China's nationalism mutating into aggression

[Anomalocaris]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3687/c...ationalism

The article is a fairly strident partisan screech rather than an impartial analysis of the cause and implications of the events.

Basically it make no concession to the fact that China actually has fairly substantial and reasonable claims to some of the territory in dispute, especially in the case with Japan. In fact, China's claim to Japanese occupied Sankaku islands is built on much the same basis as Philipine's claim to Chinese occupied Scarsborgh islands. The Chinese can't be in the wrong on both.

The article also ignored the fact that these disputes are of long standing, some dating back to 17th century, and it seem to have no clue why these disputes so happen to suddenly flare up immediately AFTER Obama's "strategic pivot" to pacific, and attribute the timing solely to internal Chinese causes.

It basically defines wrong to be whatever china does, and concludes that since everything china does is wrong, china is therefore evil.

This is something that I've been paying attention to fairly closely for a while, ever since I was in high school, in fact, and one that spiked shortly before the Olympics [and become something I focused on even more during and after them].

When I was in high school it was still the height of the cold war, and the caliber of the childish jingoistic propaganda that appealed to the sort of high school students who showed up at class with copies of "Soldiers of Fortune" magazine and talks on and on about how the Soviets are gassing every one who owns private property and about the imminent invasion of the Canada by the Soviet Union back then seem to of about the same as what still appeals to you now.

I remember hearing people talk endlessly about China being the "next superpower." I dismissed these statements then as a teenager and I dismiss them now. China is not a superpower. It will not be a superpower. It lacks the strong foundations necessary to become one.

Appearently you imagine because it is YOUR dismissal, therefore this dismissal must be of some non-zero value despite the lack of support from valid and coherent arguments.

However, that is not going to stop them, of this I am very sure. They realize, as this article points out, that their economy has largely peaked. They're hitting a plateau of development, and there's nothing on the horizon for them to look forward to to give them that next boost. So, what happens when any swelling nation starts to realize its resources are going to soon become insufficient for its growth and prosperity?

Peaked out? In what sense? Just because their economy is growing at 7.8% a year instead of 10% a year? Ours are growing at 1.5% a year.

To say they have peaked is like saying just because Bill Gates wealth increased by only $10 billion this year compared to $15 billion last year, therefore his wealth has peaked.

It seems there is unversal agreement that their economy will overtake ours in total size by 2016. No one seem to suggest any plausible dramatic reversal in the growth of their economy before that date to feasibly defer it by any significant length. They can halve their growth rate and still beat us by 2022.

In the long run, productive power, and total size of economy, are the dominant driver of the country's influence in the world. In both, they are expected to surpass us before by 2020 in the base case and is expected to surpass the combined productivity and size of the US and EU by 2030 and in the worst case surpass by 2025 and the US and EU combined by 2050. How is that not a superpower?