G.Chang:China Preparing for War

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Chinese-American business lawyer, author, and columnist Gordon G. Chang has worked and networked in China for decades, providing business and policy insight based on gound-level data and personal relationships.

A recent essay published by Chang states that China appears to be preparing for active hostilities, based on his observations as well as those of his network of Chinese sources, as the following brief excerpts describe:

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/china-is-preparing-to-go…

Last month, a Chinese entrepreneur making medical equipment for consumers told me that local officials had demanded he convert his production lines in China so that they could turn out items for the military. Communist Party cadres, he said, were issuing similar orders to other manufacturers.

Moreover, Chinese academics privately say the ongoing expulsion of foreign colleagues from China’s universities appears to be a preparation for hostilities… [T]he CMC, the Communist Party’s Central Military Commission… is now formally in charge of making national defense policy…

Richard Fisher of the Virginia-based International Assessment and Strategy Center told me…
“For the past 40 years, China’s Communist Party has been preparing for brutal war, and now the ruling organization is accelerating its plans.”

The Party, as it readies itself for combat… issued an internal directive prohibiting… ministerial-level officials [and their families] from owning foreign real estate or shares registered offshore… there are reports of their selling foreign assets…

The directive, issued soon after the imposition of sanctions on Russian officials for the “special military operation” in Ukraine, appears designed to sanction-proof Chinese officials.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/china-is-preparing-to-go…

In contrast to the often short-term focus of US policymakers, China’s authoritarian leadership is famous for long-term strategic planning. Against this long-term backdrop, the linked article describes a number of Chinese activities and policy adjustments that together paint a picture of a nation preparing for imminent military conflict.

I sincerely hope that China’s recent mobilization represents mere preparation or posturing and does not indicate an imminent confrontation involving Taiwan or US allies. Chang’s essay reminds us not to be lulled into a false sense of security based solely on the fact that China would be hurting itself if the CMC were to open hostilities against Taiwan.

So long as the Russia-Ukraine war rages, the US and our European allies will continue pouring money into a proxy war on the European front. The opening of a proxy war on another front in Asia could become problematic both economically and militarily.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proves that countries do not always act in their own best interest. The same may be said about the actions of Americans whose Taiwan visits have been condemned by the Chinese government. We all stand to benefit if China determines that restraint is in its best interest.

13 Likes
2

The heart of this war is internal. It may have outward expressions but repressing the Chinese public is the goal. The communists are in trouble. The water is running out.

Foreign interests are being told to leave to make sure resources are shored up as much as possible.

Military gear etc can keep production going and protect the party.

Several of the rivers have flooded since some of these reports came out. The Yantze has not so far. Industrial production is reduced as a result.


The last link really demonstrates things well.

Yellow River drought
In recent years, a lack of water has once again reawakened the anxiety caused by droughts, attracting the attention of Chinese policymakers and the Chinese media. In 18 out of the past 26 summers the Yellow River has run dry further and further upstream for longer and longer periods of time.

Is the Yangtze River Drying Up?
Rainfall in the Yangtze River basin area also declined by roughly 45% compared to the average in recent years, according to data from the Ministry of Water Resources. As many as 66 rivers across 34 counties in the southwestern region of Chongqing have dried up, according to the state broadcaster CCTV.2 days ago

The U.S. is losing about 1 billion cubic meters of water a year, and China is losing 35 billion cubic meters of water a year, and they've been doing so since 2000.

Why does China have no water?
China is forced to divert water from comparatively wet regions to the drought-plagued north; experts assess that the country loses well over $100 billion annually as a result of water scarcity. Shortages and unsustainable agriculture are causing the desertification of large chunks of land.Dec 29, 2021

Which country uses the most water?
Image result
10 Countries That Use the Most Water
China – 362 trillion gallons.
United States – 216 trillion gallons.
Brazil – 95 trillion gallons.
Russia – 71 trillion gallons.
Mexico – 53 trillion gallons.
India – 30 trillion gallons.
England – 20 trillion gallons.
France – 20 trillion gallons.

[https://english.news.cn/20220806/ac789e95d472466b995e9417523...](https://english.news.cn/20220806/ac789e95d472466b995e94175231e53f/c.html)
BEIJING, Aug. 5 (Xinhua) -- China's Ministry of Water Resources warned on Friday of possible flooding in the country's major river basins in the first half of August.

During this period, floods are expected in certain reaches and tributaries in the basins of the Songhua River, Liaohe River, Haihe River, Yellow River and Pearl River, according to the ministry.

Meanwhile, most areas in the Yangtze River basin will experience drought with high temperatures and low precipitation.
(note there now are some deadly floods happening)

[https://phys.org/news/2022-08-climate-faulty-rainfall-china-...](https://phys.org/news/2022-08-climate-faulty-rainfall-china-breadbasket.html)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266668392...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683920300201)

[https://china.usc.edu/running-out-water](https://china.usc.edu/running-out-water)
3 Likes
3

China’s major financial problems date to their responses, during the global meltdown of a decade ago, which financially saved most of the pain and landed them in an advantageous position when the world recovered.

Responding to those problems quickly has been made impossible by their attitude towards COVID-19. While the US and Europe have decided to abandon most attempts at mitigation and simply recommend (rather than mandate) vaccines, China has decided to protect its population from infection, regardless of the cost or inconvenience. Until China addresses this difficulty by either mandating more effective vaccines or opening the valve on the disease wider, there will be increased pressure for them to protect their political interests militarily.

Jeff

1 Like
4

Interesting that none of the first three posts in this thread are mutually exclusive, but complementary.

Seems to me that all are roughly right. The only unifying theme is the time-honored “When Threatened, Wave The Flag”

—sutton

1 Like
5

…intergalactic space beasts from the planet Xeenu…

busy little beast are they
Apparently, discussing china and war is verboten.

6

“When Threatened, Wave The Flag”

What none of us have done (myself included) was put ourselves into the shoes of the Chinese leadership.

Our assumption is that Taiwan belongs to us under the premise promoted for decades by the rulers there that there was only “One China” and all that was left was to have the legitimate government returned to power. As the clearly legitimate government (under the possession is 99% of the law rule) of the vast majority of both the land of China and its population, this is a non-negotiable position.

First, despite their trashing of any sort of pan-Pacific trade relationship, the discussions of Taiwan as an independent nation, as well as their supporting the internationalization of the Formosa Strait by the previous US administration was bothersome. But the current US administration has been more vocal (at the top) of considering Taiwan to be a separate entity from China and the rare (not unprecedented as it happened once before, in 1997, when Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) also visited) gave the perception that the US was negotiating directly with Taiwan.

So China showed two things:

First, their ability to basically do anything they wanted to militarily when it came to Taiwan - blockades, flyovers, invasions - whatever.

Secondly, China demonstrated its great restraint by allowing Taiwan to remain an autonomous part of China despite the overt interference from a hostile power (the US).

So it’s clear that China is willing to let the status quo continue as long as the US does not unacceptably rock the boat, but if we cause them too much angst, they can act with near impunity when it comes to physically invading Taiwan as long as they do not provide an existential threat to US territory. It’s strictly a math equation which determines how much an invasion would cost in money and lost trade (manpower being meaningless) vs. what the current compromise of their sovereignty over the island is costing them. They will not allow that to cost them the island.

Jeff

6 Likes
7

I find it interesting that when we see military preparations in China, many immediately assume they are offensive preparations. That China is preparing to invade someone.

But these are the same preparations a country would make if they were concerned about being the one invaded. Stockpile supplies. Reduce foreign ties to reduce the chance of not just economic sanctions, but of leakage of intelligence information.

If Chinese leadership is thinking about the long term, as is suggested (and I generally agree with), then shoring up defenses makes sense. Particularly when a country you share a border with has recently invaded a different one of their neighbors. And another country somewhat further away has sent two rather high ranking delegations to a territory you claim.

—Peter

5 Likes
8

Jeff,

The China’s mandatory vaccines? Well the Sinovac vaccine was not very good. I do not know how bad. I had a good friend, a Turkish diplomat, who took the Sinovac and died a miserable death in an ICU. He was the only person in my circles that I know of dying. I get I am lucky in this regard.

9

I sincerely hope that China’s recent mobilization represents mere preparation or posturing

I doubt that. I have the feeling that Xi Jinping would like to conquer Taiwan in the next two or three years.

1 Like
10

But these are the same preparations a country would make if they were concerned about being the one invaded.

Peter, do you REALLY think that this possibility is credible?!

Invasion from the same Russia which has performed so poorly in Ukraine? The same Russia that is now recruiting convicts to replace battlefield losses, etc., etc.

And to infer that visits from US congress critters somehow threatens China with an “invasion” of Taiwan is ludicrous.

The only folks I know talking “invasion” regarding any part of China and/or Taiwan is the Chinese.

Think Occam’s Razor! :wink:

Cheers!
Murph
(you know, the “razor” driven by Chinese demographics and the worsening political situation for the leadership; therefore “wave the flag and the dog”)

5 Likes
11

Peter, do you REALLY think that this possibility is credible?!

Yes, I do.

We in the west have a long history of misunderstanding eastern thought and philosophy. We see an action and assign what would be our own motivations to that action.

I’m reminded of a Star Trek episode (the original series from the 1960s) where an alien race - the Binars - take over the Enterprise to save their planet. Once they successfully do so, the two Binars who took over the ship surrendered themselves for punishment. When asked why they did so when Kirk had already expressed a willingness to help, they explained, “You might have said no.”

That version of Star Trek was pretty big on social commentary, and this episode was no exception. We get into a lot of problems simply because we don’t try to put ourselves in the position of the other party, we don’t try to understand them.

So, yes, I absolutely think my explanation is credible. Am I certain it is correct? No. But neither am I certain that the Chinese actions are preparations for an attack. It is entirely plausible that they are defensive preparations rather than offensive preparations.

—Peter

2 Likes
12

Peter, I have been a Star Trek fan from Day 1, and understand your point.

Is your point “possible”? Yes.

Is it probable? No,

Is it “credible”

"cred·i·ble
['kred?b(?)l]

ADJECTIVE
able to be believed; convincing:
“few people found his story credible” · [more]
synonyms:
acceptable · trustworthy · reliable · dependable · sure · good · valid · feasible · viable · tenable · sustainable · maintainable"

Not the way I read it.

But that’s what make a market of ideas: differences.

Cheers!
Murph

13

I’m reminded of a Star Trek episode (the original series from the 1960s) where an alien race - the Binars - take over the Enterprise to save their planet.

It was a Next Generation episode (“11001001”), not the original series.

2 Likes
14

Peter, I have been a Star Trek fan from Day 1, and understand your point.

First off, I have to admit to an error (which I believe has already been caught down thread from your post.) After some further reflection after writing my post (basically re-running the episode in my mind for the entertainment value), I became pretty certain that Riker was the one with a breakthrough understanding of the Binars. And that would make it a Next Generation episode, not the original series. But there are multiple levels of fandom, and my level is one where these kinds of mix ups happen. Definitely not the level of having multiple homemade costumes in my closet and an encyclopedic recall of episodes.

As to understanding the point, I’m not sure you do. I feel like you are dismissing the possibility without seriously considering it.

China has existed as a country for thousands of years, not the mere couple hundred that the US has. Maintaining that kind of longevity takes a confluence of multiple things. Among those is a deep, visceral understanding of actions that pose an existential risk to your country. It involves knowing your enemies as well as you know yourself.

There is a time to go on the offensive, and there is a time to be defensive. This is not a time for China to go on offense. What risks would China face right now if they were to attack some other country - or even Taiwan, which they claim as their own?

As they have witnessed first hand with Russia, the world would be pretty quick to impose economic sanctions on China. Much of China’s economic growth over the last several decades has been from their exports. In some ways, they have been the world’s manufacturer. Yes, that position is at risk from other developing economies with even cheaper labor and looser protections. But exports are still important to China. They would risk having their exports dramatically cut if they offensively attacked pretty much anyone - even people they see as their own citizens.

Another risk is the military risk. China was also watching - and staying well out of the way - while the US and USSR pursued policies of mutually assured destruction. Had either of those countries slipped in any way with their nuclear arsenals, a complete and mutual unloading of the weapons from both sides was the stated policy. Such an event would destroy not only both the US and the USSR, but likely much of the world as well.

While those tensions have been significantly reduced over the last couple of decades, much of the weaponry still exists. If China were to invade, a potential - although unlikely - outcome would be the unleashing of massive numbers of nuclear weapons. China knows that the US has plenty of those weapons. China also knows that the rest of the world is aware of at least some part of China’s nuclear weaponry. Yes, they are quite secretive, but it’s pretty much impossible to keep basic nuclear capabilities under wraps at all. Tests of both the payloads and the delivery systems are obvious to the whole world.

The point of this bit of rambling is that an offensive strike by China could actually pose an existential military risk to China. Both the US and Russia have the weaponry to quite literally remove China from the map. And both countries have - in the not to distant past - stated their willingness to use those weapons to keep others from winning. They have been willing to destroy themselves, and much of the world, to stop the other side from being victorious. Dragging in another entertainment quote - this time from James Bond - “That’s Détente, Comrade; You don’t have it, I don’t have it.”

But perhaps there is a better quote from the same movie (which I stumbled on while searching for this quote to make sure I got it right) - again spoken by Bond: The Chinese have a saying: “When setting out on revenge, you first dig two graves”.

China has no interest in digging their own grave. They simply have no good reason to attack anyone. Certainly no reason good enough to put their economic or physical existence at risk. Therefore, any military preparations would almost certainly be to defend against what they perceive as a potential for being attacked.

–Peter

4 Likes
15

It was a Next Generation episode (“11001001”), not the original series.

Quite correct. In reminiscing a bit more after posting, I realized that it was Riker who had an important insight to the Binars. (They always work in pairs - we need to work together.)

–Peter

16

China has no interest in digging their own grave. They simply have no good reason to attack anyone. Certainly no reason good enough to put their economic or physical existence at risk. Therefore, any military preparations would almost certainly be to defend against what they perceive as a potential for being attacked.

Quite a ramble in order to justify your stance.

Suffice it to say that history is littered with such arguments about why a given country would never attack. Does your definition of “Anyone” include Taiwan?

I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong.

The idea that the actions China showed the world around Taiwan was just a bluff, and that they what they are really doing is preparing defenses for the likes of a Russian or US attack (your original premise) is far-fetched.

Now, you can have the last word, since I tried closure once before ( differences are what makes the market of ideas), and that seems important to you.

Cheers!
Murph

1 Like
17

Now, you can have the last word, since I tried closure once before ( differences are what makes the market of ideas), and that seems important to you.

I don’t really want to, but you mis-stated my position, and that is important to me. (You also asked me a question, which begs a response. But I won’t respond to that because I already answered that one.)

I also am attuned to presumptive closes, and really hate them. This is a presumptive close. Your attempt to shut off further discussion to give yourself the last word by claiming the moral high ground is noted.

The idea that the actions China showed the world around Taiwan was just a bluff, and that they what they are really doing is preparing defenses for the likes of a Russian or US attack (your original premise) is far-fetched.

I agree that a Russian or US attack on China is highly unlikely. I believe I said that in an earlier response. But that is not the issue.

The issue is the Chinese perception of the risk of such an attack. And if they think an attack is at least possible, their deep-seated desire to protect their country and their way of life almost requires them to make some preparations.

Those preparations serve two purposes. One is the obvious benefit of being prepared. The other is to serve as a deterrent to an attack.

These preparations are not being done in secret. They are being done openly and in such a way that foreign reports - like the one at the top of the thread - can see and report on the preparations. They actually want the world to know of the military preparations. That is how the deterrence happens.

Again, it is entirely irrelevant that no one is preparing to attack them. They are attempting to keep others from even thinking about attacking.

Look at it from China’s perspective. Russia has attacked someone else. What is to prevent them from attacking us? They have certainly shown the willingness, and they have the belief that their military is up to the task of invading people. So let’s make ourselves look less attractive as a target.

As to the US, well they just sent a high level diplomatic delegation to one of our provinces without arranging the visit through us. That is a provocative move, ignoring our claims on this territory. Are they arranging a way for that province to break away from us? Who knows what they might be up to in these meetings where we have no official presence? [wink, wink, nudge, nudge - of course we have a presence, but they are somewhat undercover. They have already reported back to us.]

The point here is that we need to understand what the Chinese are thinking, not just what we are thinking. Dismissing the threats as far-fetched is failing to consider the Chinese point of view. They may be far-fetched to us, but are not as far-fetched to the Chinese leadership.

–Peter

PS
Quite a ramble in order to justify your stance.

  1. This isn’t Twitter. Fortunately. Complex issues need longer discussions, not sound bites.

b. I’m not justifying a stance. I’m arguing for a position.

iii. I believe lists require a minimum of three entries to be a list. So here is the third entry in this list.

fourth. Pants

13 Likes
18

Suffice it to say that history is littered with such arguments about why a given country would never attack. Does your definition of “Anyone” include Taiwan?

I’ve been reading a lot about the Ukraine war lately. Completely unbeknownst to me, and apparently most people in the West, some Russian political scientists have been saying for years that a war in Ukraine was inevitable.

To me, and I believe most people, Putin invading Ukraine made no sense. That’s because I don’t know how Putin and most Russians think. But in the thinking of a large number of Russians and Putin himself, it made compete sense. What seems crazy to us seems perfectly rational to them.

Which brings us to China and Taiwan. If you laid out the pros and cons, no it doesn’t make any sense for China to invade. But we don’t really know how China itself is thinking about this issue. It could be the case that China’s actions are defensive. But we have to assume we don’t know for certain.

I will again recommend Barbara Tuchman’s classic the Guns of August, about the start of WWI. It is a story of what happens when cooler heads don’t prevail against motivated reasoning. Kennedy made it required reading during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I hope the Chinese General Staff has it on their reading lists as well.

https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Outbreak-Tuchmans-Nonfi…

2 Likes
19

“When setting out on revenge, you first dig two graves”.

More important, unlike Russia and US, Chinese generals don’t have any recent experience at fighting and perhaps losing a major war. The cost of the lessons can be very high?

Anymouse

2 Likes
20

To me, and I believe most people, Putin invading Ukraine made no sense. That’s because I don’t know how Putin and most Russians think. But in the thinking of a large number of Russians and Putin himself, it made compete sense. What seems crazy to us seems perfectly rational to them.
Which brings us to China and Taiwan. If you laid out the pros and cons, no it doesn’t make any sense for China to invade. But we don’t really know how China itself is thinking about this issue. It could be the case that China’s actions are defensive. But we have to assume we don’t know for certain.
I will again recommend Barbara Tuchman’s classic the Guns of August,

I’ll take it a step further: every single war in human history start out with a miscalculation by one side or the other. Wars are two things: expensive - and unpredictable. A superpower nation couldn’t defeat a bunch of rag tag insurgents? (I’m talking, of course, about Britain and the colonies. Or maybe the US and Vietnam. Or perhaps Russia and Afghanistan. Or maybe Rome and the barbarians.)

Q: Who decided an island nation, devoid of resources, could take on the US in 1940? A: The militarists in Japan. What were they thinking? While it’s hard to put oneself in their mindset, with a knowledge of Japan in the 1930’s (almost as interesting as Germany in he 1930’s) and walking apace through the decade you can suss out how it happened even if you are sure at every step that it was madness.

I believe China (and particularly, but hardly exclusively Xi) views Taiwan as Chinese, and I also believe he intends to return it to heritage status. I don’t know how or when, but I’d bet it’s in my lifetime, and I don’t have a lot of that left. It won’t be pretty, because it will be politically unpalatable for us to cut and run, but then I have little expectation of being able to win given the vast difference in distance for logistics between that island and he US vs that island and the mainland. Not to mention personnel available to fight.

It’s a quandary and one that cannot end well, but that’s sort of the history of history isn’t it?

14 Likes