Deat Terry and All,
some comments on China and warfare dangers in coming century
> From: "Terry Boswell" <TBOS@social-sci.ss.emory.edu>
>
> I would like to hear more about these topics. My own
> impression is that the threat of China is greatly exaggerated. While
> China has a very high growth rate, it is due in part to starting with
> a low base and from having a previous bottled-up supply capacity now
> uncorked. The level of development is still rather low and a long
> way off from reaching core levels.
exactly! but the power that already reached core level never dives into
dangerous warfare adventures. That's why your argument works not contra but
pro warfare danger. (By the same reason I cannot agree with Richard Moore
that such prosperous core power as US will ever initiate large war in China).
i presume current and probable future Chinese authorities very rational and
not at all intrinsically aggressive, but there are some stable historical
patterns that cause wars in spite of morality and rationality of people
what i mean here: the evident growing commercialization of China leads to
rise of tension between 'power'(land centre, 'communism') and 'money'
(nouveau riches,sea and southern provinces). The trend is that 'money' grasp
more and more control over country that sooner or later will be inappropriate
for central communistic elits.
There is some threshold of this tension and trend, after
which 'a small victorious war' will occur the best way for legitimization of
current state power, demonstrating military muscles both on inner and external
scene.
But 'small wars' tend both to escalate to 'large wars' and to rise of
military mode patterns for solving major inner and foreign problems
at the same time northern neighbour - Russia - (if current trends continue)
becomes more and more weak, underpopulated in the East, and suffering of
separatist movements, hopelessly struggling against Chinese people diffusion
into Primorie. In this case only very strong obstacles will preserve from
large Russian-Chinese conflict.
tell me please which of this logical steps is wrong
> means that those developed pockets have room to expand. There were
> some interesting scenarios about China accidently initiating a war
> (over Hong Kong or Singapore), but I do not see how this compels a
> major power conflict that would necessarily escalate into a global
> war. That is, I do not see how it is comparable to the Balkans in
> 1914.
i don't believe in anything absolutely 'necessary' or inevitable in future.
Each historical logic ('law') has options than in principle can be changed by
means of cooperative agency.
I really hope that our children and grand
children will not meet (Nuclear?!) Balcanization of XXI century world. But it
is due of our generation to forsee such real possibilities, to imagine
alternate scenarios and to try to direct global praxis (by education,
propagation, political criticisms, etc) in not naively pacifist but
theoretically based peaceful ways.
What are these ways? It is a special topic.
best regards,
Nikolai
***********************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address: Dept.of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html
************************************************************