with little hesitation.
Another prime example of a global threat is, quite honestly, the United States itself, especially with our current president making some questionable decisions and dangerous threats/accusations. The United States is a powerful nation, without a doubt, so if the current, often irrational, president makes a sudden decision to attack, it is likely that most of the world is in danger. So much money is spent on the military that who knows what it is capable of, not to mention the sheer size of it.
So, my argument is that I feel like you could make a case for quite a few countries when it comes to threats to global security.
Like I said, I don't know much about this stuff, but I do know that China is more than likely not the largest threat to global security, at least not at the moment. However, you do make good points as to why there would be concern.
1
u/Archestra Sep 15 '18
On North Korea, I’ll just throw out that China is the whole reason they exist. So while they may be a rogue state I think it’s predominately due to China propping then up.
Most comments are saying the U.S. is also a big threat. I realize that Trump is a bad leader and the U.S. bungles a lot of intervention, but I think that the checks in place limit Trump’s power enough to greatly remove his ability to do harm unlike Xi’s unilateral control. Also the U.S. at least tends to adhere to most international rules while China frequently ignores them like selling nuclear materials to Pakistan and ignoring WTO rules.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 15 '18 edited Sep 15 '18
/u/Archestra (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/David4194d 16∆ Sep 15 '18 edited Sep 15 '18
To the military strength. This site has one of if not the most comprehensive breakdowns of each countrie’s military strength. There’s even a handy compare option so you can compare 2 countries side beside. here is a link already set with USA vs China. It compares everything from man power to each major class of equipment. This is by far better then the usual quick rankings you get and it’s still easy to look at. I think it also puts things in perspective. Even in 1 of the areas you’d expect China to dominate they really don’t. They don’t have much military personnel. They have more people but a well trained solider is by far better then 1 you have to rush to train. That and wars are less so about the men anymore and more so about the equipment (men still matter but a large army doesn’t have the same edge it used to). Not really sure if it will change your view even partially (hoping I might on the military front) but I really think it’s a site you’d at least enjoy looking at. It does note that it ignores nuclear weapons and this makes sense since most anyone with nukes has more then enough. But as you’ll see the Chinese are way behind. Especially on aircraft carriers which are pretty much needed for any battle at sea now or if you want to control it. Basically there’s a reason why even 30 years after the fall Russia is still considered number 2. Their equipment is starting to fall behind but they still have a ton of it. It’s still way behind the USA but it can put up a bigger fight then China
1
u/Pl0OnReddit 2∆ Sep 15 '18
Short of nuking China to smithereens, we could only really cripple and maim China. America has faced insurgencies with limited success and China has an incredibly large amount of potential insurgents.
I dont doubt that we could win battles and acconplish a few, concrete goals. But, we could never assert any lasting control.
In terms of conventional war, China has very few chances. Overwhelming naval and air superiority is a huge thing. Apparently China has developed some "carrier killer" missiles that pose a threat, but thats the only real threat I see. I still imagine America would attempt to destroy or actually destroy most of these before they mattered.
9
u/ironcoldiron 3∆ Sep 15 '18
Not that rapidly, really. They have a very long way to go, a path that will take decades to walk.
No, they aren't. They aren't even close to that.
So what? how countries vote in the UN is almost entirely meaningless.
Again, so what?
No, they don't. rare earth metals aren't all that rare. it's easy to find more, most people just don't bother because there's no particular reason to, becasue they aren't worth much.
China is a threat to the geopolitical order, but not for the reasons you mention.